It's been a while. No excuses.
Things are different - work is time-consuming, almost more than I can handle. I've been trying to step out into the dating world. One would think the timing wasn't right, given my new roommate, but it seems I'd like the time to be right. I'm making an effort, which is new.
It's funny, as I've been thinking that to truly enjoy relaxation you have to feel that you deserve it - that is, you have to feel you've put out effort worthy of the relaxation. Thus far, it doesn't seem to be the case. It makes me wonder.
My mom thinks my social life is extremely active. I've never thought of it as such...it's interesting to have an outside perspective. I've been a little busier than usual lately - going out with friends, making plans on weeknights, etc. - but really not significantly more so. I suppose when you live out in the country, you're somewhat forced to have a lot more time for yourself. At times, I feel a little bit like maintaining my friendships is almost a burden - that I'd just like to have more time for myself. Having that time to myself isn't as rewarding as you'd think, though. I really don't have as many things that I'd like to accomplish on my own as I sometimes think.
I'm almost childishly excited about my planned Europe trip. The dates are mostly set - August 1-15 with an extra week either at the beginning or the end. My German is getting better, I can speak conversationally if the conversationalist is very patient and forgiving, and willing to wait while I look up the occasional noun/verb. I'll just keep working at it. I bought some poetry by Rainier Maria Rilke as practice/indulgence, and it's very enjoyable. If you like poetry, consider checking the poet out. He's quite well-known.
I've read a lot lately, depending on your definition of a lot. I was looking at my book blog recently and realized I'm averaging about a book every week. That's really not too shabby, especially when you consider some of the books aren't just casual reading.
I'm part of a book club, and this month's book is an aptly-named monster, "The Terror" by Dan Simmons. If I read it, it's going to be one of the longest single pieces of literature I've ever read - on par with Atlas Shrugged or Stephen King's It. If we were to count series I'm sure that'd open up a whole new competition - the Ender's Game series had some length, as does the Harry Potter set. Anyway.
Some friends and I get together to play Rock Band once in a while - I've played 3 times now. It's really a strong idea for a game - it's for 4 players, and everyone takes a different role in a band (guitar, bass, drums, vocals) as you perform songs. My only complaint stems from my experience with the DDR series of games - I wish the timing was a little more strict. The game doesn't grade on timing at all...unless of course you're way off, in which case you get no credit for the note. But it's an all or nothing thing.
I'm writing less music...and reading more. The more I learn though, the more intimidated I am, and the more I feel like my music is just a sort of childish tinkering in comparison with the great composers. It's difficult to come to terms with the fact that realistically, that level of music mastery is out of my reach unless I'm interested in devoting my life to music...and I'm not. It makes the whole practice of composition seem a little inane, though. Maybe it's immature or unwise to think that because I can't be the best at something, I shouldn't bother doing it at all - I just know that I feel a little discouraged.
Well, that sums up this rather apathetic holiday post. I don't know when I'll post again...spending copious amounts of time on the computer every day (work) doesn't exactly motivate me to want to spend my leisure time here as well. I am still thinking though - don't worry, reader.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, September 08, 2007
On Homeopathy
Interesting video debunking homeopathy
For those that don't want to spend the 15 minutes to watch it, the key points:
The basis of homeopathy is that you find slight poisons that cause certain symptoms and give a diluted form to the patient. The more diluted, the stronger the medicine.
Now generally, what happens is homeopathic medicines dilute to the point that there is a small chance of even one atom or molecule remaining in the entire bottle of medicine. The example given is...imagine a single grain of rice crushed down and ground into a sphere of water the size of the solar system - a sphere centered on the sun with a radius ending at Pluto...and then diluted twice more in the same size sphere.
I could say more...the joke after "the more diluted, the stronger the medicine" about how the guy died from an overdose because he didn't take any medicine was pretty funny, and mentioning how he took two bottles of homeopathic pills at once without any concern was also amusing...but that's really all that I need to mention.
For those that don't want to spend the 15 minutes to watch it, the key points:
The basis of homeopathy is that you find slight poisons that cause certain symptoms and give a diluted form to the patient. The more diluted, the stronger the medicine.
Now generally, what happens is homeopathic medicines dilute to the point that there is a small chance of even one atom or molecule remaining in the entire bottle of medicine. The example given is...imagine a single grain of rice crushed down and ground into a sphere of water the size of the solar system - a sphere centered on the sun with a radius ending at Pluto...and then diluted twice more in the same size sphere.
I could say more...the joke after "the more diluted, the stronger the medicine" about how the guy died from an overdose because he didn't take any medicine was pretty funny, and mentioning how he took two bottles of homeopathic pills at once without any concern was also amusing...but that's really all that I need to mention.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Comfort and Familiarity
It seems life can be paradoxical at times. We're often willing to sacrifice so much in search of comfort and so eager for familiarity -- avid about re-experiencing the already experienced.
Consider a hypothetical scenario. A man visits a restaurant he knows well. The food is mediocre, unspectacular...but familiar. The waiter knows him, knows what he likes and knows he prefers to be left alone. The man visits the restaurant and avoids human interaction almost entirely. Ostensibly, the man visits for the solitude and convenience - the comfort of having to expend as little effort as possible.
How does this reflect on the man's priorities? If what's important to this man is finding a path of least resistance, what is the ultimate goal he is striving for? What is ultimately important in his life?
Now in my hypothetical scenario, you can't take an isolated incident like this and extend it to a generalization. The scenario would be interpreted very differently if the man left the restaurant to return to his position volunteering as a counselor than it would if he left to go home and watch some T.V. I'm not proposing that we completely eschew the comfortable and familiar in every area of our life.
I've long since come to the conclusion that there is no universally acceptable set of priorities, values, or beliefs. I don't begrudge someone for their opinion that life doesn't need to be about growth, happiness, or any of the values and experiences I find so important. There are people who ultimately want just comfort from life - I can accept that. I will not join their ranks.
In another sense though, I think that there are many confused people - people seeking comfort without recognizing that it's not actually what they want. Life isn't necessarily about living comfortably - we all have a variety of purposes we've found (or may never find) for living, and a life of comfort is often at odds with that. The important question to ask yourself is, "If I achieve the goals I'm working for, will it bring me closer to what I really want?" As long as the answer is yes, you can take solace in knowing that you won't reach your goals only to feel unfulfilled or unhappy. Of course, goals change. Don't forget to take that into account :).
A close friend of mine and fellow couch philosopher would be eager to point out that there's an initial question to be answered. "What do I really want?" Without knowing your destination, it's difficult to know whether or not the path you're taking is going to bring you where you want to go. How do you discover what's important to you?
To some, this question is absurd. If you fall into that category, consider yourself blessed...or foolish. It's a simultaneously difficult and easy question. It's easy because the answer has to come from you, from within. You'll find it independently of education, of studying, of research (though far be it from me to say that these won't affect your goals). Our society hasn't exactly placed a high premium on following the words of that ancient Greek inscription at the temple of Apollo - 'Know Thyself'.
Because we (as a society) don't spend a lot of time in introspection, it's simple to misinterpret or to be distracted when we try to find answers within. American society can provide a sensation overload, and if often preys on or even encourages a passive, non-introspective lifestyle. It seems the norm is to find as many ways as possible to fill our days with activities and technology; we're acting but not thinking.
At the same time, I think it can be self-defeating to attempt to find answers like this through logical deduction. How do you prove that anything we find from answers within are necessarily useful, meaningful, or true? There is a recent trend in the scientific world (well, perhaps not that recent) to discredit the senses and consciousness. It's difficult, because if we can't trust ourselves to reliably report on the world and we can't believe in the ineffable experience of consciousness and the feeling of singularity and individuality, how can we be expected to trust what comes from introspection?
I suppose the simplest answer to this question is that we can't. If we doubt our senses and the very concept of the self, progress is impossible - truly, the word itself is meaningless, for progress implies a positive and a negative experience when in the absence of a self experience can have no real positive or negative value.
David Hume once theorized that we have no understanding of causes, merely causes and effects. All our theories operate on an implicit assumption - that things will behave the way they do because that's the way they always have behaved. In other words, cause and effect, while linked, are not necessarily reliable. We can't explain the "Why's" of the natural world, we can only observe them. We can describe expected behavior reliably: we have many equations related to gravity to help us predict or calculate the behavior of two objects with X mass...but we can't state why gravity happens. Why do two objects with mass have a pull on each other? Why do positive and negative forces attract? All theories are reducible to laws that we have to accept as constants simply because it's just the way the world works.
Returning to the case of our suspect senses and consciousness...I mentioned progress was impossible if we doubt the only tools we have. Similarly, if we didn't accept that natural laws would be reliable simply because we don't understand the why, we could never make any real scientific progress - every equation would be meaningless because it was contingent upon laws that we weren't willing to accept. It's necessarily unprovable whether or not our perceptions of reality and true or unrealistic, and it's meaningless to dwell on topics that can never be solved.
Bringing things full circle, if after you find your goals you believe in self-growth as a priority, seek to avoid making a goal of comfort and familiarity. A life of comfort is a steady, moderate life. If you seek challenges and the unfamiliar your life will have many ups and downs - challenges force us to adapt, change inspires growth. In seeking self-growth, you have to abandon the predictability and familiarity of a comfortable life.
Find your goals and choose a path...and be happy in knowing that you've made your choice consciously and willingly. Don't allow yourself to live without priority or conviction.
Consider a hypothetical scenario. A man visits a restaurant he knows well. The food is mediocre, unspectacular...but familiar. The waiter knows him, knows what he likes and knows he prefers to be left alone. The man visits the restaurant and avoids human interaction almost entirely. Ostensibly, the man visits for the solitude and convenience - the comfort of having to expend as little effort as possible.
How does this reflect on the man's priorities? If what's important to this man is finding a path of least resistance, what is the ultimate goal he is striving for? What is ultimately important in his life?
Now in my hypothetical scenario, you can't take an isolated incident like this and extend it to a generalization. The scenario would be interpreted very differently if the man left the restaurant to return to his position volunteering as a counselor than it would if he left to go home and watch some T.V. I'm not proposing that we completely eschew the comfortable and familiar in every area of our life.
I've long since come to the conclusion that there is no universally acceptable set of priorities, values, or beliefs. I don't begrudge someone for their opinion that life doesn't need to be about growth, happiness, or any of the values and experiences I find so important. There are people who ultimately want just comfort from life - I can accept that. I will not join their ranks.
In another sense though, I think that there are many confused people - people seeking comfort without recognizing that it's not actually what they want. Life isn't necessarily about living comfortably - we all have a variety of purposes we've found (or may never find) for living, and a life of comfort is often at odds with that. The important question to ask yourself is, "If I achieve the goals I'm working for, will it bring me closer to what I really want?" As long as the answer is yes, you can take solace in knowing that you won't reach your goals only to feel unfulfilled or unhappy. Of course, goals change. Don't forget to take that into account :).
A close friend of mine and fellow couch philosopher would be eager to point out that there's an initial question to be answered. "What do I really want?" Without knowing your destination, it's difficult to know whether or not the path you're taking is going to bring you where you want to go. How do you discover what's important to you?
To some, this question is absurd. If you fall into that category, consider yourself blessed...or foolish. It's a simultaneously difficult and easy question. It's easy because the answer has to come from you, from within. You'll find it independently of education, of studying, of research (though far be it from me to say that these won't affect your goals). Our society hasn't exactly placed a high premium on following the words of that ancient Greek inscription at the temple of Apollo - 'Know Thyself'.
Because we (as a society) don't spend a lot of time in introspection, it's simple to misinterpret or to be distracted when we try to find answers within. American society can provide a sensation overload, and if often preys on or even encourages a passive, non-introspective lifestyle. It seems the norm is to find as many ways as possible to fill our days with activities and technology; we're acting but not thinking.
At the same time, I think it can be self-defeating to attempt to find answers like this through logical deduction. How do you prove that anything we find from answers within are necessarily useful, meaningful, or true? There is a recent trend in the scientific world (well, perhaps not that recent) to discredit the senses and consciousness. It's difficult, because if we can't trust ourselves to reliably report on the world and we can't believe in the ineffable experience of consciousness and the feeling of singularity and individuality, how can we be expected to trust what comes from introspection?
I suppose the simplest answer to this question is that we can't. If we doubt our senses and the very concept of the self, progress is impossible - truly, the word itself is meaningless, for progress implies a positive and a negative experience when in the absence of a self experience can have no real positive or negative value.
David Hume once theorized that we have no understanding of causes, merely causes and effects. All our theories operate on an implicit assumption - that things will behave the way they do because that's the way they always have behaved. In other words, cause and effect, while linked, are not necessarily reliable. We can't explain the "Why's" of the natural world, we can only observe them. We can describe expected behavior reliably: we have many equations related to gravity to help us predict or calculate the behavior of two objects with X mass...but we can't state why gravity happens. Why do two objects with mass have a pull on each other? Why do positive and negative forces attract? All theories are reducible to laws that we have to accept as constants simply because it's just the way the world works.
