It's been a while, hasn't it? Like, 2 months. I haven't used this blog that much for two primary reasons:
1. Google Buzz.
2. I've switched to being more video-oriented than blog-oriented.
Why am I writing a post, then? For the hell of it.
So this started as me enjoying the irony of "An Observer", which one would hope would be an objective point of view (that's the point of observing, imo) connected with "In Denial". I liked, especially, combining this with the pursuit of truth and of knowing everything. How, indeed, could someone in denial effectively reach this goal? I thrive in paradox.
Hm. I find my interest to have waded just as fast as it started. Good day.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Selfishness As A Timeline
"It would have been better," popular wisdom said, "had Kytorski gone a
different route."
Paul, the closest friend of Kytorski, explained his version of the story:
"Y'see, people are all too used to hearing the story about their
perception being wrong. When you talk about selfishness, you need to
go the angle of explaining why the new explanation of selfishness is
quite similar to the old version of it. You do, of course, risk people
being suspicious and thinking you're trying to 'pull the wool' over
their eyes, but at least they're listening, as opposed to going on a
spiel about how selfishness is destroying society."
Reporter:
"Well, Paul, that's the question, isn't it? IS selfishness
destroying society?"
Paul:
"Well, Mr. Reporter sir, that sounds like a bit of a loaded question,
which is the perfect opportunity to explain myself. And I think I
could even use Kytorski's mistake as an example. When Kytorski was
asked this question, he basically blew up, telling the reporters - you
were one of them, yeah?"
Reporter:
"Yes, I was. I wasn't expecting you to be so civil. I kind of figured
you and Kytorski were starting a cult."
Paul:
"Yes, and that would be the demonization effect from polarization of
the unknown, which I talk about in my book that I haven't written
which might make you wonder if I'm simply talking bullshit."
Reporter:
"Yes, well - proceed to explain."
Paul:
"Yes. Yes, well, you were one of the reporters he blew up at when he
said that 'the media, it shall take longer than I prefer to catch up
with my theories! This angers me and I attack!' And, yes, he had an
annoying habit of talking about himself in the third person, and since
we associate people who come up with new theories with being mentally
unstable - hey, couldn't hurt."
Reporter:
"He had a sword with him and nearly cut my arm off."
Paul:
"And that sword is no longer in his possession. Kytorski is,
fortunately or unfortunately, currently locked up, and probably
working on his theory in there when he's not in a straight jacket.
Kind of makes the initial thought of him being a genius less
appealing.
Anyway, to apply to theory of the enlarging of his circle of
selfishness, to explain the benefits of not acting like an ass to the
reporters because of his impatience, such as a more ready acceptance
of his theory, more public respect, and also the correlate of not
being put in the slammer, though this aspect I find personally more
behavioristic, and so I don't like that direction, since people might
focus on behavioral tactics instead of conceptual ones... That
explaining how acting in a different way benefits him, that in this,
as it were, enlightened state, he might choose by himself to behave
differently."
Reporter:
"But, he didn't."
Paul: shrugs He didn't. And I'm sorry for that. Does it disprove the
theory, meaning that extending the circle of one's self-centeredness
doesn't work? Well, no, I don't think so. Extending the circle of
selfishness does not mean that the extension will include all of your
or others' wants and desires - it's not a brain to brain link. It's
not a cure-all. It's not some magical remedy that will all-a-sudden
make the most murderous people so harmless they wouldn't swat a fly.
There is certainly that promise, of course, if there is an abundance
of skill and patience, but it's not exactly that simple. However, I'd
say that these are the extreme cases (which work by virtue of 'if it
worked for him, it's sure to work for me!). In addition to that, I
consider it a sort of unfinished theory about unfinished people. It's
very you-centric. It's about communication, in my opinion. My twist on
it (and I suspect where I differ from Kytorski) is that I think all of
this is an evolving process, and that we've been gaining a lot of
understanding of ourselves as we've as a collective recorded more of
what we call history, and that this fast-paced 'media-age', which is
rather intimidating to adults oftentimes, have not grown up with it
and fear - I think, legitimately - the rising careless rebellion of
teenagers in relation to authority... That, in a think in a very real
way the two competing perspectives - teens in the now and adults in
the old - are really the same perspective. I think that 'extending the
circle of selfishness' expresses both the teen view and the adult
view, thus bridging the gap. I, however, have no proof of this; it's
merely memetic speculation that falls in the area of to be proved
later, or to be shown as seriously false though true in a way that
wasn't expected.
So, in a word, the intention of this very rough theory is the
reuniting of two opposing views, via a small tweak in semantic
thinking, that instead of people having mutually-opposed goals, a
meet-up in the middle makes for peace and productivity. An example of
this could be seen with two former enemies agreeing about some other
entity as something to oppose, thus becoming united for the duration
of the opposition.
Will this happen all the time? Of course not. Kytorski is a prime
example of this. It is, of course, preferred. So, also, to do some
speculation on this case, what went wrong? The end result is that
Kytorski, in our collective opinion, think that in acting the way he
did, did not benefit himself, in his own point of view (this is an
important point: cigarettes may be bad for you in the long term, but
quite beneficial in the short term, making smoking a good cost/benefit
ratio), as much as he could have had he acted with more posture. Of
course, it could be argued that had he not acted that way, we would
not have this excellent almost-ironic example for me to work with;
however, I had not encountered such a subtlety before I started this,
and do not feel prepared to work it out to full detail at this moment.
