宇宙は生きている

Reading newspapers has become increasingly interesting now that people I know keep popping up in there. And not with obituaries, but rather with achievements and projects.

I told someone that I would talk about regret now, hence I shall talk about the U.S. demanding all kinds of personal information about people (travel data, banking data etc.) from the EU and its countries a little later, it’s not as if they would stop demanding confidential information without a clear reason anytime soon. So, you know, that is coming along.

So, regret. Is there a reason for regretting something done in the past? Sure, we have all had situations where we could have and should have done better, acted differently. If only we had known better… But is that worth regret and feeling bad about past events? I think not.

“What we should do does not lie in the past.” – Captain Okita

As much as we may wish, we are unable to change the course of past events. This is, assuming one does not have a surplus time machine just lying around, which sounds fairly reasonable. If that is so, having any emotions affecting us to wanting a change in the past seem to be quite arbitrary and impractical. Regret serves no practical use, as one cannot act on it. Unless one thinks of the consequences of regret. It is plain to see that regret is the emotion that teaches us that we’ve done wrong, that we should’ve done better. We will learn from the experience and do better next time we are in a similar situation. Hence once we understand we’ve done wrong and we know what the right course of action would’ve been, regret has accomplished its purpose and becomes useless again. In the end, it emerges with elegant inevitability that if regret were useful, we would be able to act on it, but we can’t so it isn’t. It’s use is extremely limited and extraordinarily short-term. That is, unless you happen to have a spare time machine, built out of a DeLorean, a hot tub or anything else.

Enjoy the legendary Matt Bomer (Chuck, White Collar)

Fun stuff, YouTube’s search went offline.

A few weeks ago I earned the nickname Mr Demagoguery (why not Mr Demagogue, you must ask the pleasant female debater who dubbed me such). This is because I managed to befuddle a debating partner using demagoguery, a mere day before having to debate with the young lady. I managed to detain myself from resorting to such tactics the next day and was allegedly successful. However, I had already had a bite from the dark side, and had messed with another person’s mind. Demagoguery is a powerful weapon because it is very hard to resist or defend against.

Oftentimes deflecting strikes of demagoguery boils down to ignoring the fact that it is, in fact, demagoguery. This means responding to all ludicrous claims and ridiculous questions with calm logic and reason. It is effective because it foils the plans of a seasoned demagogue while strengthening your own arguments. Alas, some forms of demagoguery are just about evil enough to be ‘killers’. That is to say, there is no good way of answering to a specific claim or question, any answer would bring consequences not to one’s liking. Avoiding the matter leaves a kind of vacuum, an empty space where the opponent can weave his or her nest in. And a viper’s nest is harder to remove than merely a viper alone.

In such cases, one has about two choices: either submit to having an argument with holes in it, which can later be ever so slightly patched up, or revert to playing dirty. One skilled in the art of demagoguery rarely knows the proper methods of addressing a hostile demagogue. If one gets lucky, the demagogue loses his or her solid ground and becomes easily proven to be mistaken. If not, at the very least, the demagogue’s demagoguery will prove to be elegantly insufficient. Against asking stupid questions, creating a lack of stupid answers is surprisingly effective. The stupid answers remain stupid, hence weakening the asker. The lack of stupid answers, by substituting them for counterdemagoguery, can cause little damage to one’s own respectability, all while taking down the enemy strategy. Using fire against fire may work, but one should always remember that the fire department prefers water. Hence wisdom and a cool head is a better alternative to demagoguery.

 

“Zathros wants nothing, Zarthros gets nothing. Such is life.” – J.M.Straczynski

Also, if someone can find a way to post comments, please do, explaining how. This new layout looks aesthetically pleasing but I appear unable to find the option to post comments. If nobody figures it out, then a new change is also in order.

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”–N.Bohr

In the past few weeks I have gathered quite a bundle of ideas that shall make up Act Two and since I’ll be getting more than mere tons of free time, a continuation is in order and can be expected shortly.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Women's Vote
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

I’ve been thinking of writing short stories as well. You know, small horror flicks where blood, guts and gore create an eerie climate and death. The usual. “There is a small line between life and death. It is amazing how long a man can linger there.” Alas, first I really should continue with the previous engagements. Yes, plural.

 

I’ve found that demagoguery is a fine weapon to have in one’s arsenal. It is like arguing with a stupid person – they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience (via Samuel Clemens), except with demagoguery you are the stupid person. The opposing side gets befuddled, your simple tactics confuse the eggplants out of them. A quick response is nearly impossible. And within all that confusion of the opposing side, mistakes are plentiful. This means you don’t even need your own arguments, you can use the opponent’s (or opponents’) own words to contradict their logic, which perplexes them even further. All while you find a small, yet powerful brick, with which you shine and the other side gets hit in a painful and humiliating manner. Figuratively speaking, naturally. The danger with demagoguery is that it is remarkably easy to spot.

The basis for the next paragraphs is this page, concentrating on logical fallacies. While these fallacies can be considered accidental, in case of a deliberate implementation, this can and should be considered demagoguery.

Argumentum ad hominem is one of the most common methods, which is why it is so easy to spot. This is exactly why it hardly ever works. Argumentum ad misericordiam is by far a more reliable option – people feel empathy and with an emotional speaker the audience can be gripped with ease. Argumentum ad logicam is an easy method that usually goes unnoticed. Sure, attacking the opponent’s logic is effective, leaving all of your points hanging is also a bad choice. It should be used in moderation, to avoid excessive stress on the partner’s points, in which case all the third party hears is those points. By partner, I mean the person that is trying to oppose your point of view (or whose point of view you are attempting to oppose). While this is not regular usage, I shall use it as a kind of a shout-out to a person who used it.

Argumentum ad numeram is not a wholly bad road to travel down, either. This has the downside of being a very narrow alley of possibilities of usage. By this I mean that you can hardly ever use it in a manner that does not diminish your authority on the matter. But if you can use it so, perhaps as an example that you have comrades of thought, and afterwards explain the logic, it works. However, in this case, it is no longer a fallacy of argument, but instead an introduction to the argument. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a nice one as well, I like to use it sometimes, unfortunately it is worse that playing Russian roulette – you can be blamed for using it even when you don’t and it can easily be missed when you do. This is best used to demonstrate your extensive knowledge (or make it appear that you have it if you don’t), however if push comes to shove and you are blamed for using this technique, a mere explanation (perhaps saying that since you thought everyone were acquainted, for random instance, with the theory of categorical imperative of Kant, it needed no further explanation) will do away with the accusation. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (and post hoc ergo propter hoc) has to be used with finesse and dicto simpliciter works nearly every time, hence they need no further commentary.

A naturalistic fallacy can occur accidentally or deliberately and usually goes unnoticed, as any argument that uses it, goes so as well. Hence it is a pretty useless point. Non sequitur is a nice thing to use. Sometimes a member or two of the third party notices it, but most of the time nobody gets it, unless the logic is very bushwhacked. It is always more effective to add a hint of truth to every lie, it makes it easier to swallow. Slippery slope has to be used with caution, overdo it and people will think you are three fries short of a Happy Meal, underdo it and nobody will care. Straw man is similar in that fashion. Tu quoque is a neat one as it is not actually a flaw of argumentation, it merely states that both sides are wrong and hence there is no victor. In the case that you are weaker and have a mistake that the opposing side stresses, yet has it as well, it is very reasonable to stab them in the back with their own knife – take them down to your level and you become more or less equal again. Instead of climbing up, you drag them down. And once you’ve done that, you have the first choice to take a chance at getting back on the ladder. That is a pretty good advantage, why else would the white side win more often than the black side in chess?

Note that the last sentence can be considered a part of demagoguery, even though it is not a structural part of an argument, but rather an illustration. It carries no weight other than clarification of point. People mistake demagoguery for many things, which is rather sad. But, as everyone knows, humans are not infallible and cannot be considered as such. However, the use of demagoguery can be extremely useful in certain scenarios, especially if one is forced to improvise. To some people it comes naturally when they have nothing else to speak about, others need to think about what, how and when to use. But it is a very stylish double-edged sword – it can be used to strike the enemy down, but might as well cut your own throat. To use it properly means caution at every step. And if that caution as been taken, you can easily beat your opponent with experience.