Returning to the case of our suspect senses and consciousness...I mentioned progress was impossible if we doubt the only tools we have. Similarly, if we didn't accept that natural laws would be reliable simply because we don't understand the why, we could never make any real scientific progress - every equation would be meaningless because it was contingent upon laws that we weren't willing to accept. It's necessarily unprovable whether or not our perceptions of reality and true or unrealistic, and it's meaningless to dwell on topics that can never be solved.
Bringing things full circle, if after you find your goals you believe in self-growth as a priority, seek to avoid making a goal of comfort and familiarity. A life of comfort is a steady, moderate life. If you seek challenges and the unfamiliar your life will have many ups and downs - challenges force us to adapt, change inspires growth. In seeking self-growth, you have to abandon the predictability and familiarity of a comfortable life.
Find your goals and choose a path...and be happy in knowing that you've made your choice consciously and willingly. Don't allow yourself to live without priority or conviction.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Camping
I headed out to Trillium lake recently to do some camping. Thought I'd share some pictures - and no, you don't get more text than this. I just haven't wanted to write lately!
Matt and Bem. How cute! Also a decent shot of the lake.
The whole crew...except me. One of the pitfalls of only having pictures from my camera is a lack of pictures of me. From left to right: Robert, Thuy, Matt L., Matt J., Bem
Just a close up of one of the lilies floating on the lake. About 1/4 of the lake was densely covered in lilies, while the rest had none - I'm not sure why that was the case. Maybe I should do some lily research.
A meadowy-looking swamp. It certainly gives the impression of solitude that we generally seek when we go camping, doesn't it?
Here's a picture of the lake from the non-lily side. You can see some of the boaters fishing out there - the lake is stocked with rainbow trout. Thuy went fishing, but did not bring us back any food.
I was not appropriately dressed for photography. Incidentally, both of the sweatshirts pictured are mine. I'll never go into modern fashion.
I had to fit at least one picture of Matt with his huge log. We went on a hike around the lake, and about halfway around he found that round and decided he wanted to bring it back to our campsite to burn. It was a difficult job, to say the least. Robert and I proceeded to break our $12 hatchet and Thuy's $1 hammer trying to split it into usable sized pieces. We got about 1/3 of the log off, then just quit before we broke any more tools. Also, the pointing into nowhere was a theme of the Matt L. pictures.
Matt and Bem. How cute! Also a decent shot of the lake.
The whole crew...except me. One of the pitfalls of only having pictures from my camera is a lack of pictures of me. From left to right: Robert, Thuy, Matt L., Matt J., Bem
Just a close up of one of the lilies floating on the lake. About 1/4 of the lake was densely covered in lilies, while the rest had none - I'm not sure why that was the case. Maybe I should do some lily research.
A meadowy-looking swamp. It certainly gives the impression of solitude that we generally seek when we go camping, doesn't it?
Here's a picture of the lake from the non-lily side. You can see some of the boaters fishing out there - the lake is stocked with rainbow trout. Thuy went fishing, but did not bring us back any food.
I was not appropriately dressed for photography. Incidentally, both of the sweatshirts pictured are mine. I'll never go into modern fashion.
I had to fit at least one picture of Matt with his huge log. We went on a hike around the lake, and about halfway around he found that round and decided he wanted to bring it back to our campsite to burn. It was a difficult job, to say the least. Robert and I proceeded to break our $12 hatchet and Thuy's $1 hammer trying to split it into usable sized pieces. We got about 1/3 of the log off, then just quit before we broke any more tools. Also, the pointing into nowhere was a theme of the Matt L. pictures.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Book Blog
I moved my book review section over to aaroninobooks.blogspot.com - I highly don't recommend it. The reviews aren't really all that useful, and it's really just a variation of this blog only less clear. It is there, though, and you (dear reader) are welcome to take a look.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
On Commitment
Why do people get married? Why is there a requirement for commitment that really, at a basic level, just doesn't make sense? Marriage suddenly makes a relationship contractual - not only are you claiming to know that the feelings you currently feel will never change, you're saying that if they do you'll stick it out anyway.
Forget why you'd ever want to make a commitment like that - why would you ever want to do that to your partner? Why would anyone ever choose to force a person to stay in a relationship they did not want to be in? That's the basic issue with relationship commitments: it's like you want a promise from the other person that their feelings won't change, that they'll stay with you. Relationship commitments are grounded in insecurity and selfishness...because the simple truth is that there's no reason to ask a person to stay committed to you who doesn't feel committed to you.
What's the right way to do it? Recognize that relationships are a choice. Recognize that both partners should be free to live and do as they wish - remove obligational commitments and instead accept that a relationship should only last as long as both people involved want it to.
Am I living in some ideal world again? Yes, I'd say so. The marriage institution is helpful in forcing people to stay together which can be helpful for children. I can't say for sure whether it's more damaging for the children to not only live near these unusual forced relationships (first by making things uncomfortable for them, and second by planting the idea in them that this is how relationships should work), but it seems to me that it's generally a good thing if a child is raised with two parents.
My problem is not with lasting relationships or relationships at all, it is the attitude that a contractual agreement is necessary or beneficial. My choice is to recognize that if I'm in a relationship, it's because it's a relationship I want to be in (and I choose to be in). Idealist or not, I'm not interested in staying in a relationship I'm unhappy with, and I don't expect any partner of mine to do the same.
------------------
This is partially inspired by some recent reading in Conversations with God, Book 3. I've been citing Conversations with God often recently. I'm going to go ahead and officially recommend it to anyone with an interest in self-improvement. It will be a difficult read if you have a particular faith - for the most part, it's very anti-religion as most religions are currently constructed. It was also very difficult for me to begin due to the premise...but if you believe that most answers on how to live life can be found by looking internally for the answers - that is, if you use your own logic and intuition to make decisions - I highly recommend the trilogy.
Forget why you'd ever want to make a commitment like that - why would you ever want to do that to your partner? Why would anyone ever choose to force a person to stay in a relationship they did not want to be in? That's the basic issue with relationship commitments: it's like you want a promise from the other person that their feelings won't change, that they'll stay with you. Relationship commitments are grounded in insecurity and selfishness...because the simple truth is that there's no reason to ask a person to stay committed to you who doesn't feel committed to you.
What's the right way to do it? Recognize that relationships are a choice. Recognize that both partners should be free to live and do as they wish - remove obligational commitments and instead accept that a relationship should only last as long as both people involved want it to.
Am I living in some ideal world again? Yes, I'd say so. The marriage institution is helpful in forcing people to stay together which can be helpful for children. I can't say for sure whether it's more damaging for the children to not only live near these unusual forced relationships (first by making things uncomfortable for them, and second by planting the idea in them that this is how relationships should work), but it seems to me that it's generally a good thing if a child is raised with two parents.
My problem is not with lasting relationships or relationships at all, it is the attitude that a contractual agreement is necessary or beneficial. My choice is to recognize that if I'm in a relationship, it's because it's a relationship I want to be in (and I choose to be in). Idealist or not, I'm not interested in staying in a relationship I'm unhappy with, and I don't expect any partner of mine to do the same.
------------------
This is partially inspired by some recent reading in Conversations with God, Book 3. I've been citing Conversations with God often recently. I'm going to go ahead and officially recommend it to anyone with an interest in self-improvement. It will be a difficult read if you have a particular faith - for the most part, it's very anti-religion as most religions are currently constructed. It was also very difficult for me to begin due to the premise...but if you believe that most answers on how to live life can be found by looking internally for the answers - that is, if you use your own logic and intuition to make decisions - I highly recommend the trilogy.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
New layout
I think I'll try to use this picture to create my new blog layout (click for larger version)
Syriana
I watched Syriana. It was a good movie, but I feel it unfortunately failed in an important area:
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Love, Work, and Religion
Well, it's Memorial Day '07. You all know what that means - time for my once-per-decade triple blog post! I'm not one for excessive fanfare and hype, so let's roll right into things.
- Love -
I think that perhaps I mis-portray my feelings on love to those geographically close to me. I've got a set of Winter Sonata calendar pages hanging up in my room and I end up watching cheesy Asian romance drama with my younger brother from time to time, and perhaps these actions imply some acceptance or agreement with the type of love most commonly portrayed in these dramas.
Well, I hereby renounce any faith or acceptance of said love-view. It's not only that I don't have faith, I am disgusted and I actively dislike the portrayal of love in these "love stories". A friend asked me last night what I thought about the idea of pursuit: "Is it a guy's responsibility to chase after a girl? Do you think he should keep try-". I rudely cut him off mid-sentence to start a rant similar to what you find below.
Asian drama is a little worse than American pop culture, but there is a serious problem with how love is portrayed in the media. It raises false expectations and I think promotes what is already a fairly high divorce rate. First I'll start with "the pursuit", most often displayed in Asian drama.
Oh god, I don't want to explain. Let me just say...men should have no responsibilities (in starting a relationship) that women do not have. It's time to move on from the archaic notions of fixed roles. It's not romantic or endearing to continue trying to "win a girl" who's not interested, it's wrong. Personally, if a woman wants to be coy or to play games to test my interest, I'm not willing to waste my time. Then again, I do spend a lot of time single.
More important is the portrayal of limerency (it's ironic and telling that this word has worked it's way into my everyday speech. Commit the idea to memory)as an example of lasting love and of true love across all forms of media. Love isn't and can't be a source of eternal uninterrupted happiness, and love doesn't make you blind to your partner's faults or problems.
I believe in love, but only in the sense that I believe we all define love for ourselves, and I choose to define it in the realm of what I believe is possible. I've got a simple indicator for what I believe to be a positive relationship, a love barometer if you will. Is your life better or worse because the other person is in it? Even more simply, are you made more or less happy because of the fact the other person is involved in your life?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you have to be somewhat selfish. If the relationship is making your life worse, it's not a good relationship. It's difficult to explain (and beyond the scope of this blog post)...but selfishness can be a virtue. For additional reading, I suppose you could check out this. The idea of selfishness as a virtue is not just a Randian/objectivist idea though, and I would say that I have a slightly different take on it. Regardless, it's a decent introductory text.
- Work -
I'll likely be starting a very busy schedule at the end of June. All my current work and the standard 40 hour/week job as well (I'll be doing 6 months of on site contract work). I wonder where I'll find time for other important things in life, with such a busy schedule. I suppose I'm just thinking about how I'll probably be very tired, and it's hard to focus or to want to read or write in those scenarios. I think what brought the worry to the forefront of my mind was a statistic I overheard that the average American watches 4 hours of TV/day. First...holy crap. Second...I suppose I can understand. Why not relax after spending a day at work?
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to start with TV...but we'll see how I do with a different life arrangement. Wish me luck.
- Religion -
Return to spirituality. Forget about religion...because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. so the first task of organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without questions.
If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.
...
So many of your men are just like your nations. Power hungry. They do not like to share power, merely exercise it. And they have constructed the same kind of God. A power hungry God. A god who does not like to share power but merely exercise it. "Yet I tell you this: God's greatest gift is the sharing of God's power.
God would have you be like himself.
From Conversations with God, Book 2
-
I don't know that I believe in a God - certainly not in an interventionist God who interacts with the world with some kind of supreme power and unknown agenda. What I like about this passage is the power given to the self. What I like is the concept that it's time we grow up, stop doubting ourselves, and trust that we can find important answers within. I like the recognition that we are powerful beings with the capacity to control our own lives. I like the recognition that we are not children who must look to their father for answers, but adults who can find answers within.
- Love -
I think that perhaps I mis-portray my feelings on love to those geographically close to me. I've got a set of Winter Sonata calendar pages hanging up in my room and I end up watching cheesy Asian romance drama with my younger brother from time to time, and perhaps these actions imply some acceptance or agreement with the type of love most commonly portrayed in these dramas.
Well, I hereby renounce any faith or acceptance of said love-view. It's not only that I don't have faith, I am disgusted and I actively dislike the portrayal of love in these "love stories". A friend asked me last night what I thought about the idea of pursuit: "Is it a guy's responsibility to chase after a girl? Do you think he should keep try-". I rudely cut him off mid-sentence to start a rant similar to what you find below.
Asian drama is a little worse than American pop culture, but there is a serious problem with how love is portrayed in the media. It raises false expectations and I think promotes what is already a fairly high divorce rate. First I'll start with "the pursuit", most often displayed in Asian drama.
Oh god, I don't want to explain. Let me just say...men should have no responsibilities (in starting a relationship) that women do not have. It's time to move on from the archaic notions of fixed roles. It's not romantic or endearing to continue trying to "win a girl" who's not interested, it's wrong. Personally, if a woman wants to be coy or to play games to test my interest, I'm not willing to waste my time. Then again, I do spend a lot of time single.
More important is the portrayal of limerency (it's ironic and telling that this word has worked it's way into my everyday speech. Commit the idea to memory)as an example of lasting love and of true love across all forms of media. Love isn't and can't be a source of eternal uninterrupted happiness, and love doesn't make you blind to your partner's faults or problems.