Therefore, we will assume that he was and is working on an unrelated
theory."
Reporter:
"You've been talking for 25 minutes. Our program is a 30 minute show,
and the introduction was 2 minutes long."
Paul:
"I understand that there is want for me to wrap this up, primarily
from my own lack of stamina. Since there is no actual hurry, I'll
point out that this event is not actually occurring, and is framed in
this way because it is maintaining the author's interest in fleshing
out some of the theory for Diane.
There are two main points for the attempt to enlargen one's or someone
elses' circle to fail on: lack of comprehension, and the emotional
neural network prematurely activating. That is, any lack of
understanding on either part makes the circle smaller and more likely
to stay that way, since there is a dual desire for understanding as
well as for interesting things. And, when a formerly hyped
polarization becomes activated enough for the inevitable of something
like a strike from anger, or seeing someone as the devil manifest. In
other words, a failure of explaining, and a successful activation of
blinding emotions.
This can also occur at the same time - for example, if you don't
understand what the hell I'm talking about and get frustrated by it,
and this happens three more times after you read this, you may
conclude this to be unintelligible junk. Should other people mention
it or like it, you might either ask them to explain it to you, or get
pissed at the mention of it. Supposing they attempt to explain it to
you and don't succeed, this would amplify the frustration.
If this is paired with an enormous amount of enthusiasm for this, you
might come to try to parody it, mock it, and any matter of methods to
express your frustration, as well as trying to explain why it's
unintelligible. If neither side succeeds at convincing the other (I.e.
a failure of understanding or some sort of comprehension), the common
method of solving this is that of war, along with more extreme
versions of parody, that end up being unsubstantiatable for their lack
of coherency.
I think that the awareness of this theory, by way of an understanding
of alternate possibilities, will speed up a process that's already
naturally underway. I do not want this theory to be thought to be
absolute, the letter of the law, or to be followed to the letter. I
expect much revision, as well as this first version I'm positing as
perhaps laying the basis, but quite wrong in light of further
developments.
In addition to the base theory of expansion of self-centeredness as an
alternate view to the view of the dichotomy of self and others, with
the according urges to altruism, I posit that part of the problem of
debate has been thus:
1. (My concept of Debate assumes that there are two opposing and
entirely unalike forces, though this aspect of the word has softened.
I point out this nitpickiness to illustrate changes in word that we've
grown up with, as a further point of communication failure in relation
to explaining benefits.)
2. That we are dealing with words ill-defined, which was already
obvious, I think, though to point it out here is helpful, I hope. The
connection to this is both the explanation that this is partly why
explanation often fails, as well as pointing out that the best proof
one can offer is that of ultimate reality, as well as what has
'evolutionarily' worked to win, such as violence, which is why debates
quickly escalates to it; it works for being the dominant view.
This all said, it seems to be, more often than not, that we generally
get along or try to get along. If this is the case, why is there even
an issue of selfishness VS unselfishness?
Let's assume (and I think this will be an easy assumption given the
two dominant types of worldview in regard to internet debates,
Christianity and atheism with the addition of what is either called
evolution or Darwinism hold) that we all started off with much fewer
of us. Perhaps, only 10 people. These 10 people generally get along,
enjoying each other's company. There is additionally, curious enough,
few to no conflicts. The extension that you're waiting for is more an
more people on the earth via reproduction. Now we have, let's say, 200
people, and they cover more land.
As time goes along, these 200 people become 2000 (I forgot about the
fubar number of 201; it's a theory that states that we can only
conceive of about. 201 people as actually being people), and smaller
groups, about 9 of them, become distinct entities. Much like with a
computer simulation, you could watch these 9 groups interact, wage
war, take over each other, and continue to propagate until we reach
where we are now.
But why did they start waging war in the first place? Why did they
form separate groups? My guess with this is that the interests of each
of the 9 groups had gone along slightly different paths, resulting in
a need for explanation. As you might imagine, their ability to explain
might be inadequate. And because either one 'clan' wanted more land,
or something similar to that, and the other clan or clan didn't, the
rest of the semantics were spoken in fists and blood.
Suppose you fast-forward a little in the time-line to an event that
many people on the land called America called 1776, or other familiar
names, and you see an example of a similar dispute occurring with one
party leaving to a different piece of land (and killing quite a few
people while doing so). I imagine that the argument used against them
in regard to fairness might have been 'love it or leave it.' They
left. As you might be aware, I have been involved with a movement that
called itself by various names, with an apt one being anarchist,
though this label is disdained for its connection to chaos and
violence. The same argument of love it or leave it has been used many
times. But it seems the response (sine it would be quite hard to do
this), has changed considerably, even to,
"Look at your own lives. Do you just go outside each day and say to
yourself, 'Hey! I think I'll beat someone up today!' No! You have an
excellent example of anarchy right in your midst. Why should we move
when we can change the people here instead by talking with them so
they don't act like assholes to us?"