If I remember, I shall continue on this topic sometime later and write about how to avoid getting hit with the sword of demagoguery if one prefers not to use it, but their partner chooses it as their weapon of choice.

“Would you believe…”

Lately there has been a lot of commotion about ‘hen’, a Swedish alternative to sexes. Basically calling every one ‘it’, instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ (or ‘see’ instead of ‘tema’ and ‘temake’ in a certain other language). This has raised more than a few eyebrows and wags of fingers. Instead of traditional and non-traditional gender roles, children are taught how to be ‘sexless’. This means boys in dresses and ‘gender neutral’ fairy tales take the scene – no damsels in distress, no chivalrous princes. The stories lack what we like about fairy tales – the clear-cut characters.

The problem with this method is clearly an increase of people that act like transvestites or hermaphrodites. Obviously, this has a positive effect on the current global overpopulation problem. However, some people have expressed concern over the deteriorating state of our present culture. We have preset gender roles – put bluntly, the female side keeps the kids happy while the male side contributes financial aid to do so. This system has been relatively effective for millennia, changing it creates a precedent, which should be avoided. If something isn’t broken, don’t fix it. “A lot has to be done, but not for the first time.” (YPM)

Not to mention the problem with cultural integrity. With more and more sexless people entering the society, thus not doing what society expects them to do, creates a group of people that can almost only create their own small communities where they could fit in. Modern society is increasingly discontent with people that are different. The terror and fear has done its job at making people paranoid of everything and everyone. Life’s value per se has decreased significantly. Hence everyone different has become a risk – different values of life might mean harmful actions with a clear conscience. This is dangerous for people near the ‘different’ people that ‘may’ go berserk. Naturally, this is paranoia.

 

“In the romance room, the female rabbits are chasing the male rabbits, und hier, the female rabbits are shrinking from the male rabbits. Und in both rooms, the male rabbits are just sitting around trying to figure out what it’s all about.” – Siegfried”You can’t have larger ideals with the smaller ones being compromised.”age quod agis

“I prefer to be only slightly insane.”

Independence. We all crave it, even if we don’t know why. Yet it is one of the many things in life nobody can ever reach. We all depend on someone, no matter what happens. Sure, one might jokingly say that we are independent when nothing depends on us. However, the truth of the matter is, quite simply, independence means the lack of the need for support, that one is able to manage on one’s own without anyone’s moral or material aid.

But every and each one of us has someone to depend on, may it be family, friends or a significant other. Someone we tell our secrets to, someone we seek advice from, someone we converse with just for the hell of it. It is nothing to be ashamed of, or feared. It happens to every one of us.

 

“Never fear answers. Fear running out of questions.” – J.Michael Straczynski

“There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.”

Conquering the world doesn’t sound like a bad idea. However, I always wonder why would a person want to do that, after all, what would one do with a conquered world? It’s not as if one could simply barter with it… and a simple life is possible without taking over the whole world. Money isn’t everything, and one certainly doesn’t need a world to become rich anyways. Sure, it is a very elegant way of proving a point, if one had a point to prove. Such as people are simple mindless obedient sheep who need a shepherd. In which case, one doesn’t need a whole world.

Perhaps it is to gain an opportunity to be condescending towards the whole of humanity, after all, it would mean outsmarting the most vicious and cunning opponents. It’s a nice challenge, but it is hard to think of a way to continue the success. Sure, proving to be the most effective and intelligent human on the planet may be awesome, but it feels empty. Everyone wants to be the best, but nobody knows what to do once they are the best. Without anywhere to progress, a whole greater aim of a person’s life becomes insignificant. And that sounds rather depressing to me.

Granted, conquering the world is an interesting pastime, something original to do for a while. But it shares the problem of proving one’s wits – once you’ve done it, there is nothing greater to aspire to. “This world is not enough.”

Spreading out to distant worlds is an option, but at our current state of technology, it is an insurmountable goal, so unless we meet the Centauri or someone else who gives us some nifty tech, there really isn’t a reason to become the boss, head man, top dog, big cheese, a head honcho.

Evidently I am sort of an utilitarian point of view – I want actions and consequences to have practical value. Things gain value by being utilized. And that is only possible when there is untapped potential. But I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence, therefore I am not quite an utilitarian. Categorical imperative still sounds too… good.

Since TED videos display very awkwardly when embedded here (I guess the code ain’t the best and I really can’t bother myself to check it), I’m just going to put the link here in the hope that you will listen/watch anyways. It’s rather good with a few funny bits. It’s monkey business with morality. Basically something one could very easily use at a certain Olympiad.

“Premature extrapolation, aye!”

An interesting new race appeared on B5. Their distinctive characteristic is that they support the natural selection, in that they do not believe in helping the weaker species survive. After all, the weaker die and the stronger prevail. This raises the question of morality – is it right to help the needy or should we simply not care? Unfortunately, the problem was not explored in depth in B5.

To be fair, not giving a care in the world about other people (not just the inferior ones) does has its perks. For one, a person can commit fully to one’s own well-being. This means the possibility of manipulation without disruptive ethics. Note that it is merely a possibility, an opportunity, a chance to be seized if one were in that frame of mind. If one were not, the lack of caring enables a person to concentrate on one’s own personal interests for one’s own personal gain. Less time spent helping others means more time for oneself. Not to mention one never has to think about other people’s problems. And then some.

However, empathy can work in one’s best interests as well. By making and/or helping those close to us be effective and reach higher goals gives a person close connections at high and/or useful places. Not to mention a safety net if something were to go terribly wrong. Alas, if something were to go terribly wrong for someone you care for, nobody likes going down on one’s own. It’s a high risk, high reward kind of situation.

If one were to ask Kant about it, he’d say helping the weak one’s would indeed be the ‘right’ thing to do. After all, categorical imperative supports doing what one holds best to be a general rule of action. Complete denial of inferior people (subjective to each person) means potential denial of the person that starts the chain of categorical imperative. Hence it is not in the best interests of the person to create a society where he might be a victim of his own actions and views. Hence caring for inferior people means being cared for by superior people.

In conclusion, not caring for the little guy can prove to be useful at times, but as a general rule, making sure that you don’t lose anything by letting someone else rot gives better results. In this case, the means justify the ends, until a person innately starts helping the little guy, after which the ends start justifying the means. Helping others makes us better people, which is personal gain. Helping others is an action that makes us feel good. Everyone’s a hypocrite. When we do stuff for our own gain, it doesn’t even matter if its moral. It matters whether it looks moral or not. If it looks moral, it benefits us even further. If it doesn’t, it decreases our personal gain. And it definitely looks more moral to help others. By doing that we help ourselves. Donkeys.

 

“Expect me… when you see me.”

John Wood & Paul Harrison "One more kilometre" from Kulturhuset on Vimeo.

 

And a special quote from Dirk Gently: “Henry was born in 2007 and he died in 2006. He had 14 happy years in between them.”

As a note, Henry was a cat that accidentally and unintentionally took part of a time travel experiment.

“Silence will fall when the question is asked.”

I shall resume existing very soon, for now enjoy some quality swedish.

Muppets were a really hoopy crew. They taught the world the meaning of ‘running gag’, not to mention their oh-so-lovely very slightly violent humour. Nothing like anything modern. And it was fairly educational as well, where else would one learn how to cook like a Swede?

Childhood was a nice time. Can’t really think of a better time in my past. But that is kind of expected.

“I pushed my soul in a deep dark hole, and then I followed it in”

I woke up this mornin' with the sundown shinin' in,
I found my mind in a brown paper bag, but then...
I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high,
I tore my mind on a jagged sky.

Keeping my grey brain cells under incessant stress is creating new opportunities and unexpectedly good results ever so often. Doing as much as possible every single day gives one many chances to exercise the mind to the full extent. May it be not using free days, doing some trivia quizzes or trying out some chess tourneys or simply taking part in as many things one appears to be competent enough in to be able to, the end effect is the same. The brain gets tired, results skyrocket, sleep deprivation starts ruling. And then it all crashes down with elegant inevitability. And that is precisely what I am currently doing. Artificially keeping my brain on the roll so that I don’t crash and burn just yet. This means a constant feeling of a sugar rush, mental degrading, crazy improvisation everywhere and acting in an extremely peculiar manner. In a few weeks, it should be time to take some time out of our daily lives to remember this holiday that is sadly no longer remembered. The pattern is emerging.