I believe in love, but only in the sense that I believe we all define love for ourselves, and I choose to define it in the realm of what I believe is possible. I've got a simple indicator for what I believe to be a positive relationship, a love barometer if you will. Is your life better or worse because the other person is in it? Even more simply, are you made more or less happy because of the fact the other person is involved in your life?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you have to be somewhat selfish. If the relationship is making your life worse, it's not a good relationship. It's difficult to explain (and beyond the scope of this blog post)...but selfishness can be a virtue. For additional reading, I suppose you could check out this. The idea of selfishness as a virtue is not just a Randian/objectivist idea though, and I would say that I have a slightly different take on it. Regardless, it's a decent introductory text.
- Work -
I'll likely be starting a very busy schedule at the end of June. All my current work and the standard 40 hour/week job as well (I'll be doing 6 months of on site contract work). I wonder where I'll find time for other important things in life, with such a busy schedule. I suppose I'm just thinking about how I'll probably be very tired, and it's hard to focus or to want to read or write in those scenarios. I think what brought the worry to the forefront of my mind was a statistic I overheard that the average American watches 4 hours of TV/day. First...holy crap. Second...I suppose I can understand. Why not relax after spending a day at work?
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to start with TV...but we'll see how I do with a different life arrangement. Wish me luck.
- Religion -
Return to spirituality. Forget about religion...because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. so the first task of organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without questions.
If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.
...
So many of your men are just like your nations. Power hungry. They do not like to share power, merely exercise it. And they have constructed the same kind of God. A power hungry God. A god who does not like to share power but merely exercise it. "Yet I tell you this: God's greatest gift is the sharing of God's power.
God would have you be like himself.
From Conversations with God, Book 2
-
I don't know that I believe in a God - certainly not in an interventionist God who interacts with the world with some kind of supreme power and unknown agenda. What I like about this passage is the power given to the self. What I like is the concept that it's time we grow up, stop doubting ourselves, and trust that we can find important answers within. I like the recognition that we are powerful beings with the capacity to control our own lives. I like the recognition that we are not children who must look to their father for answers, but adults who can find answers within.
Friday, May 25, 2007
On Portland
A southern Florida newspaper ran an article on the beautiful city of Portland recently. Want to read about how great Portland is?
Then click here!
Then click here!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Life Lessons: Accepting Diversity
Is it useful to make public lessons I think may only be understood through experience? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
Van Gogh, Starry Starry Night
A Slide Show Double Tribute to Vincent van Gogh and Don McLean. Interesting, if you're a fan of Van Gogh's art or even just curious.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Knowledge vs. Wisdom
This post is partially inspired by a chapter from a book I'm reading (Conversations with God, Book 2) and I'll be borrowing heavily from some of the ideas presented in that book.
-
Is there a fundamental problem with our school systems?
I think a question like this could spark a lot of debate. Debate can lead to productive results, but more often than not I think debate doesn't really "lead" to anything - it just is. This is because more often than not with a question like this neither side can ever really conclusively prove a point - there are strong, reasonable arguments for both sides.
That's why it's important to ask the right questions. What if, instead of the above question, the question was:
Is there a way to improve our school systems with a fundamental change?
This simple change in wording diverts the focus of the issue. No longer can the arguments focus be whether or not the system is flawed. Things don't have to be flawed for improvements to be made on them: there is no fundamental flaw in the horse-drawn carriage, but that didn't stop advent of the automobile. Changing the wording of the question can change how the answer is reached from a meaningless debate into a productive quest. It's much easier and more practical to look at proposed changes to the educational system and argue over their effectiveness.
So, I come to this post with a question about such an improvement. Would it be beneficial to restructure our educational system so that instead of being knowledge-based, it was wisdom based?
Let me clarify the terms. Knowledge is facts. Knowledge is formulas. Knowledge is, basically, what we teach now. Knowledge conveys information and data that humanity has learned or discovered. The emphasis in knowledge-based educational systems leans toward the memorization of facts. What year did Columbus discover America? What's the Pythagorean theorem? Can you memorize your multiplication tables? Knowledge-based systems cram students' minds with information.
Wisdom is ideas. Wisdom, as opposed to facts, is critical thinking about those facts. Wisdom is about knowing how to think, as opposed to knowing things. Courses like Critical Thinking focus on enhancing a student's wisdom. In a wisdom-based educational system emphasis would not be on a memorization of facts, it would be on problem-solving and coming to your own conclusions.
I think it's important to note that knowledge is required for wisdom. You can't come to your own conclusions about things without an understanding of them and how they work. Wisdom is not really a requirement for knowledge though - you can pack schools full of knowledge-based courses (what to think) and drop any "wisdom" courses (how to think) without immediately obvious detrimental effects.
Then again, just because the effects aren't obvious or immediate doesn't mean they are not there. The current system heavily favors students with a high capacity for memorization, but there is little done to integrate all of the knowledge. I talked to a friend recently (who has denounced all rights to credit for the idea) who talked about how silly it was that our educational system taught courses that were so disparate in their relation to one another. Instead of learning a system of related facts, we learn the facts "in a bubble" without any real relation to other things we learn. We learn about "ancient" Greek society and we learn the Pythagorean formula for triangles, but there is no reference made to their relation...no reference made to the fact that Pythagorus was a philosopher around the same time as Socrates, often not even a reference made to the further (practical) implications of knowing that the sum of the squares in a right triangle is equal to the square of it's diagonal/hypotenuse.
Integration of facts does not necessarily lead to a wisdom-based educational system, but it comes closer to allowing the students a further understanding of not just the "what", but also the "how". The "how" allows students more insight and lets them come to some of their own conclusions.
Conversations with God references this as a major factor in why schools stay the way they are. Parents are afraid to give their children the tools to think for themselves, because then they'll come to their own conclusions, or they'll judge their parents actions by their own standards. The children might disagree and therefore lose respect for the decisions made by the generation before them. The example given is the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan - as teenagers we're not told every side of the story and allowed to come to our own conclusion about whether this is right or wrong. We don't want our children to question our motives, but instead to understand the facts as we see them.
There are also those who question whether youths can successfully think for themselves. It seems they're more interested in rebelling and often morally lacking. They're "destroying our way of life". Let me quote a particularly interesting portion of the book in response to that viewpoint:
"The young people are destroying your way of life. The young people have always done that. Your job is to encourage it, not discourage it.
It is not your young people who are destroying the rain forests. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are depleting your ozone layer. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are exploiting the poor in sweat shops all over the world. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are taxing you to death, then using the money for war and machines of war. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are ignoring the problems of the weak and downtrodden, letting hundreds of people die of starvation every day on a planet with more than enough to feed everybody. They are asking you to stop it.
It is not your young people who are engaging in the politics of deception and manipulation. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people how are sexually repressed, ashamed, and embarrassed about their own bodies and passing on this shame and embarrassment to their offspring. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who have set up a value system which says that 'might is right' and a world which solves problems with violence. They are asking you to stop it.
Nay, they are not asking you...they are begging you."
Back on topic, I think a generation of those who are expert thinkers rather than a generation of minds packed full of facts would be a beneficial move for society. We forget facts, but as we develop new, more effective, thinking systems they become integrated into our everyday life: unforgettable.
-
Is there a fundamental problem with our school systems?
I think a question like this could spark a lot of debate. Debate can lead to productive results, but more often than not I think debate doesn't really "lead" to anything - it just is. This is because more often than not with a question like this neither side can ever really conclusively prove a point - there are strong, reasonable arguments for both sides.
That's why it's important to ask the right questions. What if, instead of the above question, the question was:
Is there a way to improve our school systems with a fundamental change?
This simple change in wording diverts the focus of the issue. No longer can the arguments focus be whether or not the system is flawed. Things don't have to be flawed for improvements to be made on them: there is no fundamental flaw in the horse-drawn carriage, but that didn't stop advent of the automobile. Changing the wording of the question can change how the answer is reached from a meaningless debate into a productive quest. It's much easier and more practical to look at proposed changes to the educational system and argue over their effectiveness.
So, I come to this post with a question about such an improvement. Would it be beneficial to restructure our educational system so that instead of being knowledge-based, it was wisdom based?
Let me clarify the terms. Knowledge is facts. Knowledge is formulas. Knowledge is, basically, what we teach now. Knowledge conveys information and data that humanity has learned or discovered. The emphasis in knowledge-based educational systems leans toward the memorization of facts. What year did Columbus discover America? What's the Pythagorean theorem? Can you memorize your multiplication tables? Knowledge-based systems cram students' minds with information.
Wisdom is ideas. Wisdom, as opposed to facts, is critical thinking about those facts. Wisdom is about knowing how to think, as opposed to knowing things. Courses like Critical Thinking focus on enhancing a student's wisdom. In a wisdom-based educational system emphasis would not be on a memorization of facts, it would be on problem-solving and coming to your own conclusions.
I think it's important to note that knowledge is required for wisdom. You can't come to your own conclusions about things without an understanding of them and how they work. Wisdom is not really a requirement for knowledge though - you can pack schools full of knowledge-based courses (what to think) and drop any "wisdom" courses (how to think) without immediately obvious detrimental effects.
Then again, just because the effects aren't obvious or immediate doesn't mean they are not there. The current system heavily favors students with a high capacity for memorization, but there is little done to integrate all of the knowledge. I talked to a friend recently (who has denounced all rights to credit for the idea) who talked about how silly it was that our educational system taught courses that were so disparate in their relation to one another. Instead of learning a system of related facts, we learn the facts "in a bubble" without any real relation to other things we learn. We learn about "ancient" Greek society and we learn the Pythagorean formula for triangles, but there is no reference made to their relation...no reference made to the fact that Pythagorus was a philosopher around the same time as Socrates, often not even a reference made to the further (practical) implications of knowing that the sum of the squares in a right triangle is equal to the square of it's diagonal/hypotenuse.
Integration of facts does not necessarily lead to a wisdom-based educational system, but it comes closer to allowing the students a further understanding of not just the "what", but also the "how". The "how" allows students more insight and lets them come to some of their own conclusions.
Conversations with God references this as a major factor in why schools stay the way they are. Parents are afraid to give their children the tools to think for themselves, because then they'll come to their own conclusions, or they'll judge their parents actions by their own standards. The children might disagree and therefore lose respect for the decisions made by the generation before them. The example given is the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan - as teenagers we're not told every side of the story and allowed to come to our own conclusion about whether this is right or wrong. We don't want our children to question our motives, but instead to understand the facts as we see them.
There are also those who question whether youths can successfully think for themselves. It seems they're more interested in rebelling and often morally lacking. They're "destroying our way of life". Let me quote a particularly interesting portion of the book in response to that viewpoint:
"The young people are destroying your way of life. The young people have always done that. Your job is to encourage it, not discourage it.
It is not your young people who are destroying the rain forests. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are depleting your ozone layer. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are exploiting the poor in sweat shops all over the world. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are taxing you to death, then using the money for war and machines of war. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are ignoring the problems of the weak and downtrodden, letting hundreds of people die of starvation every day on a planet with more than enough to feed everybody. They are asking you to stop it.
It is not your young people who are engaging in the politics of deception and manipulation. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people how are sexually repressed, ashamed, and embarrassed about their own bodies and passing on this shame and embarrassment to their offspring. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who have set up a value system which says that 'might is right' and a world which solves problems with violence. They are asking you to stop it.
Nay, they are not asking you...they are begging you."
Back on topic, I think a generation of those who are expert thinkers rather than a generation of minds packed full of facts would be a beneficial move for society. We forget facts, but as we develop new, more effective, thinking systems they become integrated into our everyday life: unforgettable.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Music Download
I recorded my music at a professional recording studio recently with Matt. Despite my mistakes, it didn't turn out too badly. You can give it a download by clicking on the songs individually, or listen to all 3 tracks in your browser by clicking here.
About:
These are the first three pieces I've written, and they've been through a lot in the years that I've been working on them (off and on). I wrote them in order with the intent they were listened to/played that way, though the emphasis I place on smooth transition isn't noticeable in these recordings. I hope you like them!
- Trilogy Eternal
About:
These are the first three pieces I've written, and they've been through a lot in the years that I've been working on them (off and on). I wrote them in order with the intent they were listened to/played that way, though the emphasis I place on smooth transition isn't noticeable in these recordings. I hope you like them!
Monday, April 30, 2007
Dance, Dance, Revolution!
As my readers know, these are not instructions for some kind of funky political mutiny...it's, well, DDR. And hey, guess what? DDR is hitting the schools, in the physical education classes.
Here's the NY Times article
I wonder if it'll ever make it's way into adult gyms - my younger brother and roommate Matt has said that if my gym had a DDR machine, he would join it. I would certainly use it as well - I'd go so far as to say it's my preferred cardio activity - I don't even have to bring an Ipod (which I don't have, and don't want)!
For the record, Speed Over Beethoven, the song mentioned in the article, is from DDR Extreme. I don't know what song it's on in the home versions...I think it's also on DDR Extreme, but maybe Extreme 2.