Accordingly, I posit that saturization via a high amount of
connectedness becomes, though it's obviously quite the curse at first
if you don't understand what's going on and what you're doing, a spot
of eventual perhaps global ability for each of us to extend our
circles of selfishness via all of the viewpoints we hear, via the
interaction that computers and the internet enable. So instead of
bumping minds and heads only when our clan and their clan grow to the
amount that we're encroaching on each other's lands and war ensues,
that we'll have already had many many memetic wars that are,
essentially, harmless, after which we may find ourselves as one big
clan, making, happily, such concepts strange. Is there a danger of
falling back into clanship? No, it is an inevitability.
I do not promise world peace, but an interesting alternate view to the
one of self and others as a dichotomy, as opposing forces. If you'd
like to get all Zen-like or game-ish about it, I offer up for
examination the view that you start with no self, realize you have a
self, and gradually level up to include more and more people, or,
intents, or, points of view, into your self center. More power,
essentially. Perhaps, more persuation ability and the like. Sorry for
keeping you so long."
Reporter:
"Oh, it's been worth it, thank you."
Paul:
"I sure hope the readers feel the same way. Thanks for having me."
different route."
Paul, the closest friend of Kytorski, explained his version of the story:
"Y'see, people are all too used to hearing the story about their
perception being wrong. When you talk about selfishness, you need to
go the angle of explaining why the new explanation of selfishness is
quite similar to the old version of it. You do, of course, risk people
being suspicious and thinking you're trying to 'pull the wool' over
their eyes, but at least they're listening, as opposed to going on a
spiel about how selfishness is destroying society."
Reporter:
"Well, Paul, that's the question, isn't it? IS selfishness
destroying society?"
Paul:
"Well, Mr. Reporter sir, that sounds like a bit of a loaded question,
which is the perfect opportunity to explain myself. And I think I
could even use Kytorski's mistake as an example. When Kytorski was
asked this question, he basically blew up, telling the reporters - you
were one of them, yeah?"
Reporter:
"Yes, I was. I wasn't expecting you to be so civil. I kind of figured
you and Kytorski were starting a cult."
Paul:
"Yes, and that would be the demonization effect from polarization of
the unknown, which I talk about in my book that I haven't written
which might make you wonder if I'm simply talking bullshit."
Reporter:
"Yes, well - proceed to explain."
Paul:
"Yes. Yes, well, you were one of the reporters he blew up at when he
said that 'the media, it shall take longer than I prefer to catch up
with my theories! This angers me and I attack!' And, yes, he had an
annoying habit of talking about himself in the third person, and since
we associate people who come up with new theories with being mentally
unstable - hey, couldn't hurt."
Reporter:
"He had a sword with him and nearly cut my arm off."
Paul:
"And that sword is no longer in his possession. Kytorski is,
fortunately or unfortunately, currently locked up, and probably
working on his theory in there when he's not in a straight jacket.
Kind of makes the initial thought of him being a genius less
appealing.
Anyway, to apply to theory of the enlarging of his circle of
selfishness, to explain the benefits of not acting like an ass to the
reporters because of his impatience, such as a more ready acceptance
of his theory, more public respect, and also the correlate of not
being put in the slammer, though this aspect I find personally more
behavioristic, and so I don't like that direction, since people might
focus on behavioral tactics instead of conceptual ones... That
explaining how acting in a different way benefits him, that in this,
as it were, enlightened state, he might choose by himself to behave
differently."
Reporter:
"But, he didn't."
Paul: shrugs He didn't. And I'm sorry for that. Does it disprove the
theory, meaning that extending the circle of one's self-centeredness
doesn't work? Well, no, I don't think so. Extending the circle of
selfishness does not mean that the extension will include all of your
or others' wants and desires - it's not a brain to brain link. It's
not a cure-all. It's not some magical remedy that will all-a-sudden
make the most murderous people so harmless they wouldn't swat a fly.
There is certainly that promise, of course, if there is an abundance
of skill and patience, but it's not exactly that simple. However, I'd
say that these are the extreme cases (which work by virtue of 'if it
worked for him, it's sure to work for me!). In addition to that, I
consider it a sort of unfinished theory about unfinished people. It's
very you-centric. It's about communication, in my opinion. My twist on
it (and I suspect where I differ from Kytorski) is that I think all of
this is an evolving process, and that we've been gaining a lot of
understanding of ourselves as we've as a collective recorded more of
what we call history, and that this fast-paced 'media-age', which is
rather intimidating to adults oftentimes, have not grown up with it
and fear - I think, legitimately - the rising careless rebellion of
teenagers in relation to authority... That, in a think in a very real
way the two competing perspectives - teens in the now and adults in
the old - are really the same perspective. I think that 'extending the
circle of selfishness' expresses both the teen view and the adult
view, thus bridging the gap. I, however, have no proof of this; it's
merely memetic speculation that falls in the area of to be proved
later, or to be shown as seriously false though true in a way that
wasn't expected.