Liemannen stjäl din själ utan skäl.

Wars have many different reasons. In the past, most wars have been all about spreading religion (the innumerable crusades) and simply wars of conquering some extra land. Lately its been more about punishing all the citizens of a country for the actions and ideas of the few. This includes communists and Muslims. Or they are used as excuses in order to strike hostile governments down and substitute them for puppet theatres. This is far from being honourable.

“People define honour as whatever makes them feel honourable. It is a circle that goes nowhere, which is, I guess, what circles do.” – House

Most wars in modern times are directed at the governments, which don’t play ball with ‘The Western Civilization’. It doesn’t even have to be the leaders of the nation. It doesn’t matter, whom the war is against, it matters who get hit by it. Let’s be honest, the collateral damage created by constant bloodshed is far from minimal. Innocent people get tortured and/or killed, their families lose everything. War is not nice, everyone can agree on that. But is it righteous to start a war with a nation because some members of the nation disagree with some members of an another nation?

I am not saying wars have no point and should never happen, I am saying that something is not quite working right. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all agreed that the natural state of things is without states and countries. Without governments controlling our moves. But as Hobbes explained, that is the situation where attacks against other people are most reasonable. Locke and Rousseau said that fights would never happen because people are good at heart. Sounds naive, and quite frankly, they were.

Governments are supposed to be by the people, for the people. They can’t really not be of the people. But every man/woman stands for his/her own good and therefore a completely greater-good-oriented government can’t exist (unless you genetically modify them in some way, as some odd book proposed, but really, that’s hogwash). In this very real and existing case no government rules only for the good of the people. And this is pretty much what democracy is – people’s power to affect governments with fear to make them obey. However, if governments were to obey the people, there would be no reason to invade foreign soil (except on some occasions after a little prep work by some publicity companies). If that were the case, there would be no wars. Well, there would be fewer wars, let’s not forget, some people like war and killing people that don’t agree with them. So I am not claiming that only governments are warmongers, that would be folly.

I’m just saying governments want wars to look good. By maintaining a constant supply of goods from distant countries, the people remain content and governments in power. And there are always excuses to keep the country safe from outside troublemakers, security is important in any culture.

“It’s not a perfect Universe.”

Babylon 5 has an interesting take on the future. Not only does the chief of security assemble a Kawasaki Ninja, but aliens also ponder about old children’s songs and yell “I’ve let the computer analyse it repeatedly, it makes no sense!”. Not to mention space station caught in a flux, causing time dilation. The usual stuff.

“It’s a Russian thing. When we are about to do something stupid, we want to catalogue the full extent of our stupidity for future reference.”

"I am not of this time. If you take me, Zarthros die. If I stay, Zarthros die. Either way, it is bad for Zarthros."

“We are the grey. We stand between darkness and the light.”

You know, I might start enjoying quoting that thing, I already know a quote I’ll bring in for the next philosophical ramble. It’s about ants and gods. And it is a good one.

 

Today I conversed with a friend of mine (let’s not name any names) about the intentional use of alternate image. By this I mean maintaining an artificial impression that everything is fine. This can be accomplished by means of purchasing a fancy vehicle when money is tight or merely concealing one’s mental breakdowns and hard times. Sure, keeping one’s private life and public life separate is surely a common sight, but the problem lies in the question whether it is a problem or not.

Quite frankly, I don’t see a problem with having a multiplicity of lives (I do not agree with the quote “Leading a second life means giving up half of your first.”, I rather prefer the quote by House: “I have a drug addiction but I do not have a problem with it.”), since it is a natural side effect of trying to accomplish something greater. Nobody is perfect, but many of us can look quite near it. And maintaining a good image is a great boost to one’s career, just look at politics and their cover-ups. It helps strive towards greater goals, it helps succeed.

However, keeping one’s personal life secret does have its drawbacks and I do have to admit that. Hiding one’s problems can easily become a huge problem for not only the person, but his close ones as well. A problem that could be avoided by not hiding it. Mounting debts, nervous breakdowns, home violence, all hidden behind a facade of merriness. Problems that perhaps should not be faced alone, but with assistance. And this is the dark side of leading a double life.

So, in conclusion, while there are good and bad sides to being a hypocrite, it is only a matter of personal opinion if the trend of everyone being a hypocrite is a problem or rather a normal state of society. As always, you are more than welcome to keep the discussion going in the comments, I am prepared to defend both sides.

Now that is a hoopy frood.

The weather is warm, it hardly ever snows now. Small flowers are blooming, blessing the countryside and little gardens with their beauty. Yes, the spring has sprung, there is no doubt about that.

It’s sad, really, having no snow for a long time. But on the other hand it is fairly nice to have more colours than merely white and yellow. A true rebirth of mottled nature.

 

I haven’t much thoughts today, but tomorrow I will surely get some. After all, people are funny and bring up various topics. Just last week I spoke with some random guy about different types of ammo (with a little sidetracking to MythBusters, for obvious reasons) for no apparent reason. But I can’t really ponder about that publicly, I would sound slightly homicidal and nobody wants that. But rest assured, I will get new topics.

 

Yesterday I spoke with a local Russian fellow, who has a competitive heart and a brain to go with it. Sure, not the cream of the crop, but good enough to be in the top brass. And we noticed how practically everyone can speak English fairly well, but have trouble with other foreign languages. Sure, it can be accounted to the whole world wide web thing being mostly in English. Quite honestly, the only non-English websites I visit regularly are a couple of blogs and a local newspaper, which I visit rarely. Frankly, I find it more useful to read that newspaper in paper form when I have time and get all the other interesting information from various other newsfeeds. The information gets filtered before it reaches me, giving me a compact, yet thorough, overview of the things that interest me, and The Daily Show gives me all the juicy bits of politics. All in English. Which reminds me, I should get back to some German newspapers or something of the like as well… oh well.

English rules our world. And quite frankly, it is not all good English. For instance, this very blog has surprisingly little English in it. Until now, the spell-checker was set to American (well, technically not, but that is a matter of semantics). I am sure you remember Henry Higgins’ comment about Americans and their language.

But for now I shall leave you with a nice song from a nice movie.

The trailer for it. Really entertaining, has Geoffrey Rush in an important role, which is always a great thing.

“Trust is a double-bladed sword.”

Note to self: forgetting painkillers when going to stress my mind is not a good idea.

 

Religion. Everyone believes in something. It can be that God exists, it can be that he doesn’t. One might believe that our actions here and now affect our future beyond death, some believe that once you die, there is nothing more. No afterlife, no rebirth. Just a consciousness floating in the void, or simply a neural web having stopped functioning. It is all a matter of perspective and nobody has definite answers. Everyone simply has to agree to disagree.

However, some religious actions and customs appear outright blasphemous or, at the very least, folly. Sacred cows, omnipotent statues, stoning as a verdict of trial, patriarchism inscribed in a holy book… Sure there are a lot weirder things out there, but these are just to name a few. A question becomes begged, if we find something awry with people’s religion, should we correct them, and if so, how, in the sense of ‘to what extent’ and really, how. After all, we know through empirical observation that God does not cause rain. When is it appropriate to point it out to someone who still believes that it rains because God is crying, or it thunders, because the mighty God has a hammer he likes. After all, even these are questions of faith and we should have no right to dictate what to believe in. You can’t dictate anyone what to believe in. But correcting them in those things, if these opinions are really caused by following a certain religion, is arguing with a religious person and telling him his religion is faulty. Sure, a faulty religion is still a religion that can be followed, but the followers quickly get a reputation of being completely nuts and bonkers. Or worse, they could simply start accusing others for insulting their belief with pagan claims. And that can’t be good, history is full of examples why religious conflicts aren’t really that gay. And I mean that word in its original meaning ‘happy, joyful, jolly’.

This is why atheists are so… cool. They don’t get offended when their religion is insulted or mocked, since they believe they believe in nothing. But they do follow the rules of the ruling culture, usually strongly affected by a certain religion or other. So they follow many religious customs for cultural reasons. But isn’t culture also a kind of religion?