Here's the NY Times article
I wonder if it'll ever make it's way into adult gyms - my younger brother and roommate Matt has said that if my gym had a DDR machine, he would join it. I would certainly use it as well - I'd go so far as to say it's my preferred cardio activity - I don't even have to bring an Ipod (which I don't have, and don't want)!
For the record, Speed Over Beethoven, the song mentioned in the article, is from DDR Extreme. I don't know what song it's on in the home versions...I think it's also on DDR Extreme, but maybe Extreme 2.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Game of Numbers
I made it up to use for a driving game - just something to pass the time if I'm driving somewhere on country roads. You look at the numbers for addresses as you drive by and try to solve it. Today was the first time I tried to explain the game to someone else. Now it has a bit of a new purpose. So, here's how it works.
Take any 4 digit number without a zero, and separate those digits into their 4 separate 1-9 values. Find a way to mathematically (in any arrangement), reduce those numbers to 1.
Some examples:
Starting number: 9743
9 - 7 + 3 - 4
9 - 7 = 2
2 + 3 = 5
5 - 4 = 1
Starting number: 9871
(9 + 7) / 8 - 1
9 + 7 = 16
16 / 8 = 2
2 - 1 = 1
Starting number: 2435
(5 - 4) x (3 - 2)
5 - 4 = 1
3 - 2 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
The most difficult starting number I've come up with is 9861 (hint: think exponentially). I haven't come up with any combinations that can't be solved.
Take any 4 digit number without a zero, and separate those digits into their 4 separate 1-9 values. Find a way to mathematically (in any arrangement), reduce those numbers to 1.
Some examples:
Starting number: 9743
9 - 7 + 3 - 4
9 - 7 = 2
2 + 3 = 5
5 - 4 = 1
Starting number: 9871
(9 + 7) / 8 - 1
9 + 7 = 16
16 / 8 = 2
2 - 1 = 1
Starting number: 2435
(5 - 4) x (3 - 2)
5 - 4 = 1
3 - 2 = 1
1 x 1 = 1
The most difficult starting number I've come up with is 9861 (hint: think exponentially). I haven't come up with any combinations that can't be solved.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Under Construction
Sorry about the mess, I'm experimenting with my blog while I try to find a nice balance for layout. Feel free to leave criticisms, constructive or otherwise.
Update:
Done, for now. Maybe Bonnie is right and it's a little too dark, but I needed something to sharply contrast the strong white that I started with. Why not just change things completely?
Here is the picture I used as a basis for the site. Even the top bar ("Seek Questions") is a graphic pulled from the picture.
Initial Graphic
Update:
Done, for now. Maybe Bonnie is right and it's a little too dark, but I needed something to sharply contrast the strong white that I started with. Why not just change things completely?
Here is the picture I used as a basis for the site. Even the top bar ("Seek Questions") is a graphic pulled from the picture.
Initial Graphic
Monday, April 09, 2007
Why not talk to strangers?
We teach our children never to talk to strangers. Might this foster a future fear that leads to solitude and isolation? Yes, we can talk to our friends from school, but this just encourages us to a) seek friends similar to ourselves (as far as status, age, and background) and b) to only approach those who we already know of. You don't meet new people at school, you make friends with your classmates - you likely already know their name (satisfying b) and they spend a good portion of their day doing the same thing you do - they're in your class (satisfying a).
I'd guess the most commonly cited reason for not wanting children to talk to strangers is safety. Basically, on the off-chance that someone is a kidnapper who wants to get closer to his victim before the kidnapping, we stop our children from talking to anyone. I can, to an extent, understand this viewpoint. No matter how small the chance is, the chance is there. Parents want to do everything they can to protect their children from harm. I never fault anyone for well-intentioned decisions, but I think that perhaps this is doing more harm than good. If our children are able to enjoy the company of "strangers", even just by listening to them talk, it might foster a greater acceptance of others (as opposed to fear).
Yes, there are some weird people out there. But there are a lot more "normal" ones.
I'd guess the most commonly cited reason for not wanting children to talk to strangers is safety. Basically, on the off-chance that someone is a kidnapper who wants to get closer to his victim before the kidnapping, we stop our children from talking to anyone. I can, to an extent, understand this viewpoint. No matter how small the chance is, the chance is there. Parents want to do everything they can to protect their children from harm. I never fault anyone for well-intentioned decisions, but I think that perhaps this is doing more harm than good. If our children are able to enjoy the company of "strangers", even just by listening to them talk, it might foster a greater acceptance of others (as opposed to fear).
Yes, there are some weird people out there. But there are a lot more "normal" ones.
Friday, March 30, 2007
All Look Same!
Over at AllLookSame, they offer a quiz where you attempt to identify Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people based on pictures of them.
I think the first time I took the quiz, 3 years ago or so, I got about 3/18 correct (it's multiple choice and there are only 3 options, so I did significantly worse than I should have if I were just guessing). I took it now and did a little better - 6/18, exactly what I should have got if I were just guessing.
With that caveat, I have something to say about all three of these Asian cultures. From what I can see, there often seems to be a strong separatist identity. They define themselves by their own culture and by their differences to the other two, and normally have this pride where they believe they're "the best". Obviously I'm making generalizations - performing the same kind of generalizations I'm about to condemn.
This whole mindset strikes me as, well, silly. Perhaps it's because I can't understand wanting a Cultural Identity. I don't care that I'm an Oregonian, an American, a North American, whatever. I'm not eager to identify and place myself in that group. To be honest, I think it's sort of childish to want to do so. More importantly, it's meaningless. Any classification, of oneself or others, seems to want to do this. He's Japanese, therefore blah blah blah. Not only are statements like this ignorant, they're also the roots of cultural discrimination (a variant of racism). Making blanket statements about others on the basis of culture is simply a stage before making judgments about those same blanket statements.
The accomplishments of my cultural ancestors are theirs, I can't claim any personal right to them. The accomplishments (*cough*) of my culture or of America are not mine. I can choose to identify (time-wasting, non-productive arguments of free will aside) with certain aspects of American culture, but that is not because I am American - it is because I choose to do so. My exposure to them may have increased the likelihood of a certain behavior, but nothing is a given. This is why I don't understand the strong desire to identify oneself and classify others on the basis of culture. We're all just people, at a basic level. There is no difference between a Korean, Chinese, Japanese or American person of any real significance. Maybe we don't actually All Look Same!, but aren't we'll all the same anyway?
I think the first time I took the quiz, 3 years ago or so, I got about 3/18 correct (it's multiple choice and there are only 3 options, so I did significantly worse than I should have if I were just guessing). I took it now and did a little better - 6/18, exactly what I should have got if I were just guessing.
With that caveat, I have something to say about all three of these Asian cultures. From what I can see, there often seems to be a strong separatist identity. They define themselves by their own culture and by their differences to the other two, and normally have this pride where they believe they're "the best". Obviously I'm making generalizations - performing the same kind of generalizations I'm about to condemn.
This whole mindset strikes me as, well, silly. Perhaps it's because I can't understand wanting a Cultural Identity. I don't care that I'm an Oregonian, an American, a North American, whatever. I'm not eager to identify and place myself in that group. To be honest, I think it's sort of childish to want to do so. More importantly, it's meaningless. Any classification, of oneself or others, seems to want to do this. He's Japanese, therefore blah blah blah. Not only are statements like this ignorant, they're also the roots of cultural discrimination (a variant of racism). Making blanket statements about others on the basis of culture is simply a stage before making judgments about those same blanket statements.
The accomplishments of my cultural ancestors are theirs, I can't claim any personal right to them. The accomplishments (*cough*) of my culture or of America are not mine. I can choose to identify (time-wasting, non-productive arguments of free will aside) with certain aspects of American culture, but that is not because I am American - it is because I choose to do so. My exposure to them may have increased the likelihood of a certain behavior, but nothing is a given. This is why I don't understand the strong desire to identify oneself and classify others on the basis of culture. We're all just people, at a basic level. There is no difference between a Korean, Chinese, Japanese or American person of any real significance. Maybe we don't actually All Look Same!, but aren't we'll all the same anyway?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ancient vs. Modern Medicine
My mom came up to visit recently, and we got into a discussion about medicine. We had just finished searching for some Essential Oils and were having a discussion. She mentioned one line of products meant to prevent disease called the "Thief" line - it was apparently used by graverobbers to prevent disease around the turn of the millenia.
"Now, see," I told her, "I don't understand how marketing campaigns like that work. Why should anyone care what people used before we had any understanding of disease, germs, viruses...it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would care about medicine from so long ago."
I could tell right away she disagreed, I'd maybe even offended her a bit. "Hmm, ancient medicine is valuable because it's natural, and it's been tried and it works. It's harder for me to understand why people would want to put all of these chemically altered substances into their body in an attempt to get well."
The discussion continued, but the truth is I felt we both had valid points. It seems silly to ignore progress, to ignore what we have gained biological knowledge that is undoubtedly helpful in diagnosing and curing disease. On the other hand, often if something isn't understood or proven scientifically, it doesn't receive recognition. The fact that something "works" isn't generally enough - we have to know why and how, or we're eager to write it off as the placebo effect or even to just write it off completely.
There's also the motivation of profit. It's unfortunate that profit is the driving force behind a good part of medical research, because it means that health isn't necessarily at the forefront of motivation. It means that there is at least a possibility that research will be performed that doesn't search for a cure but for a product that masks the symptoms (the advantage being that if a disease is cured, there's no more need to buy expensive medication). Ancient medicine wasn't motivated in any sense by a need for profit - it's limitation was science and understanding.
"Now, see," I told her, "I don't understand how marketing campaigns like that work. Why should anyone care what people used before we had any understanding of disease, germs, viruses...it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would care about medicine from so long ago."
I could tell right away she disagreed, I'd maybe even offended her a bit. "Hmm, ancient medicine is valuable because it's natural, and it's been tried and it works. It's harder for me to understand why people would want to put all of these chemically altered substances into their body in an attempt to get well."
The discussion continued, but the truth is I felt we both had valid points. It seems silly to ignore progress, to ignore what we have gained biological knowledge that is undoubtedly helpful in diagnosing and curing disease. On the other hand, often if something isn't understood or proven scientifically, it doesn't receive recognition. The fact that something "works" isn't generally enough - we have to know why and how, or we're eager to write it off as the placebo effect or even to just write it off completely.
There's also the motivation of profit. It's unfortunate that profit is the driving force behind a good part of medical research, because it means that health isn't necessarily at the forefront of motivation. It means that there is at least a possibility that research will be performed that doesn't search for a cure but for a product that masks the symptoms (the advantage being that if a disease is cured, there's no more need to buy expensive medication). Ancient medicine wasn't motivated in any sense by a need for profit - it's limitation was science and understanding.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Loss of International Respect
Click here to watch
Zbigniew Brzezinski appears on the Daily Show and talks about how our foreign policy is destroying International respect for the United States. It's very good, just trust me and watch it.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Apple Unveils: The iRack
haha This is hilarious. MadTV political spoof.
The Irack
My flight was canceled and I'm back in Oregon by the way. How upsetting.
The Irack
My flight was canceled and I'm back in Oregon by the way. How upsetting.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Stormbound
I'm sitting in the airport again, but it's not quite as early as it was the last time I posted here. The airport is alive today, bustling with activity and hungry people.
I'm flying off into a fairly big storm, from what I understand. It's rather ironic, the weather this morning said the majority of the U.S. was pretty clear this morning, other than the super-storm blanketing Philadelphia to Maine. OK, so no one actually said super-storm, but I could tell this one guy was thinking it. I imagine off-camera the guy was mouthing "super-storm" while making air-quotes to his on-camera associates...trying to provoke a Freudian slip or maybe just trying to get them to crack up during a live broadcast. It seems he was unsuccessful though - the transition to the "find the monkey's daddy" segment was seamless.
Enjoy your week everyone =)
I'm flying off into a fairly big storm, from what I understand. It's rather ironic, the weather this morning said the majority of the U.S. was pretty clear this morning, other than the super-storm blanketing Philadelphia to Maine. OK, so no one actually said super-storm, but I could tell this one guy was thinking it. I imagine off-camera the guy was mouthing "super-storm" while making air-quotes to his on-camera associates...trying to provoke a Freudian slip or maybe just trying to get them to crack up during a live broadcast. It seems he was unsuccessful though - the transition to the "find the monkey's daddy" segment was seamless.
Enjoy your week everyone =)
Monday, March 05, 2007
Crick on Philosophy
Francis Crick:
"...Essentially, philosophers often ask good questions, but they have no techniques for getting the ansewrs. Therefore you should not pay too much attention to their discussions. And we can ask what progress they have made. A lot of problems which were once regarded as philosophical, such as what is an atom, are now regarded as part of physics. Some people have argues that the main purpose of a philosopher is to deal with the unsolved problems, but the problems eventually get solved, and they get solved in a scientific way. If you have how many cases in the past has a philosopher been successful at solving a problem, as far as we can say there are no such cases.