So, in a word, the intention of this very rough theory is the
reuniting of two opposing views, via a small tweak in semantic
thinking, that instead of people having mutually-opposed goals, a
meet-up in the middle makes for peace and productivity. An example of
this could be seen with two former enemies agreeing about some other
entity as something to oppose, thus becoming united for the duration
of the opposition.
Will this happen all the time? Of course not. Kytorski is a prime
example of this. It is, of course, preferred. So, also, to do some
speculation on this case, what went wrong? The end result is that
Kytorski, in our collective opinion, think that in acting the way he
did, did not benefit himself, in his own point of view (this is an
important point: cigarettes may be bad for you in the long term, but
quite beneficial in the short term, making smoking a good cost/benefit
ratio), as much as he could have had he acted with more posture. Of
course, it could be argued that had he not acted that way, we would
not have this excellent almost-ironic example for me to work with;
however, I had not encountered such a subtlety before I started this,
and do not feel prepared to work it out to full detail at this moment.
Therefore, we will assume that he was and is working on an unrelated
theory."
Reporter:
"You've been talking for 25 minutes. Our program is a 30 minute show,
and the introduction was 2 minutes long."
Paul:
"I understand that there is want for me to wrap this up, primarily
from my own lack of stamina. Since there is no actual hurry, I'll
point out that this event is not actually occurring, and is framed in
this way because it is maintaining the author's interest in fleshing
out some of the theory for Diane.
There are two main points for the attempt to enlargen one's or someone
elses' circle to fail on: lack of comprehension, and the emotional
neural network prematurely activating. That is, any lack of
understanding on either part makes the circle smaller and more likely
to stay that way, since there is a dual desire for understanding as
well as for interesting things. And, when a formerly hyped
polarization becomes activated enough for the inevitable of something
like a strike from anger, or seeing someone as the devil manifest. In
other words, a failure of explaining, and a successful activation of
blinding emotions.
This can also occur at the same time - for example, if you don't
understand what the hell I'm talking about and get frustrated by it,
and this happens three more times after you read this, you may
conclude this to be unintelligible junk. Should other people mention
it or like it, you might either ask them to explain it to you, or get
pissed at the mention of it. Supposing they attempt to explain it to
you and don't succeed, this would amplify the frustration.
If this is paired with an enormous amount of enthusiasm for this, you
might come to try to parody it, mock it, and any matter of methods to
express your frustration, as well as trying to explain why it's
unintelligible. If neither side succeeds at convincing the other (I.e.
a failure of understanding or some sort of comprehension), the common
method of solving this is that of war, along with more extreme
versions of parody, that end up being unsubstantiatable for their lack
of coherency.
I think that the awareness of this theory, by way of an understanding
of alternate possibilities, will speed up a process that's already
naturally underway. I do not want this theory to be thought to be
absolute, the letter of the law, or to be followed to the letter. I
expect much revision, as well as this first version I'm positing as
perhaps laying the basis, but quite wrong in light of further
developments.
In addition to the base theory of expansion of self-centeredness as an
alternate view to the view of the dichotomy of self and others, with
the according urges to altruism, I posit that part of the problem of
debate has been thus:
1. (My concept of Debate assumes that there are two opposing and
entirely unalike forces, though this aspect of the word has softened.
I point out this nitpickiness to illustrate changes in word that we've
grown up with, as a further point of communication failure in relation
to explaining benefits.)
2. That we are dealing with words ill-defined, which was already
obvious, I think, though to point it out here is helpful, I hope. The
connection to this is both the explanation that this is partly why
explanation often fails, as well as pointing out that the best proof
one can offer is that of ultimate reality, as well as what has
'evolutionarily' worked to win, such as violence, which is why debates
quickly escalates to it; it works for being the dominant view.
This all said, it seems to be, more often than not, that we generally
get along or try to get along. If this is the case, why is there even
an issue of selfishness VS unselfishness?
Let's assume (and I think this will be an easy assumption given the
two dominant types of worldview in regard to internet debates,
Christianity and atheism with the addition of what is either called
evolution or Darwinism hold) that we all started off with much fewer
of us. Perhaps, only 10 people. These 10 people generally get along,
enjoying each other's company. There is additionally, curious enough,
few to no conflicts. The extension that you're waiting for is more an
more people on the earth via reproduction. Now we have, let's say, 200
people, and they cover more land.
As time goes along, these 200 people become 2000 (I forgot about the
fubar number of 201; it's a theory that states that we can only
conceive of about. 201 people as actually being people), and smaller
groups, about 9 of them, become distinct entities. Much like with a
computer simulation, you could watch these 9 groups interact, wage
war, take over each other, and continue to propagate until we reach
where we are now.
But why did they start waging war in the first place? Why did they
form separate groups? My guess with this is that the interests of each
of the 9 groups had gone along slightly different paths, resulting in
a need for explanation. As you might imagine, their ability to explain
might be inadequate. And because either one 'clan' wanted more land,
or something similar to that, and the other clan or clan didn't, the
rest of the semantics were spoken in fists and blood.