We believe that what we do and how we act is the ‘right’ thing to do (except those very few rare cases of amorality, where we abuse those pesky culture-dictated rules). We believe.

A religion is not about God, not about sacrilege, not about blasphemy. A religion is about making the world a better place by acting in the welfare of the community. The reasons vary, but the result is the same. The reasons and methods may conflict, but that is simply due to global human diversity, there is nothing that can be done about that (short of mass murder, really not a pleasant thing to do). And if that aim is not the same as of the existence of culture, what else could it be?

 

“It doesn’t matter what you believe in. Just believe in something.”

Love is rich with both honey and venom

I had long forgotten how good Babylon 5 was. Until a few days ago, when I stumbled upon it once again. The many storylines that stretch through all five seasons were simply ingenious. The philosophical lessons in each episode interweaved with an interesting plots filled with Psi-Ops, different alien races, conspiracies, android thought recording devices and random wanderers. The influence to almost all sci-fi shows and movies (including but not limited to Star Trek and its offshoots, Stargate and its offshoots, V, Battlestar Galactica, not to forget Star Wreck). An incredibly rich source of inspiration.

One of the topics in Season 1 is love and its usefulness. There is a race in whose culture it is common to have arranged marriages based on the status and wealth of the partner. The marriages are arranged by the parents of both parties. So, in short, they, as a culture, value social and economic status of superior importance than love. However they do have a couple of runaways who flee their home world for the purpose of avoiding their arranged marriages and instead be with their loved one. How they know for certain that they have found their true love, is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they’re like penguins. Anyways they get caught but are set free in the end because of the race’s ambassador’s father’s words to his son (the ambassador). The ambassador, as a kid, had found his father at the end of his days, sitting alone in the dark, crying. When asked why, he replied “My shoes are too tight, but it does not matter. Because I have forgotten how to dance.”. Only when influenced by his assistant, the ambassador realizes what his father had meant. After all, he himself was currently married to three wealthy women he feared more than hell, a fairly good reason to do nearly anything to remain posted in a space station lightyears away from all of them. Since he had suppressed his love for his whole life, he had lost the ability altogether. A sad fate by human standards.

But what intrigues me is the assumption of the ability to love of all species, human and alien. Why would everyone be able to love and why would they hold it significant? The only logical explanation would be Darwin’s theories. Finding a suitable mate would require some kind of feelings or emotions in the case of an organic being. One does not simply read the gene sequence of the members of one’s own species in order to find the perfect biological match to create the ultimate descendants. But with the technology that allows hyperspace jumps and large wars between galaxies, the secret of a biological code, no matter in which form it manifests itself, should have been long unlocked. This would mean perfected partner-searching no matter what emotions or personal bonds exist. So from the evolutionary standpoint, love would have lost its importance. Then why? Why would love remain so important to all civilized species, what purpose does it serve? Sure, one could say it is because of love’s strength. After all, it have significant influence to human behavior, why should it not have the same influence to everyone else? That would beg the question why should all civilized races be human-like. It appears extremely impractical. Then again, what is love?

Perhaps it is made so that the aliens would appear more humane, hence easier to relate to. A simple way to captivate fans. No, not the kind Zach Braff screws and gets blown by.

 

“To understand the words, you should listen to the music, instead of the song.”

“What good is a Picasso if you cannot bounce it off the wall?”

Reading about feminism in a philosophical dictionary is rather intriguing. The positive examples were almost exclusively unconvincing interpretations of the concept. The negative examples were line from the Bible. After all, the woman was made from a piece of the man, not vice versa. Hence the woman was created for the man, not the other way around. This shows with elegant inevitability that man and woman are not equal according to the Bible. I won’t even go to talk about all the evil things women do in the Bible, also brought as examples. It would appear that philosophy completely disses the whole concept of gender equality. After all, one cannot take the arguments presented in the dictionary seriously. Albeit it is only one book, it is the book the local philosophers seem to respect most. But the current process of gender equality can be summarized quite neatly with one video. Sure, it is a little dated, but the attitude has remained largely similar.

The idea is great, but it is in the execution where the problem lies. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of women in executive positions and I don’t really have anything against it. After all, their innate multitasking ability is essential for modern enterprises.

However, I don’t quite understand the logic behind having special days or months to ‘celebrate’ them. Quite frankly, they remind me of Black History Month, and that doesn’t really give the right impression. But let’s be honest, even that is rather counterproductive. If you want to stop the incessant discrimination of a group or type of people, having special events that stress the difference don’t quite work for the cause. It would be wiser to stop focusing on the differences and just let society blend into a mixture. No more classifications due to events, no more discrimination by means of celebration. To cease making a difference one has to stop stressing the difference. By creating special days or months to celebrate a group of people, the ever-constant celebration of all the people who do not belong to the group emerges with elegant inevitability. If one day is Women’s Day, then therefore all the rest are Men’s? That can’t be good for equality in any shape, taste or form.

And a special thanks to the person who reminded me of the exquisite music that is Queen. Enjoy.

Meh.

“All the snakes have simply disappeared from the zoo.”
”Maybe they’re on a plane?”

 

Modern TV shows are bizarre. Sure, they have immense amounts of creativity, but they cross the line too easily. It can be a freelance killer-succubus killing molemen in Lost Girl, dwarves hatching from eggs and romancing pixie apprentices in Once Upon A Time or humping vampire doppelgangers in Vampire Diaries, undoubtedly there is something unusual going on. And yes, these are rather arbitrary examples and I neither confirm nor deny ever having watched those. Except the last one, . Sure, fantasy has always been popular, one merely has to remember Angel or Buffy. But even they had a source they respected and held on to. If there were deviations from the source material, hence acting against common knowledge and logic, it would complement the story without stepping too far. After all, Red Riding Hood wasn’t a werewolf until a couple of weeks ago.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Creativity is scarce these days, it appears that everything has been done before. It is the age of remakes, even TMNT got a reboot as alien turtles, not to mention a new MIB. Drug-ridden fantasy merely brings a little fresh spice into the mix. In the words of a Woodpecker ad: “What a refreshing change.”.

But all is not as rosy as it looks from behind the bush, the new stories keep falling into the same hole as that vampire-with-a-proneness-for-disco-ball-similarity-story. Sure, it has flash, but lacks essence. There isn’t a real story behind it all. Though let’s be honest, even Sanctuary had a lot more plot than most other modern shows, no matter how much it lacked logic or science. But it did have a whole world of international politics, public relations and semidemocratic leadership of a large organization ever-constantly trying to hide from the public view. It wasn’t simple, it was interesting.

 

Also, from ‘How to write as a scientist’ via io9

3. Some journals, such as Science, officially eschew the passive voice. Others print only the passive voice. So find a healthy compromise by writing in semi-passive voice.

ACTIVE VOICE: We did this experiment.
PASSIVE VOICE: This experiment was done by us.
SEMI-PASSIVE VOICE: Done by us, this experiment was.

My Heart Is An Apple

Since this ‘video’ has a very constant image, I thought it might be nicer if it was in the beginning, instead of at the end. This way you can listen while you read and close the tab/window after reading, instead of keeping it open to keep listening to some sweet tunes.

I see that I have missed my usual maximal pause for blog posts but it has a reason. I was lately informed that the week was about to end so I decided to get ALL the intended work of the week done, hence I stopped thinking normally and was unable to post anything. But here’s where anyone can really help – muses can be found everywhere. Only the main muse remains. The side muses change from time to time, share their involuntary and accidental titles unbeknownst to them.

All through this week, however, I’ve got to catch up on my philosophy. They have some really good theories that most people take for granted, such as determinism. It is common knowledge that if one were to know the position of every single particle in the whole wide Universe, that one could tell the future. After all, everything that happens is a simple linear system of cause and effect. As the causes differ, so do the outcomes. A priori and a posteriori. Sure, some may say that induction is impossible, but that is like saying mathematics is simply a theory that may be true or false and until further proof shouldn’t be taught in schools. Alas, philosophers tend to (as not philosophers never really agree with each other’s theories unless they are compatible with their own) believe that the science behind quantum physics is merely an abstract theory and the results of it can be interpreted in too many different ways for it to be compatible with determinism. Just because philosophers claim that quantum events cannot be calculated (as of yet, and hence, for some odd reason, ever), the theory of determinism is hogwash.