Essentially, their main technique is the thought experiment, and here you can argue indefinitely. Let me give you an example-John Searle's Chinese room. You see, I think this shows just the same disadvantages. It says that if you have a system that can only deal with syntax, it can't deal with semantics. Once you've said that, you've said it all, and you haven't proved it anyway."
Heh I found this pretty amusing, mostly for it's basic truth: Philosophy doesn't solve problems. It's basically about speculation: if it were about facts it would be science. That's not to say that philosophy doesn't use facts or science as a basis: that's exactly what a good philosophy should do: it should attempt to assimilate the ideas of modern science into a cohesive whole, filling in the gaps with reason. Arguments and differing philosophies take place over the gaps rather than the facts or assimilation.
Knowing this is true doesn't really change anything for me. I can't live life without figuring out why I want to live life - I can't be motivated without understanding my motivation, and more importantly defining my most basic values and the things that are most important to me (and even further, discovering the basis for those values). As useless as philosophy might be, it's still the best solution we've got...it's why people turn to religions or to introspection to uncover these same guideposts. I'm not giving up, I'm just not too proud to laugh at my ineptitude or the futility of my struggle from time to time.
"...Essentially, philosophers often ask good questions, but they have no techniques for getting the ansewrs. Therefore you should not pay too much attention to their discussions. And we can ask what progress they have made. A lot of problems which were once regarded as philosophical, such as what is an atom, are now regarded as part of physics. Some people have argues that the main purpose of a philosopher is to deal with the unsolved problems, but the problems eventually get solved, and they get solved in a scientific way. If you have how many cases in the past has a philosopher been successful at solving a problem, as far as we can say there are no such cases.
Essentially, their main technique is the thought experiment, and here you can argue indefinitely. Let me give you an example-John Searle's Chinese room. You see, I think this shows just the same disadvantages. It says that if you have a system that can only deal with syntax, it can't deal with semantics. Once you've said that, you've said it all, and you haven't proved it anyway."
Heh I found this pretty amusing, mostly for it's basic truth: Philosophy doesn't solve problems. It's basically about speculation: if it were about facts it would be science. That's not to say that philosophy doesn't use facts or science as a basis: that's exactly what a good philosophy should do: it should attempt to assimilate the ideas of modern science into a cohesive whole, filling in the gaps with reason. Arguments and differing philosophies take place over the gaps rather than the facts or assimilation.
Knowing this is true doesn't really change anything for me. I can't live life without figuring out why I want to live life - I can't be motivated without understanding my motivation, and more importantly defining my most basic values and the things that are most important to me (and even further, discovering the basis for those values). As useless as philosophy might be, it's still the best solution we've got...it's why people turn to religions or to introspection to uncover these same guideposts. I'm not giving up, I'm just not too proud to laugh at my ineptitude or the futility of my struggle from time to time.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Awkward Social Situations
The line at the coffee shop was particularly slow. I'd long ago chosen the food I'd be purchasing, and was deep in thought about which I'd enjoy more: the raspberry danish or the curiously named "Peanut Butter Blonde" (a peanut butter square with chocolate chips. Where's the blonde?). A woman pushed her way through the line, presumably to reach the restroom across the restaurant.
"Excuse me!" An unidentifiably aged (25-50, if I must guess) man behind me said gruffly under his breath. I looked toward him, surprised. Was he talking to me?
"Damn women. Think they can just push anyone around just because they are beautiful. Not even an excuse me!" I looked back over to the woman, thinking perhaps she had malicious intent in pushing through the line: had she simply cut to the front of the line? No. As expected, she was making her way into the restroom.
"Do you think that's what it was?" I asked non-confrontationally, hoping that perhaps he had mistaken the intent and motivation of her restroom rush.
"I know that's what it was," he forcefully asserted.
And now I was stuck. I wanted the conversation to end, but I didn't want to be rude. I wasn't going anywhere - it's not like I could act like I had something else to do while I waited in line, and I didn't have any escape options that would guarantee I left with my good mood and my pastries.
"Well, what can you do?" I said awkwardly, after a slight pause. I even hunched my shoulders and showed him the palms of my hands, visual cues that I felt would further solidify my resignation to the problem of beautiful women who rushed to the bathroom without saying excuse me.
"Bitch about it, that's what I'm going to do." He looked at me, hoping for some kind of approval or validation. Meanwhile, I felt even further trapped. I was next in line; I looked to the cashiers eagerly, hoping one might catch and correctly interpret my desperate glance and call me over preemptively, rescuing from an awkward conversation that was becoming more and more uncomfortable. No such luck.
Is this really the kind of thing people talk about in lines? I felt a bit socially inept. Maybe it was normal to use situations like this to strike up a conversation. That didn't really matter to me...I didn't want to talk to this man. So I didn't. We sat there in awkward silence for minutes that seemed to be an eternity. Ah well, at least I got my pastries. I liked the Peanut Butter Blonde better, though I still don't understand it's lexical origins.
"Excuse me!" An unidentifiably aged (25-50, if I must guess) man behind me said gruffly under his breath. I looked toward him, surprised. Was he talking to me?
"Damn women. Think they can just push anyone around just because they are beautiful. Not even an excuse me!" I looked back over to the woman, thinking perhaps she had malicious intent in pushing through the line: had she simply cut to the front of the line? No. As expected, she was making her way into the restroom.
"Do you think that's what it was?" I asked non-confrontationally, hoping that perhaps he had mistaken the intent and motivation of her restroom rush.
"I know that's what it was," he forcefully asserted.
And now I was stuck. I wanted the conversation to end, but I didn't want to be rude. I wasn't going anywhere - it's not like I could act like I had something else to do while I waited in line, and I didn't have any escape options that would guarantee I left with my good mood and my pastries.
"Well, what can you do?" I said awkwardly, after a slight pause. I even hunched my shoulders and showed him the palms of my hands, visual cues that I felt would further solidify my resignation to the problem of beautiful women who rushed to the bathroom without saying excuse me.
"Bitch about it, that's what I'm going to do." He looked at me, hoping for some kind of approval or validation. Meanwhile, I felt even further trapped. I was next in line; I looked to the cashiers eagerly, hoping one might catch and correctly interpret my desperate glance and call me over preemptively, rescuing from an awkward conversation that was becoming more and more uncomfortable. No such luck.
Is this really the kind of thing people talk about in lines? I felt a bit socially inept. Maybe it was normal to use situations like this to strike up a conversation. That didn't really matter to me...I didn't want to talk to this man. So I didn't. We sat there in awkward silence for minutes that seemed to be an eternity. Ah well, at least I got my pastries. I liked the Peanut Butter Blonde better, though I still don't understand it's lexical origins.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Do all fascist dictators go to heaven?
I asked my high school Physics teacher if Hitler went to heaven.
"If he believed that what he was doing was right, then he tried to do the right thing more than most people do. Doesn't that matter? If his motivation was to do the right thing, then why should he be punished?"
I can't remember the entirety of the discussion, but I do remember that the issue primarily boils down to whether or not there is a universal sense of right and wrong. Is what Hitler did wrong regardless of how he felt, or was it "OK" if he felt that what he was doing was the right thing?
Well, my (Christian) teacher made his viewpoint quite clear when he expressed his disappointment that I even had that question - how could I doubt that there was a universal good and bad? [aside: Let me take a second to point out that our discussion took place during class time: yes, I was basically defending Hitler before a group of my peers]
There is an important point to make: both then and now, I can't say I understand Hitler's motivation. I haven't even read a biography on the man, and I don't plan to. I do have a statement to make on the matter: I do think that there is a "universal" right and wrong, but I think the only place to find it is internally. I can't say I understand how, but I think that our conscience provides us with a tool to judge our actions "goodness". If I were to speculate, I would speculate that Hitler did not act in accordance with his conscience - he ignored his feelings in favor of his distorted reason.
In this sense, there is a danger in ignoring what we feel: while reason is an invaluable tool in life, it can be dangerous to make it our only tool. If we completely shut out feelings, we are nothing but cold, calculating robots.
"If he believed that what he was doing was right, then he tried to do the right thing more than most people do. Doesn't that matter? If his motivation was to do the right thing, then why should he be punished?"
I can't remember the entirety of the discussion, but I do remember that the issue primarily boils down to whether or not there is a universal sense of right and wrong. Is what Hitler did wrong regardless of how he felt, or was it "OK" if he felt that what he was doing was the right thing?
Well, my (Christian) teacher made his viewpoint quite clear when he expressed his disappointment that I even had that question - how could I doubt that there was a universal good and bad? [aside: Let me take a second to point out that our discussion took place during class time: yes, I was basically defending Hitler before a group of my peers]
There is an important point to make: both then and now, I can't say I understand Hitler's motivation. I haven't even read a biography on the man, and I don't plan to. I do have a statement to make on the matter: I do think that there is a "universal" right and wrong, but I think the only place to find it is internally. I can't say I understand how, but I think that our conscience provides us with a tool to judge our actions "goodness". If I were to speculate, I would speculate that Hitler did not act in accordance with his conscience - he ignored his feelings in favor of his distorted reason.
In this sense, there is a danger in ignoring what we feel: while reason is an invaluable tool in life, it can be dangerous to make it our only tool. If we completely shut out feelings, we are nothing but cold, calculating robots.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Thought Count
First, the question: If science were perfect, would it be possible to look at a brain and tell (merely by physical aspects) exactly what it was thinking?
If your answer is yes, then there is another (less attractive) idea you are supporting as well: a finite number of thoughts.
If thoughts are merely a specific arrangement of some kind of elementary particle (we'll say atoms, for simplicity) then there is a finite number of arrangement possibilities for those particles. Yes, it's an extraordinarily large number, but there is still a cap, a maximum number of thoughts.
Which is more likely: that there is a finite number of "possible thoughts", or that there is a non-physical aspect of thoughts yet to be discovered?
If your answer is yes, then there is another (less attractive) idea you are supporting as well: a finite number of thoughts.
If thoughts are merely a specific arrangement of some kind of elementary particle (we'll say atoms, for simplicity) then there is a finite number of arrangement possibilities for those particles. Yes, it's an extraordinarily large number, but there is still a cap, a maximum number of thoughts.
Which is more likely: that there is a finite number of "possible thoughts", or that there is a non-physical aspect of thoughts yet to be discovered?
Friday, February 09, 2007
Books
In this section, I give books a mini-review, Aaron style.
Click on any of the books below to go straight to their "review" (newest books at the top).
Catfish and Mandala
The Twentieth Wife
Prep
Catcher in the Rye
Conversations on Conciousness
Freedom Evolves
The Light of Other Days
Utopia
Conversations with God
Sophie's World
Something about a book writing about familiar locations seems foreign - it feels like I'm cheating, or like I'm not really reading a book but a classmate's story. Catfish & Mandala was set in very familiar locations - Carmel, Santa Cruz, Crescent City, Portland, Seattle...even Nha Trang, Vietnam. These are all places I've visited, even lived at. This intimate knowledge of the places he describes (ie his friend's house in Southeast Portland, where you can party a little longer into the night without worry) felt odd and strangely comforting. Perhaps it has influenced my outlook, but I really enjoyed this tale of a man and his journey to understand his heritage.
Catfish and Mandala. The catfish are a staple food in Vietnam, strong symbolism for what the author feels the Vietnamese do very well: survive. Not only is the catfish capable of surviving, but the catfish also provides an amazing long-term sustenance for the poor who have to find something to eat. The Mandala, on the other hand, is representative of what his journey was to him. Buddhist monks will use the creation of the mandala as a tool for concentration, slowly placing the sand over a course of weeks before destroying the entire pattern weeks later. His physically strenuous journey allowed him this level of clarity - not because he was able to think so clearly while he exercised: quite the opposite in fact. The exercise cleared his mind of thought, it became a physical meditation.
The author was strangely condemning and disrespectful of the Vietnamese - he didn't see any beauty in his "home" country, only the ugliness of poverty and a beaten people. In his Vietnam the cops are corrupt, the poor shameless, all the women temptresses vying for an opportunity to leave Vietnam to America, the "golden land of opportunity". This was not what I saw in my visit to Vietnam, but there are other things he describes that I connected with. Mostly, just the description of life. The crazy driving, the strange way that every transaction is negotiable (I could never get used to this, I hate bartering to try and get the best price), the shops lining the street...it was all familiar and accurate, it brought back memories that were somehow already buried -- it's only been a few months, and already I'm forgetting.
I recommend Catfish and Mandala to anyone with an interest in Vietnam, but it's not just a book for Vietnamese. It is about a misplaced person on a journey to find his source, trying to find out what it means to be American or Vietnamese, and it's a journey worth reading about.
The Twentieth Wife is a bit of historical fiction detailing the life of the woman Mehrunnissa, wife of the influential Indian Emperor Jahangir. Sundaresan has taken known history of the era and woven a believable and enthralling tale of fiction that believably fills in the blanks. I could hardly put the book down once I started it: somehow the mix of realism and guesswork is irrestible inside the 300-some pages of the book.