Suppose you fast-forward a little in the time-line to an event that
many people on the land called America called 1776, or other familiar
names, and you see an example of a similar dispute occurring with one
party leaving to a different piece of land (and killing quite a few
people while doing so). I imagine that the argument used against them
in regard to fairness might have been 'love it or leave it.' They
left. As you might be aware, I have been involved with a movement that
called itself by various names, with an apt one being anarchist,
though this label is disdained for its connection to chaos and
violence. The same argument of love it or leave it has been used many
times. But it seems the response (sine it would be quite hard to do
this), has changed considerably, even to,
"Look at your own lives. Do you just go outside each day and say to
yourself, 'Hey! I think I'll beat someone up today!' No! You have an
excellent example of anarchy right in your midst. Why should we move
when we can change the people here instead by talking with them so
they don't act like assholes to us?"
Accordingly, I posit that saturization via a high amount of
connectedness becomes, though it's obviously quite the curse at first
if you don't understand what's going on and what you're doing, a spot
of eventual perhaps global ability for each of us to extend our
circles of selfishness via all of the viewpoints we hear, via the
interaction that computers and the internet enable. So instead of
bumping minds and heads only when our clan and their clan grow to the
amount that we're encroaching on each other's lands and war ensues,
that we'll have already had many many memetic wars that are,
essentially, harmless, after which we may find ourselves as one big
clan, making, happily, such concepts strange. Is there a danger of
falling back into clanship? No, it is an inevitability.
I do not promise world peace, but an interesting alternate view to the
one of self and others as a dichotomy, as opposing forces. If you'd
like to get all Zen-like or game-ish about it, I offer up for
examination the view that you start with no self, realize you have a
self, and gradually level up to include more and more people, or,
intents, or, points of view, into your self center. More power,
essentially. Perhaps, more persuation ability and the like. Sorry for
keeping you so long."
Reporter:
"Oh, it's been worth it, thank you."
Paul:
"I sure hope the readers feel the same way. Thanks for having me."
Monday, July 12, 2010
Suicide - Ironic Help
One of the leading causes of death is suicide. I hate the reaction toward this statistic.
Suicide is not a car. Suicide is not murder. Suicide is not accidental or impositional (in most cases, and accidental suicide is not what I'm talking about). Suicide - the cause of it - is psychological. Suicide is not something that comes out of nowhere and hits you in the side. It's not a thunderstorm the strikes you. For those who are the family of such a person, the Result may feel like that, but not the action, nor the cause, Is that.
The debate about suicide is similar to the debate about marijuana -- if you argue in favor of marijuana, you're doing drugs. If you argue in favor of suicide, you're suicidal and need help. Unfortunately, in my case, I can't use the counter to this argument, since I do have a suicidal mental tendency. However, I doubt that I will ever commit suicide. It's a mental romance, not a mental torture. Additionally (and this are details that I will omit for now), the "help" would now be unneeded.
Suicide is a touchy topic because it relates to the inhibition, mentally, of a person, whether through self-imposition or others-imposition. It's a surprise to people, accordingly, because the person (for obvious reasons) does not talk about it; unless, of course, the person wants help. The reason for the high sensitivity of the reaction is that the people want to keep the person safe and sound, and, reasonably, do not trust the potential suicider to tell them the truth. Hence, the possibility for false positives and imposing one's will via paranoia on the potential suicider is an occurrence that oft happens.
Why I point out the semantic difference between suicide as a mental state as opposite to a force of nature killing randomly or a person killing someone else (an important point, since a suicider pretty nearly universally has his or her consent to be suicided, obviously), is because I want to lessen the occurrence of people shutting up other people in places that are very similar to a jail because they simply talk about a subject. That would be nice.
Another angle, of course, is that of an increasing knowledge of why people would become suicidal. Since I have that tendency, and since I have an interest in the subject, I answer that I'm already doing this. So, take the handcuffs off me, please. Do you realize that going to jail is a rather depressing thing, and so your actions are being counter-productive?
Thanks. Have a nice day.
Suicide is not a car. Suicide is not murder. Suicide is not accidental or impositional (in most cases, and accidental suicide is not what I'm talking about). Suicide - the cause of it - is psychological. Suicide is not something that comes out of nowhere and hits you in the side. It's not a thunderstorm the strikes you. For those who are the family of such a person, the Result may feel like that, but not the action, nor the cause, Is that.
The debate about suicide is similar to the debate about marijuana -- if you argue in favor of marijuana, you're doing drugs. If you argue in favor of suicide, you're suicidal and need help. Unfortunately, in my case, I can't use the counter to this argument, since I do have a suicidal mental tendency. However, I doubt that I will ever commit suicide. It's a mental romance, not a mental torture. Additionally (and this are details that I will omit for now), the "help" would now be unneeded.
Suicide is a touchy topic because it relates to the inhibition, mentally, of a person, whether through self-imposition or others-imposition. It's a surprise to people, accordingly, because the person (for obvious reasons) does not talk about it; unless, of course, the person wants help. The reason for the high sensitivity of the reaction is that the people want to keep the person safe and sound, and, reasonably, do not trust the potential suicider to tell them the truth. Hence, the possibility for false positives and imposing one's will via paranoia on the potential suicider is an occurrence that oft happens.
Why I point out the semantic difference between suicide as a mental state as opposite to a force of nature killing randomly or a person killing someone else (an important point, since a suicider pretty nearly universally has his or her consent to be suicided, obviously), is because I want to lessen the occurrence of people shutting up other people in places that are very similar to a jail because they simply talk about a subject. That would be nice.