But credit to where credit is due, philosophers do realize that whatever they do or say, has to somehow get along with actual science. They admit that there is a logical explanation to everything, after all, that is what makes them taken more seriously than people speaking of religion and God. Oh, wait, they speak about him as well. I guess a broader audience never hurts. That is kind of the charm of philosophy – it can be applied whenever, wherever. And it is infinitely quotable, which never hurts. Just look at Firefly, if you have any doubts.

“If we weren’t all crazy, we would all go insane.”- Jimmy Buffett

Stats, not much else.

Finally, Part One of the story is complete. This acted as a kind of an introduction. The band of main characters is now set, as is their aim and a couple of their motivations. Each of the characters will be explored in more depth as the story develops into chaos and right back out of it. But the mood is set, the action is ready and the tale can start taking form. If you missed anything, just look on the right side of this page and you’ll find it.

On the statistics side (I tend to add up some numbers every time I finish a chapter), I can say that for now, the total number of words for this minor piece of the story is 8114 and the average number of words is 676 words per chapter, the shortest being the introduction with merely 178 words, meaning that the average word count per actual chapter (excluding the introduction) is 721. Act One was finished in three weeks with 3948 words (up to Chapter VI, included) written in the first week, the second week getting only one chapter and all the rest getting finished up during this week. Surprisingly, the last week has boosted the average word count considerably.

But, as you know, statistics is like a mini skirt. Promises a lot but doesn’t really show anything. And no, it is not my original thought.

 

On the lighter side of things, I’ll leave you with something nice about something that still remains a problem. Well, the second half of it is very current. Still, a worthwhile watch.

May the odds… you know, that.

Procrastination is a funny little thing. Well, it is an action, but let’s ignore that. I know the facts don’t cease to exist because I choose to ignore them, but this time it doesn’t really matter that much whether or not I use the factual term or something similar-but-not-quite-it. Let’s simplify.

It is something that allows a person to pile up projects and duties to ignore other important things until their due time. Sometimes even all the way past that. Sure, something gets done, but that something is not the something one is supposed to get done. It is a something that doesn’t generally matter in one’s life anyhow. At the very least, not visibly in the foreseeable future. Though let’s be honest, procrastination in the form of Master of Orion II when one is young, expands the person’s vocabulary by a surprisingly large amount. Where else would one encounter the words ‘amiable’ or ‘omniscient’ in proper, yet entertaining, context? But at the time of procrastination one doesn’t really pay all that much attention to these perks. And daydreaming, I read, is good for a person’s working memory. Seems like procrastination is one turnip of a thing.

Ah, but the important things remain important and they do not get the attention they need, one might say. One might say so, indeed. Alas, they do get done if they are important. And they get done a lot faster because of the rush. Sure, the result might not be as shiny, but that is not the aim. After all, some things (for example, a philosophical essay) are better worked on, when one is tired (for example, only after 1am). Sleep-deprivation boosts creativity because one loses the ability to think straight. And a tired mind is still motivated to make a strong attempt at thinking straight for a couple of moments in order to finish up something logical, it’s something like getting a temporary boost, after which the withdrawal gets really bad. Henceforth, the result is a combination of braindead creativity and supercharged logic. A perfect harmony!

However, I would not suggest using the procrastination method too much, it could be detrimental to your mental health during daytime. We wouldn’t want that, right?

Just something to laugh at.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

In reality, this works both ways. People fear that governments use their power not in people’s best interests. Governments fear that people will stop supporting them, thus ceasing their status of being governments. This gives people motivation to keep a keen eye on governments’ actions. Suitably enough, governments have motivation to make sure that what catches the people’s eyes is something not too shady. Yet without sometimes doing things that people might not look very happy upon, nothing would ever get done.

This is why doing public things that the public might frown upon have to be timed appropriately. For example, the little piece of legislation Mr. Obama signed that allows indefinite detaining of basically anyone who can be, in any way, connected to some kind of terrorism did not receive almost any public attention. Why? Because it was signed on December 31st. But New Year’s Eve does not come along more often than once a year. What else could be used?

Using publicity companies to change the public opinion about certain events or actions is an option, explained a little more in a previous post some time ago. Using publicity stunts is another. I for one would not be completely surprised if the KONY campaign was merely a smokescreen to hide something less obvious. There has to be a reason why the campaign is so… full of holes. And diversions are the simplest techniques in the book. Just like divide et impera. Fine, I will grant that simplex sigillum veri and that I have a weird penance upholding for using excessive use of Latin, but that is not the point. When it comes to politics, nothing is ever simple. If you have any doubts, watch Yes, (Prime) Minister. If you don’t, watch it anyways.

Half of writing history is covering up the truth.

Let’s jest, let’s not.

The trend nowadays appears to have takes the direction of making things more ‘user friendly’ by making important stuff hidden, customizability a mere dream and beauty an impossibility. To support this claim I shall bring examples and explanations.

Blogs. You may think they look okay, You might even fancy their simple structure. You are gravely mistaken. Take a screen with a diagonal larger than 7 inches. Then maximize the browser and take a look at it. Hideous, is it not? The large edges on the sides that serve no purpose, the narrow line of text in the middle. If you’re using a tablet, it looks good. If you’re using anything better, it looks like a 5-year-old created the design template. User-friendly, hah! A joke is what it is.

Linux. The process, which was started by Apple, has hit it, and hit it hard. Customizability has been hidden under layers of riddles. Just try to move stuff from one toolbar to the other in order to reach a reasonable state in Ubuntu. A nightmare. Try a lesser-known Linux? Compatibility issues and still no customizability. Perhaps Fedora can help, RedHat used to be a really sweet thing. But don’t even hope that Windows hasn’t been affected. Simply watch this self-explanatory video about the ‘future of user interfaces’. It’s depressing.

Frankly from what I could see on that screen, I could not figure it out. I, personally, haven’t tried Win8 out myself, but I hate that Metro interface already. It is ugly. And useless. Unless you are on a teeny-weeny tablet thingy.

Internet Explorer. It was nice up to 9. In terms of the looks of it, at the very least. Usability has gone up remarkably but why in the world would they throw the RSS-feed list to pin it on the other side without warning or a chance to undo the change? Firefox’s feed system is a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in warm, fuzzy foxes. And oh, the horror one sees when one uses them! They look more like Chrome clones with every larger update. Why that beast is so popular, beats me. It forces people to switch to Opera or SeaMonkey (a surprisingly awesome browser IMHO). It spreads the ugliness.

Android. While I will have to grant that it is the most user-friendly mobile OS currently on the market (iOS is a hopeless case, Windows Phone has annoying connectivity problems such as the inability to use WPA2 encryption or connect to the Internet via a computer-generated link), it does have its fair share of problems. The UI is a clone of SPB, a neat little thingy that sucked the battery life out of Windows Mobile, which doesn’t really make me feel like I’m handling anything new, anything innovative. Rather just a poorly developed copy of something better. Managing the settings is merely an another continuing nightmare…

There you have it, some examples of what has been happening to UIs everywhere to diminish any hope of a good UX. And it appears most of it started with Apple’s grand design that everybody just needed to copy. For shame!

“Pathetic Earthlings. […] If you had any idea what was really going on in the Universe you would have hidden from it.”

Right. Back to being impersonal.

You may have noticed that I avoid speaking of ethics and morality. This is largely because of their relativity. The social contract seems to dictate many rules of ethical behavior, however since I appear not to be quite up to date with the contents of the contract, I am not able to think like others, and therefore cannot judge like others. I believe in the reasonable transaction. Objective, cold, calculated assessments.

I cannot think ‘how much is the life of one man worth’.

However, the right to hurt a third person for the good of a first and a second intrigues me. And the morality of that can only be explored through trial and error. After that, it’s time to look at the bigger picture and expand the experiment. What is the price of living?

After all, the price of death is nothing. After death it doesn’t really matter. After one dies, the world of the living offers him/her no interest. Not a care in the world. Makes it a fine option. No consequences, no choices. No responsibility. The price of living is a lot higher. Sure, one can simply glide through life, but is that living? Biologists would say yes, philosophers no.