With all these positive words of praise, how does the book only come out to a rating of 7.5? Well, it's not fair, but I grade the books not by entertainment value but by how they influence my life. This book was a wonderful story and there are lessons to be learned (both moral and historical), but all in all it was put entertainment first. What I got from the story was a history lesson, an Indian culture lesson, and a first-rate tale.
Prep is an impressive novel. Much like Catcher in the Rye, it doesn't feel like a work of fiction. It's another book providing insight into the real world, allowing me to remember what those high-school years were like. Sittenfeld is an amazing author in her ability to present situations that beg for some kind of moral judgment with a kind of distinct objectiveness. You want to know what's right, you want to know what is to be learned from a situation, but you're forced to make your own decision.
In a certain way, the novel is depressing in that way. Not because we can't come to our own decisions about what's right, but that the protagonist can't. We're forced to live through years of poor decisions, and as such it becomes a very difficult read. It's so easy, from an older age, to look back at some of the problems and insecurities of youth dismissively...but we get no such satisfaction from our protagonist in Prep. Late into her junior year, one of her classmates attempts to come up with a particularly cutting insult. "Lee," she says, "you haven't changed at all since freshman year." The classmate is correct, and reading Prep puts you through all those years with Lee while you agonize over the poor decisions she makes over and over again.
I don't mean to focus on the poor aspects of the book. I highly recommend Prep if you enjoy books that spur thought, self-evaluation, and remind us of our not-so-perfect past. Just don't expect you'll read it and be cheered right up.
Catcher in the Rye has been reviewed and analyzed much deeper and more effectively than I plan to do in this blog. I haven't read any outside reviews (which is a bit unusual) but I want to talk about what really stood out to me about this book: a brutally believable protagonist. Salinger's "coming of age" story isn't a fable with morals and platitudes...it comes across like life comes across: ordinary. What makes this such an outstanding work of fiction is not that it transports you to another world: instead it seems to shed light on ours.
It's a reminder of what it felt like to be in that in-between stage, where you're not an adult and you're no longer a child. As a matter of fact, I'll probably recommend it to my mom: maybe she'll understand my younger brother a little better after reading it.
I was very tempted to give this book a 10/10, but I just couldn't. It was a great book and perfect for me (I would say it's perfect for anyone starting out exploring popular theories on the basis of consciousness and free will) but the book had it's problems.
Conversations on Consciousness details a series of interviews between psychologist and hard determinist Susan Blackmore and a smattering of well-known experts in the fields of philosophy and neuroscience. She does well at finding a variety of scientific viewpoints: you won't find any faith-based supporters in the book, only those who attempt to use our current scientific knowledge and theories as a base from which to make their speculations.
The interviews tended to center around four questions:
1) What is consciousness? Why is it so difficult to define and to study?
2) Do you believe we have free will?
3) Do you think that the Philopher's Zombie is an actual possibility?
4) This question varied, but was related to their specific field of expertise or their most well-known theory.
I didn't understand why Blackmore felt the thought experiment of the Philosopher's Zombie was so important. The question she was trying to ask was: "Do you think conciousness arises merely because of our capacity to behave the way we do?" but using the Philosopher's Zombie thought experiment to ask this question led to more problems than it solved. Too often, the answer was a criticism of the thought experiment rather than an answer to the real question. I agree with those who criticize the experiment: I don't see a lot of value in pure speculation that, at some level, has to be scientifically ungrounded. Of course, the way we live our life is partially through pure speculation, but that is through necessity.
The best thing I got from the book was an understanding of the controversy in the fields of consciousness. Dennett, author of Freedom Evolves, somewhat represents one side of the argument. He's certainly well-known - half of those interviewed used Dennett's views as a way to state their own through contrast. Dennett does not cohesively meld his viewpoint in a way that it represents "the determinists", but his viewpoint is well-known and clearly stated, which at least gives others in the field a way to contrast, a reference point from which to deviate.
Conversations on Consciousness fostered more questions than it answered. It's a book that I've read that's only shown me that I need to read more books. It has moved some authors to near the top of the list though. David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and Daniel Wegner (well, he was already near the top) all piqued my interest enough that I will certainly read their books to better understand their viewpoint. I identified with Penrose more than any other philosopher, and I'm interested to read more about why he believes what he does.
This was a difficult book to evaluate. It's a philosophical exercise by Dennett - an attempt to point out the inadequacies in a number of commonly held philosophical perspectives, and a best-guess amalgamation philosophy given the body of scientific knowledge at the time of the writing. I separate the book as such because I believe Dennett's goals were only half-met. He faltered a bit in his explanation of the shortcomings of common perspectives while he very reliably and intelligently presented his own view.
Two-thirds of Dennett's book was convincing, fairly clear, and for the most part sensible and comprehensible. Unfortunately (for him) it's the latter two-thirds of the book. Getting through the initial couple chapters proved to be particularly difficult for me...quite simply, Dennett spent a lot of time trying to support determinism by using examples that were completely inadequate. In attempting to provide simple examples to prove his point he lost some of the inherent complexity that is human life. For example, Dennett uses a "game" called Conway's game of life (link). Conway's game of life shows us that in a limited plane patterns of amazing complexity can arise. Conceivably, notes Dennett, given a large enough plane we could mimic the functionality of any computer system. Naturally, this is the case: despite their apparent complexity, computer processors are simple extremely fast at processing 1s and 0s: that is, on and off. A processor simply reacts to strings of electrical current that is either on or off. The data on your hard drive is stored similarly: a byte (1/1024 of a kilobyte, which is 1/1024 of a megabyte, to gigabyte, etc) is 8 bits, and a bit is just a 0 or 1 value.
Anyway, the fact that a simple system can reach extraordinary levels of complexity does not mean it can be used comparatively with the "real-life" system. Dennett's argument is that in a fixed system everything behaves in a predictable and unchanging manner: this is a solid argument. The disconnect takes place when you try to prove that our universe is a fixed system.
Despite all my argumentation on the matter, my real opinion is that the discussion is a waste of time. Whether or not life is deterministic or indeterministic is truly unimportant, and should not have a real bearing on how we live our lives. This is Dennett's conclusion and while I don't agree entirely with the means, it is an end I can fully support.
Two Critically acclaimed sci-fi authors (Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter) cooperated to write this book. I actually picked it up on accident, intending to read a well-known short story of the same name (about something called slow-glass). I don't regret making the mistake though.
Light of Other Days is an excellent sci-fi book. It's been a while since I last read a purely fictional book, and it was a welcome escape. Well, except for the fairly depressing undertones of the book. The near future (2050, or so) is not quite a dystopia, but it's a depressing place to live. Humanity has come to terms with the fact that a moon sized asteroid is headed towards the earth, due to hit in approximately 500 years. Science sees no foreseeable method of averting what will essentially be the extinction of humanity. The effects on culture as a whole are interesting but not overdramatic - just an increased melancholy with the idea that there's no real need to attempt to progress as a race given the impending extinction.
The title of the book comes from an unrelated scientific development. A purely capitalistic (but somewhat evil) entrepreneur develops a sort of super camera - a device that can look anywhere. To put it simply, he develops a screen that allows for real time surveillance of anywhere on earth. The book is partially about the changes to society that result from what is essentially a complete lack of privacy...political changes (politicians simply can't be corrupt, no one can hide anything) and personal changes.
It's a medium length book, and if you're a fan of the genre I recommend it.
Spoiler (highlight to see)
The book ends on an interesting note. Technological developments from the WormCam (the name of the device that allows you to watch anything) expand to allow us to watch the past (and therefore debunk a number of historical and religious myths). Anyway, the epilogue proposes what I thought to be an interesting idea...if all we humans are is our body, then eternal life is certainly possible. If everything that makes us who we are is physical, then the technology could potentially exist to recreate us exactly as is. The book ends with the main character being woken up some 150 years later, and finds out humanity has started a quest to right it's wrongs...by bringing every human being back to life. Interesting idea.
Thomas More's Utopia is a well-known work describing a communist utopia. More lived in the Middle Ages (17th century, I believe) and was executed in his thirties for refusing to bless the king's divorce and subsequent remarriage (he was an adviser of some sort for the king). I think knowing a little about More can help one understand the book - More loved humor. He joked about everything, and was even accused by a friend of putting forth everything he said in a joking manner...as a sort of safety net so that he could always retract the statement, saying it was merely made in jest. Utopia itself seems to be an example of this practice - the book seems to purvey itself as serious, but upon closer inspection might just be mocking anyone who could believe in a successful communist society. His Utopia is anything but.
Considering how highly I've rated this book, it was startlingly difficult to start. Reading through the first 40-50 pages without just throwing the book down in disgust took a strange kind of persistence. You see, the basis of the book is that the author is having a direct conversation with God (who seems most similar to a Christian God). It's not supposed to be fictional, and I'm confident the author would argue that the experience was "real". I find it much more likely that the author tapped into part of the vast internal knowledge we all have...because, whether or not he spoke with God, the book is impressive. Walsch (the author) puts forth a reasonable and insightful world-view.
Incidentally, I've heard from multiple sources that the book is commonly recommended by Buddhists despite what I see as a fairly Christian basis.
A very enjoyable work of fiction intertwined with a very educational review of philosophy, starting with the first known Greek philosophers and ending with more modern theories like existentialism and logical empiricism. I don't know if it's more enjoyable for the fictional part of the story or the thoroughly entertaining non-fiction/educational part.
Click on any of the books below to go straight to their "review" (newest books at the top).
Catfish and Mandala
The Twentieth Wife
Prep
Catcher in the Rye
Conversations on Conciousness
Freedom Evolves
The Light of Other Days
Utopia
Conversations with God
Sophie's World
Catfish and Mandala Andrew X. Pham 9/10 |
Something about a book writing about familiar locations seems foreign - it feels like I'm cheating, or like I'm not really reading a book but a classmate's story. Catfish & Mandala was set in very familiar locations - Carmel, Santa Cruz, Crescent City, Portland, Seattle...even Nha Trang, Vietnam. These are all places I've visited, even lived at. This intimate knowledge of the places he describes (ie his friend's house in Southeast Portland, where you can party a little longer into the night without worry) felt odd and strangely comforting. Perhaps it has influenced my outlook, but I really enjoyed this tale of a man and his journey to understand his heritage.
Catfish and Mandala. The catfish are a staple food in Vietnam, strong symbolism for what the author feels the Vietnamese do very well: survive. Not only is the catfish capable of surviving, but the catfish also provides an amazing long-term sustenance for the poor who have to find something to eat. The Mandala, on the other hand, is representative of what his journey was to him. Buddhist monks will use the creation of the mandala as a tool for concentration, slowly placing the sand over a course of weeks before destroying the entire pattern weeks later. His physically strenuous journey allowed him this level of clarity - not because he was able to think so clearly while he exercised: quite the opposite in fact. The exercise cleared his mind of thought, it became a physical meditation.
The author was strangely condemning and disrespectful of the Vietnamese - he didn't see any beauty in his "home" country, only the ugliness of poverty and a beaten people. In his Vietnam the cops are corrupt, the poor shameless, all the women temptresses vying for an opportunity to leave Vietnam to America, the "golden land of opportunity". This was not what I saw in my visit to Vietnam, but there are other things he describes that I connected with. Mostly, just the description of life. The crazy driving, the strange way that every transaction is negotiable (I could never get used to this, I hate bartering to try and get the best price), the shops lining the street...it was all familiar and accurate, it brought back memories that were somehow already buried -- it's only been a few months, and already I'm forgetting.
I recommend Catfish and Mandala to anyone with an interest in Vietnam, but it's not just a book for Vietnamese. It is about a misplaced person on a journey to find his source, trying to find out what it means to be American or Vietnamese, and it's a journey worth reading about.
The Twentieth Wife Indu Sundaresan 7.5/10 |  |
The Twentieth Wife is a bit of historical fiction detailing the life of the woman Mehrunnissa, wife of the influential Indian Emperor Jahangir. Sundaresan has taken known history of the era and woven a believable and enthralling tale of fiction that believably fills in the blanks. I could hardly put the book down once I started it: somehow the mix of realism and guesswork is irrestible inside the 300-some pages of the book.
With all these positive words of praise, how does the book only come out to a rating of 7.5? Well, it's not fair, but I grade the books not by entertainment value but by how they influence my life. This book was a wonderful story and there are lessons to be learned (both moral and historical), but all in all it was put entertainment first. What I got from the story was a history lesson, an Indian culture lesson, and a first-rate tale.
Prep Curtis Sittenfeld 8/10 |
Prep is an impressive novel. Much like Catcher in the Rye, it doesn't feel like a work of fiction. It's another book providing insight into the real world, allowing me to remember what those high-school years were like. Sittenfeld is an amazing author in her ability to present situations that beg for some kind of moral judgment with a kind of distinct objectiveness. You want to know what's right, you want to know what is to be learned from a situation, but you're forced to make your own decision.