Another angle, of course, is that of an increasing knowledge of why people would become suicidal. Since I have that tendency, and since I have an interest in the subject, I answer that I'm already doing this. So, take the handcuffs off me, please. Do you realize that going to jail is a rather depressing thing, and so your actions are being counter-productive?
Thanks. Have a nice day.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Poem: The "Great" Artist
So sick of self-referring promotions
Figured I'd do one proper
I've had enough revolutions
I'll stick it right to their pooper
You hear about Rock Star from Prima J
You hear about Kelle from "Big Plans"
But chu don't hear nothin' 'bout ME.
And I'm the one who matters
(adjust this, whomever might use it)
Y'oughta listen to my blather
I might not say it so fancy
But I's got a point I'm making
Stay here and listen to my acid words
So you can improve yourself
As I get worse lyrically
I implore you all the more vehemently
As you explain that they have a nice
beat,
I explain that I got them defeat
...ted.
What could my last word be,
but a whine to provoke your em-pity?
Great artist that I am
You flip a penny into my can
Great artist that I am.
Figured I'd do one proper
I've had enough revolutions
I'll stick it right to their pooper
You hear about Rock Star from Prima J
You hear about Kelle from "Big Plans"
But chu don't hear nothin' 'bout ME.
And I'm the one who matters
(adjust this, whomever might use it)
Y'oughta listen to my blather
I might not say it so fancy
But I's got a point I'm making
Stay here and listen to my acid words
So you can improve yourself
As I get worse lyrically
I implore you all the more vehemently
As you explain that they have a nice
beat,
I explain that I got them defeat
...ted.
What could my last word be,
but a whine to provoke your em-pity?
Great artist that I am
You flip a penny into my can
Great artist that I am.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Let There Be God
Let me describe "God" to you.
God is that sense of connectedness that you feel with others.
God is that groundedness with the universe you feel at that moment you feel at peace.
God is the thing that people slander, not knowing they insult Infinite Being.
> I < slander Infinite Being.
Now Let me tell you about people.
People are not labels, though labels are useful when you're in a hurry.
Being perpetually in a hurry, perpetually afraid, is religion.
Anytime God becomes specific, God becomes a
spiteful, vengeful, jealous, hateful being.
God becomes the thing slandered.
We slander because we have a mind design,
and our mind designs take on individual components.
All the Gods are one; but, ask any of the protagonists - I speak from the Devil.
I am The Devil and God incarnate.
I am responsible for all heavenly things,
and all dastardly things.
Is this reason to worship me or slander me?
You are The Devil and God incarnate.
You are responsible for all heavenly things,
all dastardly things.
Responsibility is a farce.
It exists because of higher cognitive functions -
cause and effect -
mixing with mind design.
Without farces, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.
Bullshit defines life.
As time goes on, bullshit manifests in increasingly smaller spaces.
Because there is more instant interconnectedness,
and reactions that might otherwise not occur, do.
Where did that 10-second no-anger rule go?
The flip-side is that there are others, like us, who are not farcing.
Fencing?
We are less dependent on each other;
we are more dependent on each other;;
It matters less, because there is now a better connection-loop.
Internet destroys authority-based;
it scares the religious.
Cannot see outside their narrow ideology.
But neither can I.
That's why the philosopher (as I seem to be) is just as much blind as the religious.
And I, too, have the mind design.
I was, after all, a Christian.
Let me tell you some about God.
The more specific God is,
the more false God is.
Do you want to worship God?
Go ahead, and prepare for war.
That is the flip-side of worship.
God is that sense of connectedness that you feel with others.
God is that groundedness with the universe you feel at that moment you feel at peace.
God is the thing that people slander, not knowing they insult Infinite Being.
> I < slander Infinite Being.
Now Let me tell you about people.
People are not labels, though labels are useful when you're in a hurry.
Being perpetually in a hurry, perpetually afraid, is religion.
Anytime God becomes specific, God becomes a
spiteful, vengeful, jealous, hateful being.
God becomes the thing slandered.
We slander because we have a mind design,
and our mind designs take on individual components.
All the Gods are one; but, ask any of the protagonists - I speak from the Devil.
I am The Devil and God incarnate.
I am responsible for all heavenly things,
and all dastardly things.
Is this reason to worship me or slander me?
You are The Devil and God incarnate.
You are responsible for all heavenly things,
all dastardly things.
Responsibility is a farce.
It exists because of higher cognitive functions -
cause and effect -
mixing with mind design.
Without farces, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.
Bullshit defines life.
As time goes on, bullshit manifests in increasingly smaller spaces.
Because there is more instant interconnectedness,
and reactions that might otherwise not occur, do.
Where did that 10-second no-anger rule go?
The flip-side is that there are others, like us, who are not farcing.
Fencing?
We are less dependent on each other;
we are more dependent on each other;;
It matters less, because there is now a better connection-loop.
Internet destroys authority-based;
it scares the religious.
Cannot see outside their narrow ideology.
But neither can I.