“I think it is better, not to die. Don’t you think so?” – Sonny

I believe so, too. It seems just so weak to give up and just die. Although I hope death is more enjoyable, after all, it is going to last for a while. But it is the life that we remember. It is the life we get to live. So let’s take the most of it until our untimely demise. We make our own futures.

 

I may sound depressive but I assure you, I am not.

 

“How much is the life of one man worth? Millions more?

If you wouldn’t fall on your sword for this, what then?” – from The Hire

But what of the man?

Mock exams are curious things. The sound serious. People think they are serious. People take them as challenges. Teachers set them up as challenges. They are considered to be as tough and important as exams. They ignore the ‘mock’ in ‘mock exam’.

When it is a mock exam, one simply cannot and should not take it seriously. The results have no significance. One can learn very little from them. They just… are. They just linger there. And do nothing. Don’t matter at all. They simply sit there and wait. In the corner. And yet most people care.

This makes people nervous. It becomes a matter of success or failure. And there is a high standard to success. Alas, being nervous makes it even more difficult to succeed. This I see as counterproductive.

Not caring an eggplant about it appears to be more efficient. Loses the tension, the nervousness. Causes serene calmness. This, in turn, helps creativity fly and thoughts whiz through in a straight line.

Hence I find it better not to care. It gives a better viewpoint for whatever you’re doing. And success is imminent.

 

And before you ask, the storyblog (look at the top-right corner below the blue belt, above the followers) will continue very soon. The story is a decent one and cannot be rushed. And I assure you, I know what it is.

Philosophical ramblings

The following is a philosophical essay (1658 words, so no worries if you think tl;dr) on the topic “If beauty is in the beholders eyes, there isn’t anything that could not be beautiful”. It was credited as being one of the top ten essays in the whole country written for a small competition (Olympiad), so perhaps it is worth a read. It is not the original, however it is the translated version of the original. Some words didn’t translate well.
About the existence of universal beauty

There are many ways to define beauty. Biologists might explain it as a result of hormonal activity, musicians call it harmony, mathematicians find anything working beautiful, and physicists measure it by its practical value. The most characteristic part of beauty remains undoubtedly its subjectiveness – nobody can ever dictate to anyone else, what to call beautiful, what not to. Whether an object is beautiful or not, is always subject to argument. But from what point can we truly call something definitely beautiful? And if that is not possible, is anything that cannot be in any way considered beautiful a possibility? To answer these questions, one must observe theories disserting the eternal and ever-constant existence of beauty and draw conclusions from them.

Proof 1

By focusing on synthetical or man-made beauty we find the theories of John Keats and Denis Dutton. Keats claimed in the beginning of the 19^th century that beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Since the truth can sometimes hurt, one might think that there is an obvious inconsistency in the theory – how could something we call perfect and positive possibly be painful? We have heard of artists, who had to suffer to create beauty, writers, that suffered during their creative processes, scientists, who, in their search for truth, had to endure various tortures. But we hold the fruits of their labor beautiful and hardly painful. However, as modern art has repeatedly proven, pain is considered a beautiful form of art even nowadays. If there are any doubts, one need only visit the third floor of KUMU.

It cannot go unnoticed that Keats does not mention the beauty of a lie, although that is exactly what is most common to us. One needs only listen to a politician to discover the immense beauty of lies. Then again, when we, the people, find out we have been fooled, the act of lying loses its charm.This effectively proves that every truth is not beautiful. Keats’s theory holds only until politics enters the picture. This can be illustrated by a quote by Alan Moore: “Artists use lies to tell the truth. Politicians use lies to cover the truth up.”

The late professor of philosophy Denis Dutton believed in what he called a Darwinian theory of beauty – that the sense of beauty per se has developed in accordance with the laws of evolution. To prove his theory he brought examples through eons of history, which allegedly contributed to the evolution of man and society. His examples ranged from the impractically numerous tear-shaped stones of homo habilis to modern standards of beauty. He claimed that art and the sense of beauty are merely side effects that assist the process of evolution, mostly with the aim of finding the perfect life partner. An exquisite handiwork gives an impression of powerful potential to members of the opposite sex. Unfortunately history is full of artists and philosophers who were never given credit for their work in their lifetime. Does that mean they lived too soon in terms of evolution? If they had lived later, would credit have been directed where credit was due? Or perhaps their work is considered beautiful because it is old? If this is the case, the Darwinian theory still stands as evolution is also catalyzed by beauty that shows us the past. This means art is discovering ourselves – through art we see our past, present, and future. And as Socrates so wisely put: “I know that I know nothing.” – something new is always discoverable, therefore beauty can be found in everything. Thus, through focusing on syntetic beauty we can clam definitely that there is relative beauty in every object, action and phenomenon.

It would also appear that Dutton’s proposed theory holds true in terms of natural beauty as well. It is the general consensus, that a small lake in a green mountainous valley or in the middle of a plain, surrounded by woods, is a “beautiful” landscape. A barren tundra has a rather negative effect. This means that we sense a potentially fertile land beautiful. We may not be aware of it consciously, but there is something inside every one of us, something that has been in every human being for many generations, something that guides us towards land on which our species could survive and thrive. Since every member of every species comprehends innately, where it has the largest probability of surviving, one can conclude that every being has an innate sense of beauty. And since every environment is suitable for some type of organisms, must every environment be beautiful to someone. Most environments are only partially suitable for thriving, which makes them only relatively beautiful. Hence, beauty is an essential part of evolution. Everything is of use to someone, therefore everything has beauty. In general, one might say that due to an almost infinite amount of beings existing presently, there has to be a practically infinite amount of opinions on objects’ beauty. Thus using the theory of probability, it is set that everything is beautiful as long as someone is concerned.

Proof 2

Beauty can also be defined as achieving potential. Since evolution is a process chasing perfection, this definition must, by default, apply to the Darwinian theory of beauty as well. An absolutely beautiful object that cannot become any more beautiful, hence it has achieved its ultimate potential. This ‘thing’ could be God, the perfect being according to Anselm of Canterbury. The God in his approach has allegedly created the world and everything within. It is also common knowledge that evil begets evil and goodness good. Beauty, evil and good have always been part of the natural order of things – for there to be evil, there must also be good; for there to be beauty, there has to be ugliness. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that beauty also is created from pre-existing beauty. It should also be made clear that the lack of beauty is not automatically ugliness – a compromise between the two always exists. This concludes that everything created by God’s beauty has to have some measure of beauty in themselves and that beauty can be considered as a measure to potential, as defined by Aristotle. Because everything has beauty, it must be possible to find beauty in everything. The possibility of finding beauty in turn defines the existence of beauty.

Proof 3

When pondering about beauty, one cannot avoid the problem of the absolute lack of beauty. If we are to say that there exists something that is not beautiful, something absolutely beautiful has to exist. The aforementioned absolutely beautiful being would be God. In that case the object that is not beautiful would have to be a complete opposite of God. However, this kind of being is not mentioned in the Bible, by which God is perfect – Lucifer is merely a fallen angel, previously under God’s command, henceforth definitely not up to par with God. In this case God cannot be defined as the absolutely beautiful being, as it has no yang to its ying. Therefore this argument must be devoid of matters of faith, in order to avoid conflicts with the basic principles of faith itself. From an empirical point of view, one has to admit that up to now no observation has found proof of either extreme of beauty. Brute logic supports the nonexistence of the absolute lack of beauty – since it is, in and of itself, a relative and subjective concept due to its many definitions, which, as a matter of fact, usually happen to define it as such, it must be undoubtedly be concluded that absolute, uncontestable and definable extremes of beauty cannot possibly exist. Next I shall bring two examples of the search for the lack of beauty, which support this claim.

The most famous seeker of beautilessness is Douglas Adams, whose poetry is thought to be beautiful simply because it is not. It is something different from anything ordinary, it is something one of a kind. People in general prefer to stand out from the crowd, to show their individuality. And exactly that is the beauty of ugly poetry – innovation and rebelry. But this is by far not the only time someone has made an attempt to create something truly not beautiful.