In a certain way, the novel is depressing in that way. Not because we can't come to our own decisions about what's right, but that the protagonist can't. We're forced to live through years of poor decisions, and as such it becomes a very difficult read. It's so easy, from an older age, to look back at some of the problems and insecurities of youth dismissively...but we get no such satisfaction from our protagonist in Prep. Late into her junior year, one of her classmates attempts to come up with a particularly cutting insult. "Lee," she says, "you haven't changed at all since freshman year." The classmate is correct, and reading Prep puts you through all those years with Lee while you agonize over the poor decisions she makes over and over again.
I don't mean to focus on the poor aspects of the book. I highly recommend Prep if you enjoy books that spur thought, self-evaluation, and remind us of our not-so-perfect past. Just don't expect you'll read it and be cheered right up.
Catcher in the Rye JD Salinger 9/10 |  |
Catcher in the Rye has been reviewed and analyzed much deeper and more effectively than I plan to do in this blog. I haven't read any outside reviews (which is a bit unusual) but I want to talk about what really stood out to me about this book: a brutally believable protagonist. Salinger's "coming of age" story isn't a fable with morals and platitudes...it comes across like life comes across: ordinary. What makes this such an outstanding work of fiction is not that it transports you to another world: instead it seems to shed light on ours.
It's a reminder of what it felt like to be in that in-between stage, where you're not an adult and you're no longer a child. As a matter of fact, I'll probably recommend it to my mom: maybe she'll understand my younger brother a little better after reading it.
Conversations on Consciousness Susan Blackmore 9/10 |  |
I was very tempted to give this book a 10/10, but I just couldn't. It was a great book and perfect for me (I would say it's perfect for anyone starting out exploring popular theories on the basis of consciousness and free will) but the book had it's problems.
Conversations on Consciousness details a series of interviews between psychologist and hard determinist Susan Blackmore and a smattering of well-known experts in the fields of philosophy and neuroscience. She does well at finding a variety of scientific viewpoints: you won't find any faith-based supporters in the book, only those who attempt to use our current scientific knowledge and theories as a base from which to make their speculations.
The interviews tended to center around four questions:
1) What is consciousness? Why is it so difficult to define and to study?
2) Do you believe we have free will?
3) Do you think that the Philopher's Zombie is an actual possibility?
4) This question varied, but was related to their specific field of expertise or their most well-known theory.
I didn't understand why Blackmore felt the thought experiment of the Philosopher's Zombie was so important. The question she was trying to ask was: "Do you think conciousness arises merely because of our capacity to behave the way we do?" but using the Philosopher's Zombie thought experiment to ask this question led to more problems than it solved. Too often, the answer was a criticism of the thought experiment rather than an answer to the real question. I agree with those who criticize the experiment: I don't see a lot of value in pure speculation that, at some level, has to be scientifically ungrounded. Of course, the way we live our life is partially through pure speculation, but that is through necessity.
The best thing I got from the book was an understanding of the controversy in the fields of consciousness. Dennett, author of Freedom Evolves, somewhat represents one side of the argument. He's certainly well-known - half of those interviewed used Dennett's views as a way to state their own through contrast. Dennett does not cohesively meld his viewpoint in a way that it represents "the determinists", but his viewpoint is well-known and clearly stated, which at least gives others in the field a way to contrast, a reference point from which to deviate.
Conversations on Consciousness fostered more questions than it answered. It's a book that I've read that's only shown me that I need to read more books. It has moved some authors to near the top of the list though. David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and Daniel Wegner (well, he was already near the top) all piqued my interest enough that I will certainly read their books to better understand their viewpoint. I identified with Penrose more than any other philosopher, and I'm interested to read more about why he believes what he does.
Freedom Evolves Daniel Dennett 8/10 |  |
This was a difficult book to evaluate. It's a philosophical exercise by Dennett - an attempt to point out the inadequacies in a number of commonly held philosophical perspectives, and a best-guess amalgamation philosophy given the body of scientific knowledge at the time of the writing. I separate the book as such because I believe Dennett's goals were only half-met. He faltered a bit in his explanation of the shortcomings of common perspectives while he very reliably and intelligently presented his own view.
Two-thirds of Dennett's book was convincing, fairly clear, and for the most part sensible and comprehensible. Unfortunately (for him) it's the latter two-thirds of the book. Getting through the initial couple chapters proved to be particularly difficult for me...quite simply, Dennett spent a lot of time trying to support determinism by using examples that were completely inadequate. In attempting to provide simple examples to prove his point he lost some of the inherent complexity that is human life. For example, Dennett uses a "game" called Conway's game of life (link). Conway's game of life shows us that in a limited plane patterns of amazing complexity can arise. Conceivably, notes Dennett, given a large enough plane we could mimic the functionality of any computer system. Naturally, this is the case: despite their apparent complexity, computer processors are simple extremely fast at processing 1s and 0s: that is, on and off. A processor simply reacts to strings of electrical current that is either on or off. The data on your hard drive is stored similarly: a byte (1/1024 of a kilobyte, which is 1/1024 of a megabyte, to gigabyte, etc) is 8 bits, and a bit is just a 0 or 1 value.
Anyway, the fact that a simple system can reach extraordinary levels of complexity does not mean it can be used comparatively with the "real-life" system. Dennett's argument is that in a fixed system everything behaves in a predictable and unchanging manner: this is a solid argument. The disconnect takes place when you try to prove that our universe is a fixed system.
Despite all my argumentation on the matter, my real opinion is that the discussion is a waste of time. Whether or not life is deterministic or indeterministic is truly unimportant, and should not have a real bearing on how we live our lives. This is Dennett's conclusion and while I don't agree entirely with the means, it is an end I can fully support.
The Light of Other Days Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Baxter 7/10 |  |
Two Critically acclaimed sci-fi authors (Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter) cooperated to write this book. I actually picked it up on accident, intending to read a well-known short story of the same name (about something called slow-glass). I don't regret making the mistake though.
Light of Other Days is an excellent sci-fi book. It's been a while since I last read a purely fictional book, and it was a welcome escape. Well, except for the fairly depressing undertones of the book. The near future (2050, or so) is not quite a dystopia, but it's a depressing place to live. Humanity has come to terms with the fact that a moon sized asteroid is headed towards the earth, due to hit in approximately 500 years. Science sees no foreseeable method of averting what will essentially be the extinction of humanity. The effects on culture as a whole are interesting but not overdramatic - just an increased melancholy with the idea that there's no real need to attempt to progress as a race given the impending extinction.
The title of the book comes from an unrelated scientific development. A purely capitalistic (but somewhat evil) entrepreneur develops a sort of super camera - a device that can look anywhere. To put it simply, he develops a screen that allows for real time surveillance of anywhere on earth. The book is partially about the changes to society that result from what is essentially a complete lack of privacy...political changes (politicians simply can't be corrupt, no one can hide anything) and personal changes.
It's a medium length book, and if you're a fan of the genre I recommend it.
Spoiler (highlight to see)
The book ends on an interesting note. Technological developments from the WormCam (the name of the device that allows you to watch anything) expand to allow us to watch the past (and therefore debunk a number of historical and religious myths). Anyway, the epilogue proposes what I thought to be an interesting idea...if all we humans are is our body, then eternal life is certainly possible. If everything that makes us who we are is physical, then the technology could potentially exist to recreate us exactly as is. The book ends with the main character being woken up some 150 years later, and finds out humanity has started a quest to right it's wrongs...by bringing every human being back to life. Interesting idea.
Utopia Thomar More 8/10 |  |
Thomas More's Utopia is a well-known work describing a communist utopia. More lived in the Middle Ages (17th century, I believe) and was executed in his thirties for refusing to bless the king's divorce and subsequent remarriage (he was an adviser of some sort for the king). I think knowing a little about More can help one understand the book - More loved humor. He joked about everything, and was even accused by a friend of putting forth everything he said in a joking manner...as a sort of safety net so that he could always retract the statement, saying it was merely made in jest. Utopia itself seems to be an example of this practice - the book seems to purvey itself as serious, but upon closer inspection might just be mocking anyone who could believe in a successful communist society. His Utopia is anything but.
Conversations with God Neale Donald Walsch 8/10 |  |
Considering how highly I've rated this book, it was startlingly difficult to start. Reading through the first 40-50 pages without just throwing the book down in disgust took a strange kind of persistence. You see, the basis of the book is that the author is having a direct conversation with God (who seems most similar to a Christian God). It's not supposed to be fictional, and I'm confident the author would argue that the experience was "real". I find it much more likely that the author tapped into part of the vast internal knowledge we all have...because, whether or not he spoke with God, the book is impressive. Walsch (the author) puts forth a reasonable and insightful world-view.
Incidentally, I've heard from multiple sources that the book is commonly recommended by Buddhists despite what I see as a fairly Christian basis.
Sophie's World Jostein Gardner 9/10 |  |
A very enjoyable work of fiction intertwined with a very educational review of philosophy, starting with the first known Greek philosophers and ending with more modern theories like existentialism and logical empiricism. I don't know if it's more enjoyable for the fictional part of the story or the thoroughly entertaining non-fiction/educational part.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Short: Global Warming
BBC Article:
Humans are "very likely" the cause of global climate change
In short, the International Panel on Climate Change states that there is a 90% chance that human activity has been influential in recent changes in climate.
Humans are "very likely" the cause of global climate change
In short, the International Panel on Climate Change states that there is a 90% chance that human activity has been influential in recent changes in climate.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Wrapping Up Loose Ends
Wrapping up loose ends
It’s been a little while since I’ve had a serious post. Not for lack of thought, I can tell you that much. Most recently, I’ve been struggling with the same issue brought up in the Vegas post: if we do have a soul, what does it do? When in the evolutionary time line did it come into existence? What are the mechanics with which it interacts with our body?
Anyway, these aren’t the questions I’m looking to address today. Instead, you (reader of mine) are going to run through a gamut of topics: my started but unfinished blog entries.
Let’s start rolling right away:
Doing the right thing for the right reason
There’s a conversation technique in Dilbert author Scott Adams short book, “God’s Debris”. Summarized, the technique is as follows:
Everyone enjoys talking about themselves. If you have a hard time making conversation, ask the other person questions to find out details about them: they will be delighted at the opportunity to talk about themselves. Now naturally, if you’re trying to entertain yourself in this conversation you’re going to want to talk about yourself…but you’ve got the other person’s interest. You can now steer the conversation to yourself – the other person thinks highly of your conversational ability since they enjoy talking about you, and you get to talk about yourself.
You won’t be surprised to discover that I hate this technique. It’s underhanded, it’s fake, and it sidesteps a problem by giving it a makeshift solution. The real problem is not a lack of conversational ability, it’s an inability to recognize what is interesting in other people. If all you really want to do is talk about yourself, I think the real answer is going to come from introspection and personal changes, not techniques that cater to what is essentially a personality flaw.
I like to think that when someone asks me questions about myself, they are doing the right thing for the right reason. They are asking me because they actually care, they want to know a particular fact about me. The motive is important, not just the action.
What makes a piece of art great?
What is it that constitutes greatness in the realm of art? How is it we are able to separate popularity from greatness? Aren’t works of art essentially created for purposes of enjoyment? Does an author, a painter, a sculptor have to develop a new technique in order to be considered great or is it enough to simply be extremely skilled?
Take, for example, the author John Grisham. His work is very popular, probably because it’s entertaining. I don’t think many in America have any misconceptions about him being remembered as one of the great writers of the 20th century, though. Why? What is it that he lacks that Shakespeare (for example) has?
Good will
Is being good less valuable if it comes naturally? Is it less impressive to do “good” deeds based on your environment? Is something that is good for one person merely expected for another?
Is a good deed subjective? When judging the goodness or the value of an action, is it important to take into account the individual who performs the action? Should the standard for what constitutes a good deed be contingent upon the upbringing and past actions of the individual?
There are a couple questions I’ll ignore: 1- Is there such a thing as an objective good or bad? Can an action even have value? Also, I will be ignoring the fact that wildly varying cultures will have significantly different ideas of what good vs. bad is. I’m limiting my discussion to a comparison of individuals from similar cultural backgrounds.
I want to briefly touch on an unusual question. Are we really involved in the choices we make, or is it really just a biological calculation taking place? How can anything be good or bad if there is no choice ever made? Basically, the question of free will. It’s important to recognize that the existence of free will is a spiritual dilemna much more than a rational one. Whether or not the decisions we make or the paths we choose are the result of biological processes or supernatural influence does not change the fact that the actions we take now do have a direct influence (you could say it’s correlational) on our future actions. Whether or not free will exists is unimportant: if it does not exist, we shouldn’t act any differently.
Now on to the main question: is “good” subjective? Should we hold different people to different standards based on environmental factors? To an extent, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone raised in a environment where they are loved and encouraged to be good will certainly have an easier time performing good actions. To put it simply (and using the foundation of behaviorist psychology) we will generally behave in ways that generate positive reactions. If a given behavior is rewarding, that behavior will probably be repeated (it sounds rather mechanistic, but it’s really just common sense). Often, individuals raised in harsh environments have received little or no positive reinforcement for “good” deeds and are therefore less likely to have a natural desire to perform them.