That's why the philosopher (as I seem to be) is just as much blind as the religious.
And I, too, have the mind design.
I was, after all, a Christian.
Let me tell you some about God.
The more specific God is,
the more false God is.
Do you want to worship God?
Go ahead, and prepare for war.
That is the flip-side of worship.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
"Directionally Challenged"
Talking to someone who's not going to respond because I'm not talking directly
to that person (though I should be because otherwise how will you get dialog
going? I think I'll post this in facebook notes or something) is something I'm
fond of doing, and Diane is no exception.
Diane claims to be "directionally challenged". Or "directionally disabled," if you prefer being politically incorrect.
"Looking at me, you’d never guess that I have a disability."
Well, you don't. At least, as you next claim, I don't.
"One time our son was driving for the first time from Elk River to Rogers and ended up in Downtown Minneapolis—I guess the disability is genetic. But my husband was able to go online to Google maps and give him directions home—during rush hour!"
I can only speak for me at this point, but I know quite clearly (similarly to how I knew
why I was depressed), why I'm "directionally disabled". And perhaps you could factor
in genetics, but I doubt that it has as much cause as the following:
Disinterest.
If you recall my past, you'd find me often reading a book while we were
driving about in the car. Guess what Clara was doing? Nothing but looking
out the windows at the pretty scenery. While this might make for the
assumption that I would one day be a leader and Clara a simpleton
valley girl who'd be cute to look at (hey, while I'm not talking to them
directly, why not have a few unwarranted and unlikely assumptions
put in for the fun of it?), this also meant that I was not paying any
attention to the road. At all. And Clara was.
Unsurprisingly, Clara has become the family GPS, and I have become
"genetically" disabled, following in my mother's footsteps. Y'see, all
that time spent "doing nothing but looking at the scenery" probably
developed in Clara's mind an intuitive map and layout of the geology,
geography, or whatever-the-fuck-you-call it, during the early years
that she could use expertly later on. And I, an intuitive linguistic
map, which as many of you know quite well, I navigate like a pro.
Which is to say this: while I might be "genetically disabled" in the
area of maps, that lack of ability shows where it went, with my
literary enjoyments. And this could very well be one of those
combinatory nature/nurture types of things - Diane herself
was adept at studying. I might hate homework with a passion,
but what I study, I also study with a passion.
So it might be that I had a tendency to be shit with maps,
roads, and directions, and obsession with literary works simply
solidified that lack of development. The question that that
raises, I think, is whether taking the time to become geographically
adept would be worth it to me. Right now, no, not really.
Just doesn't seem all that interesting. Of course, there are
aspects of it that interest me, but not enough yet to devote
a lot of work to it... yet.
The main thing that annoys me of what Diane's talking about
is all these things she's using as a means to cover up the truth:
"OK. Maybe being directionally challenged isn’t as bad as some other disabilities, but it is a disability for which the general public has no compassion.
There are no special classes in school for students that can’t find their way to the bathroom. No guide dogs for the directionally impaired. No. . . . People make jokes about people like me. . .people who get lost. They question the intelligence of the directionally challenged. I’ve heard the snickers behind my back. The whispered put downs, “she couldn’t find her way out of a paper bag.” It hurts. You cut me I bleed. Just because I get lost doesn’t mean I’ve lost my mind."
"If you are one of the fortunate people who can’t understand why some people seem to be perpetually lost, I beg you for compassion."
"If you are one of the fortunate people who can’t understand why some people seem to be perpetually lost, I beg you for compassion. Although I have largely overcome my disability, I recall the most dramatic symptoms of directional impairment manifested themselves when I was driving:
I couldn’t remember how to drive somewhere until I had driven there at least 5 times.
I was completely unable to reverse driving directions."
"I used to get left and right mixed up. I often pondered the meaning of statements such as “on the left side of the house,” wondering which left is meant.
Parking at shopping malls will strike terror into the heart of the directionally disabled:
I didn’t just park the car, I abandoned it. For a while, Mall Security at the Mall of America was on a first name basis with me, because they had to help me find my car so many times.
In fact, one time at Ridgedale Mall, I actually called the cops because I thought someone had stolen my car. It turns out I had parked in a different lot."
"Does any of this sound familiar? What can be done? How can the “lost be saved?”
Well, prayer can’t hurt! Jesus called himself “the Way.”"
*facepalm*...
"But, if you are directionally challenged, you need some practical advice. The 3 keys are: Careful Planning, continuous practice and creative . . .lying. Not lying to other people. . .that would be wrong, but lying to yourself. . .a little self-delusion can be healthy. Saying things like, “I’m not lost, I’m just taking the scenic route.”"
In other words, there's only one legitimate piece of "practical" advice: Careful Planning.
Which of course isn't at all obvious. Well, I take that back. Two legitimate pieces of
advice - continuous practice, something that I don't much care for yet.
"Always carry note paper–I’ve learned to never park a car without making detailed notes about where I left it. If all else fails you can use the Hansel and Gretel method– tear up the paper into little pieces and leave a trail. Sure the paper may blow away, but chances are the mall police will have been notified of your strange behavior and will help you find your car."
Is this one relevant? No. But it IS fuckin' funny!