Scott Rickard, a professor at Dublin University, attempted to find a piece of music, which would not be considered in any way beautiful. In music, beauty is hidden in patterns and repetition. Indeed, Beethoven used one and the same motif hundreds of times within a single masterpiece. Rickard therefore concluded that he must construct a piece of music that lacks any kind of repetition at all. The result of his long and enduring research was a single composition, which premiered in September, 2011. However, in order to create this horrific music, he had to use beautiful mathematics – avoiding repetition was only possible thanks to an algorithm that hinged on base numbers. Thus, even in the pursuit for beautilessness we inevitably find beauty. One might even say that the search for it is beautiful and the result of it has to be beauty because of it.

Conclusion

The nonexistence of things without beauty is supported by three separate proofs, each with a different approach – everything has beauty from the evolutionary and potential perspectives and it can even be proven through a conflicting claim. At the same time, the proofs looked at three different definitions of beauty: beauty as a catalyst of evolution, as a measure of potential, and as an arbitrary characteristic. One must inevitably conclude that beauty is everywhere in everyone and everything. Since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, it depends on the existence of an original beholder. However, in the absence of an observer one can claim that beauty is everywhere as nobody could possibly disagree. Thus, beauty exists barely because life exists and will last long after life has perished. Pulchritudo longa, vita brevis est.

Bridging the gap

Well hell yes. Why not get four tiny notebooks for free this year?

Today I found the problem with learning too much of the same game. In this particular case, it was bridge, the fun strategic thinking card game for four players. Some people use a bidding system to get the ‘perfect game’ of every hand. I find that absolutely dull.

Playing a strategy game takes skill, improvisation, logic. It requires thinking. Learning a system to play bridge as well as possible loses the element of thinking. It’s playing from memory – every single bid, every single move is memorized. It’s like playing as a computer with every single possible move preanalyzed to choose the very best solution in every situation. There is very little actual thought involved in running predetermined algorithms.

Perfection bores me. There is no evolving once it is reached. And no room for error means very expectable behavior. Makes you vulnerable. And extremely dull. If everyone know what you do, why you do and how you do, there are no surprises. Nothing less is really expected.

Striving for perfection is only good if one never reaches it.

And this is why I hate systems that use algorithms that eliminate human error. They are no fun.

Even random actions are better. Why not just make a shot in the dark and hope you hit? Makes life a lot more interesting.

 

Also, within the next few weeks I will try to translate my philosophical essay into English. I sure hope it will sound better that way. Though I’ll be honest, I wrote it only after 1 am, so it may come across more than a little braindead. But that’s how the cookie crumbles.

It must be election season

I don’t understand the commotion around this Kony person. There appears to be a group called Invisible Children who are very blood-thirsty for this guy for no clear, apparent reason. And quite frankly, for an organization from Uganda, they seem to be ridiculously well-funded. This reminds me of an article I read recently but which I cannot locate. It was in an Estonian paper so if someone can find it on the web, please to share the link in a comment.

The article spoke about how a company, funded by the government of the U.S. used various public media methods to grow Americans’ hate towards a certain member of the bin Laden family. They used a corporation with the word ‘Congress’ in the name to implicate a status of official authority, got a basically random little girl (who happened to be the daughter of a person involved with the fabrications) to state horrible things that had happened due to this bin Laden character. The video, showing the claims and tears of the young girl moved American hearts and got their blood pumping. They succeeded in getting public support for a massacre, for an invasion of an independent country. And that the U.S. did – used the actions of a small group as an excuse to swap out the whole government of that independent state, kill thousands of civilians, massacre Al Qaeda and then turned their attention to Taliban, a peaceful group, whose only blame was their culture and faith.

That time the people fell for it. They cheered for it. Most of them were exuberant once they heard that boogey man was killed. One company orchestrated the hatred of many nations against a single person and his affiliates. But the company people talked. People heard. But only a handful of them learned from it. Warmongering is an art, an art the U.S. happen to be extremely adept at. And Americans fall for it. And they are not the only ones. It is a kind of a domino effect – when Americans fall for it, larger European nations follow (the ones who get the news first). After that, smaller nations start hungering blood. Then the whole world starts begging for war. A small incident, the tiniest of sparks, can light the powderkeg. And the U.S. gains control of yet another country, which incidentally happens to be somewhat rich in some resource the U.S. needs or wants very fiercely, such as oil. What a lucky coincidence!

And now it is happening yet again. Americans, as oblivious as always, go straight for the bait. Some protest, some try to enlighten people, but their voices go unheard. Who cares that Uganda is a country most people can’t place on a world map, who cares that there are far worse people out there, who cares Kony has been at it for many years without anyone protesting? Some little children are hurting! We simply must invade the oil-rich jungle, no matter at what cost!

This is, quite frankly, utter tomfoolery! Fine, although there are people in far worse circumstances, there are people suffering in Uganda as well. Why should we care?  Are we caring about that suddenly? We haven’t given a flying crammed sandwich about any African countries doing their own fighting and trying to establish a strong powerbase for a stable government. Until now that the U.S. has sent in some forces, established a groundhold for any strikes and funded the local ‘friendly’ guerilla fighters and governments with plenty. Now we should care? That sounds awfully hypocritical.

Another thing I don’t quite comprehend is that people want *WAR* to fix the situation. An armed intervention. I thought it was general consensus that wars were bad… Did we forget about that? Now it appears that killing people for a good purpose is not only good, it is considered to be heroic. Ending countless lives, including the lives of local civilians, has suddenly become an ideal. I’m sorry but this sounds terribly like a dystopian novel where every war is good, every enemy, as weak as possible, but always a threat to the ‘civilized world’. And every single soldier a hero to be admired and remembered. By supporting killing this Kony person, one propagates murder of hundreds and thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. People who, even in their current state, would otherwise have a chance to live. Sure, killing kids is bad, but is stopping that (note that kids will always be killed be someone somewhere, it is inevitable) worth killing hundredsfold more civilians? Sounds like a good deal if you wanted to hold back overpopulation…

I will not even go into the name of the campaign, ‘KONY 2012’. While I admit, after seeing all those ‘ROMNEY 2012’, ‘OBAMA 2012’ and ‘GINGRICH 2012’ ads, a fourth name in the race is a refreshing chance (Unfortunately Ron Paul appears to remain the the background).

In conclusion, I’d say the world has become one wacky place. Murder is bad, massacre is good. Terrorism (a term often used to signify acts of war by the ‘evil’ side) is bad, war against any foreigners is good. Basically killing in one’s home country is devilishly feared, killing anywhere else is like a gift from God and thus should be done without mercy. I guess Stalin’s quote rings true.

“One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic.”

 

I find it ironic that the quote best describing the actions of the U.S. is from the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Americans have never been honest about themselves.

A random penny for a random thought.

Concentration is a funny thing. If it wants, it comes without asking. If it doesn’t, you’re left with a loose screw. Sure, there are a few methods of inviting concentration over, but they are not always successful and, as such, can never be depended on. Some people need sleep, some time, some work better tired. I prefer music to get my game on.
I, personally, haven’t found anything more effective than listening to some doomsday-related songs in the morning if I know I have to concentrate on something important during the day. It always helps to listen to something really good in the evening before going to sleep, so that the stuff that invade your sleep will, at the very least, have some enjoyable music.
Naturally, concentration needs more than music. It needs rest. Multitasking is a wondrous way to do it. One could, perhaps try writing 1200 words in one night while keeping up with the newsfeeds, watching something like The Daily Show and talking to people. The concentration gets shared and nothing will grab it. It will be free and allowed to rest.
By this point, I am sure I have made some statements that most people disagree with. But it’s okay, I have been sleep-deprived for most of the week, encountered an illness and done exactly that multitasking in the evening before a larger-than-average competition. Hence, my frontal cortex may be acting a little out of whack. Crikey.
But my point stands. It is rather annoying to get concentration to stick with you, to make it work like you want it to. It likes to seek out its own path, it doesn’t want to be ruled by someone. It is a wild animal. A real beast.

On another note, IE did something nice and colorful again, which is always a hoot and doesn’t get us all killed.

While these Estonians had a great idea, the practical output probably isn’t quite up to their hopes. The quirky accents and the odd dialogue are merely a couple of the problems. Although it does get the point across because of its repetition.