On a similar note: does being good become less valuable if you recognize that the only your doing it is for self-satisfaction? For example, does the fact that my desire to do good deeds are truly motivated by an inner desire to be the kind of person I want to be change it from an altruistic deed to a selfish one?
Does it become less meaningful to do apparently altruistic deeds if the motivation includes self-satisfaction? Is there a difference between a good selfish deed and a bad one?
I think the answer that comes most naturally is that there is a definite difference between a selfish deed and an altruistic one…the problem is not getting the answer, the problem is the method that shows why.
It’s been a little while since I’ve had a serious post. Not for lack of thought, I can tell you that much. Most recently, I’ve been struggling with the same issue brought up in the Vegas post: if we do have a soul, what does it do? When in the evolutionary time line did it come into existence? What are the mechanics with which it interacts with our body?
Anyway, these aren’t the questions I’m looking to address today. Instead, you (reader of mine) are going to run through a gamut of topics: my started but unfinished blog entries.
Let’s start rolling right away:
Doing the right thing for the right reason
There’s a conversation technique in Dilbert author Scott Adams short book, “God’s Debris”. Summarized, the technique is as follows:
Everyone enjoys talking about themselves. If you have a hard time making conversation, ask the other person questions to find out details about them: they will be delighted at the opportunity to talk about themselves. Now naturally, if you’re trying to entertain yourself in this conversation you’re going to want to talk about yourself…but you’ve got the other person’s interest. You can now steer the conversation to yourself – the other person thinks highly of your conversational ability since they enjoy talking about you, and you get to talk about yourself.
You won’t be surprised to discover that I hate this technique. It’s underhanded, it’s fake, and it sidesteps a problem by giving it a makeshift solution. The real problem is not a lack of conversational ability, it’s an inability to recognize what is interesting in other people. If all you really want to do is talk about yourself, I think the real answer is going to come from introspection and personal changes, not techniques that cater to what is essentially a personality flaw.
I like to think that when someone asks me questions about myself, they are doing the right thing for the right reason. They are asking me because they actually care, they want to know a particular fact about me. The motive is important, not just the action.
What makes a piece of art great?
What is it that constitutes greatness in the realm of art? How is it we are able to separate popularity from greatness? Aren’t works of art essentially created for purposes of enjoyment? Does an author, a painter, a sculptor have to develop a new technique in order to be considered great or is it enough to simply be extremely skilled?
Take, for example, the author John Grisham. His work is very popular, probably because it’s entertaining. I don’t think many in America have any misconceptions about him being remembered as one of the great writers of the 20th century, though. Why? What is it that he lacks that Shakespeare (for example) has?
Good will
Is being good less valuable if it comes naturally? Is it less impressive to do “good” deeds based on your environment? Is something that is good for one person merely expected for another?
Is a good deed subjective? When judging the goodness or the value of an action, is it important to take into account the individual who performs the action? Should the standard for what constitutes a good deed be contingent upon the upbringing and past actions of the individual?
There are a couple questions I’ll ignore: 1- Is there such a thing as an objective good or bad? Can an action even have value? Also, I will be ignoring the fact that wildly varying cultures will have significantly different ideas of what good vs. bad is. I’m limiting my discussion to a comparison of individuals from similar cultural backgrounds.
I want to briefly touch on an unusual question. Are we really involved in the choices we make, or is it really just a biological calculation taking place? How can anything be good or bad if there is no choice ever made? Basically, the question of free will. It’s important to recognize that the existence of free will is a spiritual dilemna much more than a rational one. Whether or not the decisions we make or the paths we choose are the result of biological processes or supernatural influence does not change the fact that the actions we take now do have a direct influence (you could say it’s correlational) on our future actions. Whether or not free will exists is unimportant: if it does not exist, we shouldn’t act any differently.
Now on to the main question: is “good” subjective? Should we hold different people to different standards based on environmental factors? To an extent, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone raised in a environment where they are loved and encouraged to be good will certainly have an easier time performing good actions. To put it simply (and using the foundation of behaviorist psychology) we will generally behave in ways that generate positive reactions. If a given behavior is rewarding, that behavior will probably be repeated (it sounds rather mechanistic, but it’s really just common sense). Often, individuals raised in harsh environments have received little or no positive reinforcement for “good” deeds and are therefore less likely to have a natural desire to perform them.
On a similar note: does being good become less valuable if you recognize that the only your doing it is for self-satisfaction? For example, does the fact that my desire to do good deeds are truly motivated by an inner desire to be the kind of person I want to be change it from an altruistic deed to a selfish one?
Does it become less meaningful to do apparently altruistic deeds if the motivation includes self-satisfaction? Is there a difference between a good selfish deed and a bad one?
I think the answer that comes most naturally is that there is a definite difference between a selfish deed and an altruistic one…the problem is not getting the answer, the problem is the method that shows why.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union Summary
Purportedly, I have good "summarizing" skills. So I went ahead and highlighted what I felt were the key points of Bush's State of the Union speech for my readers who didn't have time to listen to the hour long speech but still wanted to know what the basics of it were. Anything in italics is personal commentary, feel free to ignore it.
For those of you aching for satire, this is kind of funny. Highlights:
"First of all, I lied about the reasons for war in Iraq. It never had anything to do with WMD, or with 9/11...and I apologize for misleading you."
"I'm sorry I [authorized the NSA to wiretap phone calls], and that I did it without telling anybody, and that I've been abusing my presidential power...and I'm sorry I broke the law doing it."
"I know torture is wrong...it was a mistake, and I also apologize to anyone who was tortured because of me. Especially the innocent guys, which we now know was pretty much all of them."
The text of the speech can be found here:
The State of the Union speech
- Balance the Federal Budget
- Eliminate deficit in the next five years
- Stop the process of “earmarking” (Earmarking is a process of attaching
addendums to Bills after they have been approved). - Find “some way” to fix Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare
- Reauthorize the (horrible, misguided and ineffective) No Child Left Behind Act
- Reform Federal Health Insurance Subsidies
- Adjust tax structure for families and singles with Health Insurance (first 15k
or 7.5k non-taxable respectively) - Provide monies to states who give free health care
- Expand Health Savings Accounts, help Small Businesses, reduce costs and medical
errors (how would the government do this?), and encourage price
transparency. - Medical Liability Reform
- Immigration
- Double the size of the border patrol + new infrastructure/technology (bah,
don’t believe it’s necessary) - Establish a temporary worker program so that foreigners can cross the border into
the US to work. (It’s interesting to me, because most people who are
worried about illegal immigration are worried that foreigners will “take
all of our jobs” – sort of like a reverse fear of outsourcing. Bush is
saying he wants to make this easier – he wants to increase border
security to protect us from…yeah, you guessed it. Terrorists. Also to
stop criminals and drug dealers. I’m not claiming that these are not
important, but I don’t believe our current method is effective – at
stopping the problems it hopes to stop or at dealing with the concerns of
most Americans when it comes to illegal border crossing). - Somehow resolve the status of current immigrants to the country (legal or
no?) - Reform immigration laws to encourage the American “melting pot”
- Reduce dependence on foreign oil
- Increase development and distribution of alternative energy sources. I will
give Bush credit here – instead of instantly talking about how he wants
to increase internal oil drilling he instead discusses the importance of
developing alternative energy sources. There is no mention of government
funding of any kind of research. - Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the US in the next 10 years (increase fuel
efficiency and quintuple current mandatory renewable fuel goals). - Double the capacity (heh capacity, not the amount of oil) of our current
oil reserves. - Homeland Security
- “Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we
must take the fight to the enemy.” Bush makes this statement when
discussing the current debates about whether our current course is
correct. It’s obviously wrong and conveys a false dichotomy: either we
fight on their territory or on ours. I am not convinced (and I don’t
believe I’m alone in thinking so) that a fight must take place at all. - It’s important for America to stay on the offensive. It is not easy for
terrorists after 9/11. He lists a bunch of examples of failed terrorist
plots. - General anti-Al Qaeda anti-Hezbollah rhetoric. In short: “Al Qaeda are bad and
evil. They want to rule the world in a totalitarian manner and will kill
anyone and everyone to do it.” Fairly long, and also incriminates Iran
significantly (as Iran houses the Hezbollah). I think it’s interesting
to revisit the article I posted recently about the world opinion on US
foreign policy. It’s widely believed that the US is making itself less
and not more safe – this doesn’t make it true of course, but it does give
a more impartial picture of how other countries view the US’ actions. - It’s important for the US to support democratic leaders in other countries so
that it’s possible for them to lead their countries in such a way that
the terrorists cannot exist inside of it. - We will stay in Iraq until our original goals are met.
- We are sending an additional 20,000 troops, the majority going to Baghdad.
4,000 marines are also being sent (with orders to “find and clear out”
the terrorists. Ha, clear out). - If we leave early, the terrorists win.
- Bush moves to establish an advisory council on the War on Terror (we all
know how much Bush listens to advisory councils). - Increase the size of the Army/Marines by 92,000 in the next five years. Also,
create a Civilian Reserve Corps which consists of civilians with special
skills to serve on missions abroad. - Foreign Policy
- To whom much is given, much is needed (ha, it’s the Rand Communist pay
scale!). - Continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa.
- Asks for $1.2b over five years in funds to combat malaria in Africa.
- Continue to fund the Millennium Challenge Account (haven’t heard of it.
Apparently, it’s exists to support countries who need help and have democratic
governments).
For those of you aching for satire, this is kind of funny. Highlights:
"First of all, I lied about the reasons for war in Iraq. It never had anything to do with WMD, or with 9/11...and I apologize for misleading you."
"I'm sorry I [authorized the NSA to wiretap phone calls], and that I did it without telling anybody, and that I've been abusing my presidential power...and I'm sorry I broke the law doing it."
"I know torture is wrong...it was a mistake, and I also apologize to anyone who was tortured because of me. Especially the innocent guys, which we now know was pretty much all of them."
Monday, January 22, 2007
Vegas and The Soul
Vegas assaults your senses. The most extreme assault takes place on vision: everyplace you go everywhere you look there’s something screaming for the attention of your eyes. Flashing lights, scantily clad women (and an equal number of scantily clad men…apparently there’s a strong market here for male strippers), and any number of unnatural and bright colors. Honestly, amidst the visual cacophony that results from the "visual screaming" nothing really stands out. It’s like sitting in a room with hundreds of people who are all screaming at the top of their lungs for your attention – not much gets through.
-----------------------------
So, if we have a soul, what exactly does our soul do? In what way does our soul interact with our human body?
It’s extremely unlikely that a soul is behind anything with a physiological explanation. The issue (for me) is…more and more things are beginning to have a physiological explanation. What aspects of life does our soul have control over? I suppose the question is…if we have any kind of free will, which decisions do we make? I won’t say that I don’t care about the science behind the soul-body interaction, but in this particular case I’m only concerned with the results of said interaction. In which areas does it fall outside of the body and outside of the rational mind to the area of the soul to make a decision?
-----------------------------
So, if we have a soul, what exactly does our soul do? In what way does our soul interact with our human body?
It’s extremely unlikely that a soul is behind anything with a physiological explanation. The issue (for me) is…more and more things are beginning to have a physiological explanation. What aspects of life does our soul have control over? I suppose the question is…if we have any kind of free will, which decisions do we make? I won’t say that I don’t care about the science behind the soul-body interaction, but in this particular case I’m only concerned with the results of said interaction. In which areas does it fall outside of the body and outside of the rational mind to the area of the soul to make a decision?
Short: What to do about Iran
The way the article is written certainly conveys a pro-war attitude, but it's still interesting.
BBC Article: What to do about bullish Iran
Edit: Ha, amusing. Lots of disapproval of US foreign policy by, well, the foreign world.
Views of US Global role 'worse'
BBC Article: What to do about bullish Iran
Edit: Ha, amusing. Lots of disapproval of US foreign policy by, well, the foreign world.
Views of US Global role 'worse'
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Thoughts and Farewells
As I drove home from dropping a friend off at the airport, it began to snow. The radio DJ had just announced that I'd be listening to Mozart's adaptation to a number of small minuets. Traffic was just starting to pick up - so many people start their day so early.
The snow was spectacular.
My drive had a serene feel. I had a newfound freedom which the slowly drifting snow and the joyful compositions seemed to proclaim. The snow had only claimed the outer edges of the street and some of Portland's ubiquitous roadside foliage: my path seemed almost clearly marked.
-------------------------------------------------
I watched The Prestige last night. One thought, in particular, really got me thinking. A younger Christian Bale (playing a stage magician) is explaining a trick to a youth. He explains, most importantly,
"Now, you must never give away the secret to this trick. People are going to beg and bribe you, trying to find out how you do it. The truth is, the second you tell them, you become nothing to them. Once they know the secret, the mystery is gone and you are worthless."
In the world of "magic" this is likely true. I wonder how many people think this idea is valid in real life -- that it's important to keep their secrets about why they behave the way they do, lest they become boring and ordinary through being understood. Keeping secrets like this feels like a "trick" to me -- a method for someone who wants to interact with the outside world by proxy. It places a focus on appearing to be something we're not...and I don't respect that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