"Whenever possible, let someone else drive or lead the way. Then if you get lost, it is somebody else’s fault–you can just claim you weren’t paying attention."
Or you could just say this:
"Hey, I suck with directions and always will, probably.
(addition for Diane: 'I have a genetic disability.'
addition for Sean: 'I read too much when I was in the
car when I was younger and still ain't too interested in directions.')
You lead the way, or we're going to end up in Canada."
"Get a job or hobby which requires you to drive a lot. In the past year, I have had 3 different assignments with the Census Bureau (including one currently which has kept me from blogging recently) , all of which involved using maps and finding locations. The best part of the job is that the Census Bureau pays for all mileage and the time I spend driving. So, now I get paid to be lost! Your tax dollars at work."
Another good piece of advice. Except for every sentence after the first one.
"Finally the third key is a little healthy self-delusion—really just changing your attitude. Enjoy the journey! Accept that you may not end up where you planned—you might end up somewhere even better!"
Well, I guess that explains it: "Enjoy the journey!" When wasn't I doing that?
Sheesh, Diane, slow yourself down. The end of the journey does not justify
being embarrassed about being different from others in a way that makes
you less reliable with directions which is embarrassing to you because
it's thought to be normal and so you're different in a fundamental way
that scares people a little bit and so they make fun of you, when they
should be making fun of this run-on sentence that just won't end.
(From SuperSense)
"Human freaks challenge our view of the living world. We expect people
to look a certain way and be a certain size and shape, and individuals
who do not fit these expectations are deemed unnatural." pg. 136, 137.
"Although we intuitively think of essences, life forces, and holism, we would be hard-pressed
to describe what we mean. ... Having good or bad "vibes" is the closet that most of
us come ... but our behavior and opinions reveal that essentialism, vitalism,
and holism are still guiding our reasoning. When people respond
to wearing a killer's cardigan, this is a reflection of their naive biological reasoning at work.
The evil they think is imbued in the cloth is a reflection of the same mechanisms
that children apply to infer the hidden properties of living things." pg. 139
"Jewish dietary law forbids the consumption of certain animals described in Leviticus of the Old Testament as unclean. At first, the lists seem rather arbitrary. Unclean animals include camels, ostriches, sharks, eels, chameleons, moles, and crocodiles. ... One intriguing alternative is that originally the animals were deemed either clean or unclean depending on how well they fit properties of the group to which they belonged.
'But this is what you shall not eat from among those that bring up their cud or have split hooves;
the camel, for it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split--it is unclean to you;
and the hyrax, for it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split--it is unclean to you;
and the hare, for it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split--it is unclean to you;
and the pig, for its hoof is split and its hoof is completely separated, yet it does not chew its cud--it is unclean to you.
You shall not eat of their flesh nor shall you touch their carcass--they are unclean to you.'
-- Leviticus 11:4-8
Any group of animals should share more properties compared to those from another.
Biologists call this grouping "taxonomy," after the Greek taxis, which referred to the
main divisions of the ancient army. Today's modern taxonomy is based on one originally
devised by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, but prior to this,
taxonomies were based on animals' different modes and movement and their habitats.
All the various animals of the land, sea, and air share very similar bodily structures and
forms of locomotion. Land animals have four legs and jump or walk.
Fish have scales and swim. Birds have wings and fly. One suggestion is that unclean
animals tend to be those that violate these properties of the general category to which
they belong. Sharks and eels lives in the sea, but do not have scales.
Ostriches are birds, but do not fly. Crocodiles have legs that looks like hands.
Maybe some of the unclean animals are the freaks of their taxonomic group.
The early Jewish scholars thought that such violations were abominations of the natural world." 139-141
Apparently, when convenience has become the norm, being utterly unable
to find your way out of a lunchbox with 5 tries is rather close to that schema
of "unnatural". While Diane isn't condemned (or a "freak") in the way those
with leprosy were, she does get snickers, and since she too shares the same
mindset, she gets embarrassed about it.
Me, I just say that it's my fuckin' fault. Though I may have a biological basis
for getting lost when I venture far away from a familiar place, I'm pretty sure
that being a bookworm had, I don't know, something to do with it.
And sure, maybe if I had, as it were, "normal genetics", I would have a natural
ability to geography and maps in the same way I seem to excel faster than most
at most things I try things I try (I'm not saying I'm better than anyone; hell, for
all I know, I'm average, and Diane is just a retard or something... don't tell her
I said that.).
Oh, and by the way, though I may be an atheist, I know this, too (from reading
SuperSense): In some cases, prayer Does work. Why? Placebo effect;
feeling that you're in control. That does a world of difference when you feel
lost and helpless.
Or you could just call the police:
"[O]ne time at Ridgedale Mall, I actually called the cops because I thought someone had stolen my car. It turns out I had parked in a different lot."
It may be a little insane, too, but at least you can see 'em. Then again...
"Always carry note paper–I’ve learned to never park a car without making detailed notes about where I left it. If all else fails you can use the Hansel and Gretel method– tear up the paper into little pieces and leave a trail. Sure the paper may blow away, but chances are the mall police will have been notified of your strange behavior and will help you find your car."
See her post:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)