EDIT: the large gap before the TED video is due to bad code. Not my fault, it uses a strange method of doing things.

First world problems?

Now that I have had some experience writing a story (not that I have never written a story before, but I have never committed to a story as such), I have encountered some problems.

Firstly, killing off the protagonist doesn’t really make much sense. I mean, if he already exists and plays the main role in the beginning, one can’t simply make him dead and start explaining what happened through an another character, changing him into the new main character. While, granted, it is possible, it is definitely not practical. I feel that the protagonist as such should be defined, opened up, before his untimely demise. A sudden death would keep his story per se unfinished. It also raises the challenge of avoiding repetition once a new protagonist has been declared. It is so easy to keep ‘flaming’ that chicken. (bad reference to FOX News)

Secondly, in real life there is a lot of action going on ‘off screen’, so to say. In a story where a main character is the center of the story, explaining things that happen regardless of his actions, during the events he witnesses and becomes part of, becomes a huge challenge. Too much information about backstage action and the reader figures everything out chapters ahead of the main character. Not to mention describing a false interpretation made by the protagonist becomes an impracticable goal and merely describing how the main character find out about the previously mentioned hidden action becomes an annoyance to the author and reader alike. And the other side, too little information, brings up too little explanation of what is going on and why. It takes an another viewpoint to explain why some character is insignificant or why he has the power to hit the whole plot onto a new track. Sure, one method would be telling the story after the important action is already done with. This would lead to either a huge dialogue where people say unrealistically much or an obscenely long narration, the lack of tempo and tension thereof killing much of the mood the author has attempted to create using the aforementioned events.

I do like how authors such as Simon Conway (“A loyal spy”) and Neal Stephenson (“Snow crash”) use switching protagonists as a way of telling a grander story. Stephenson’s “Cryptonomicon” goes through the life of two generations of protagonist groups, not to mention including a third generation of significant characters between the ‘more significant’ generations that link the whole story together, forming a genius plot. Alas, this method requires the author to see the whole story before beginning to write it, to have the ability to plan ahead every action hundreds of pages in advance. And then to be able to remember it all… I mean, one could try to write it all down, and that is what one does, it takes a long time to write the whole thing down. And even when all that is successfully completed, the author then has to find mistakes and details he feels do not belong in the story  or do not fit in quite as he’d like. Little lines that have to be trimmed to perfection. One doesn’t simply become an exceptional author, one is born to be one.

 

“If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, what is it? What is it? That’s right, it’s a duck! But this duck is a nuclear duck!” – Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu

“It’s like power rangers… on drugs.”

Language is a funny thing. Some languages lack sex, some have no future to speak about. And even when there is so little to mess up with, people make mistakes with the simplest things in their mother tongue. While I admit, nobody can speak a language perfectly, and small rare mistakes annoy me very little, I do find often-occurring mistakes rather appalling. A rather obvious example would be American. They call it English but it’s simply not. I do grant that there are some Americans who speak good English.

“You speak very good English for a French girl.”

“Thank you, you speak very good English for an American.”

But one thing cheers me up: Danger 5 is back!

It is rather impossible to find anything more random.

“I find it comic. […] It is run by men, after all.”

Today I heard a lecture about women’s history in America. The lecturer mentioned that a good ‘real’ feministic independent figure in popular culture is Buffy the vampire slayer. However, I don’t quite understand that, because if I remember correctly, then her counterpart was Angel. Sure, they weren’t in the same show in the beginning, but Angel was another one of Joss Whedon’s creations and in the end Buffy had to submit to him. She became a second place player in the show for quite a while. All the while the male character took the stage. I don’t quite see that any better than the lecturer’s counterexample about women who have power but have to answer to men, take Charlie’s Angels for instance.

This got me thinking about two things. Firstly, are there any ‘good’ feministic examples is popular culture, and secondly, how Joss Whedon has built up his shows. I’ll start with the latter, rather than the former.

It would seem that Whedonverse in general has strong female characters. Zoe and River in Firefly, Echo and Adelle in Dollhouse, to name a few. These characters have power, skills, and a will to use them. However each one of them has a male person who they rely on or from who they take their orders. Zoe and River take their orders from Malcolm Reynolds, the captain. Zoe relies on Wash, the husband, and River on Simon, the brother who saved her. Echo was a weaker character than Paul Ballard, the guy who was trying to find her and uncover the corporation. Adelle was used as a knight (a pawn would be too small a role, bishop and rook too great) by Boyd, the mastermind man behind it all. Not to mention Sierra, who became very dependent on Victor in the course of the short-lived series. And the shows were extremely popular with men and women alike, largely because of strong female characters. However, the strongest characters are always men. It would appear that those are the ideals nowadays. Strong but controlled.

Yet I do agree with the statement that it is nearly impossible to find a strong independent, yet realistic, female character. In a way, I’d consider Electra King as a strong character, but even she was forced to use her feminine wiles and she failed. Eventually she was simply shot. The female detective in Closer has practically no depth to her character. She is quite simply a ‘suit’. Fiona in Burn Notice does everything for the protagonist. Every woman in Bones had a man they had to rely on. To be fair, I’ll even include Bella, the typical teenage girl with a typical choice between zoophilia and necrophilia, has to, well, choose between two freaks of nature because she can’t handle life on her own. Katniss Everdeen relied firstly on Gale, then Haymitch, then Peeta, not to mention Lenny Kravitz. So quite frankly, I can’t think of a strong independent female character. Strong characters are easy to come by, but independence appears to be something out of science fiction, and it doesn’t even exist there!

“The reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.”

Concerning a recent comment-conversation after the post ‘To Err is human’, I have decided to write about education, as I wrote last time as well. A coincidence, perhaps?
The problem with present day education is, put quite simply, cramming. Most small tests can be passed successfully with no effort, larger tests require learning things by heart. In a typical school, this is pretty much the only way to actually learn anything – the amount of information processed in lessons is only a small fraction of what should be processed according to the standards. This means loads of homework and independent learning. This, in practice, leads to lots of theoretical knowledge and barely any practical output. One might know everything about the life of Socrates or how to use determinants, but one usually has no use of it. While it is true that there is no knowledge that is not power, it is not easy to make the transition. It takes methodical, practical thinking to use the knowledge to have power. And this is something rarely taught. There are almost no lessons in which pupils or students have to think for themselves. This I see as a problem.
Of what use is a population full on know-it-all smart-asses who are unable to comprehend the basic logic behind society, economy, science, even privacy?
At this point of the story along comes a spider. “In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” It would appear that modern day education establishments aim to grow people to be obedient. A foolish crowd does not know which questions are to be asked, what morals have to be questioned, which claims to be doubted. Such a crowd is easy to govern for a person who understands the logic behind basic human instincts, wants and fears. This kind of a person could easily gather a following, topple the government, start a dictatorship and be a sad little king of a sad little hill. Or he could aim for world paranoia, then start a cult… well basically anything cult-ish would be a possibility. This is off the point I was trying to make but this is unfortunately a real possibility.
What I *was* trying to illustrate is that people who are not used to having to think for themselves, to fend for themselves, to fight for their rights, won’t. And thanks to our politicians being too rash or perhaps not at all that bright as they seem, we find reasons to fight. They may have already tapped into most unsecure phones, they may be able to read every single bit of information we store in our digital devices or the Internet. But for now, they can’t do it publicly, not without having to bring up excuses saying it is for the ‘greater good’. And it is up to education to make sure this is never going to be taken as the simple truth. It is one thing to teach knowledge, it is another to teach wisdom.


EDIT: forgot to mention my little side-project.

“If you’d kept you mouth shut, we’d have though you were clever.”

I wait for March 15th. After that I can tell you why something some people think is bad is actually good.

 

However I will make an attempt to keep up some cooked-up idea sourced from a comment on my style of writing. I wonder how easy it is to find. I will most probably reference it somewhere down here at some point when I have developed it enough to be something read worthy.

Due to this, my current post will be cut short. I am thinking of making a longer one in the near future about education or something on the lines of that. Might be, might not be. For now, however I will get to work on writing something I’ve desperately tried to remember for the last two days. Not to mention marking down all the stuff I cannot write as of yet due to missing links. I only wish that my imagination worked in a straight line for once…