Ah, morality, you sweet little minx.

After pondering about ethics, it is nearly impossible to avoid concluding the uselessness and irrationality thereof. After all, the rules of morality don’t give us definite answer for every single action. Case in point, human cloning. Extremely practical in that science needs experiments and research subject. It could help solve genetic mysteries and create cures for syndromes cause by genetic defects. It could help create people with enhanced senses or abilities, once we know what each gene does. It is like copying a piece of program code for personal use and then fiddling with it to see how exactly it is supposed to work. After all, that is what we are, mere organic computers. And yet there are some pesky ‘pro-human’ activists that claim that human cloning and human experimentation are immoral, even if done to benefit the society more than just marginally. Researching the inner workings of DNA-strands is in accordance with categorical imperative, the Golden Rule and utilitarian views – after all, it benefits a lot more people than it harms, it can be considered a rule – everyone who is able should try to find out more about the fundamental workings of organisms such as humans, and I, personally, would like to be cloned if that means getting a chance at using that clone for my and/or others’ benefit. After all, cloning is pretty much harmless to the original organism. Low risk, high reward, small chances. As always, “There is no certainty, only opportunity.” Hence I do not understand the immorality of helping mankind, me included.

Overpopulation is another matter, though even mass murder can be explain morally. The lack of mass murder means the problem becomes bigger, thus causing a decline of living conditions for a huge amount of people (not everyone can be fed or housed, for instance). It could also ultimately lead to the demise of the human race as a whole, or at the very least, reboot the system quite thoroughly. In any case, it will get a lot worse before it can get any better. Mass murder, on the other hand, vacates room and resources to supply the ones still living. I am not talking about killing everyone, just enough to keep overpopulation under control – the fewer dead, the more often it has to be done. This way a large majority of human population benefit from the action while a minority lies down and dies. After death, they probably don’t really care about it anyways. It is also in accordance with the aforementioned categorical imperative as by causing mass murder, it is, in essence, trimming the fat of the human race. Anything that bulges over the edge, or the population limit, gets rid of, abolished, removed, expunged, eliminated, eradicated, exterminated! And keeping overpopulation under strict control can be willed to become a rule. And yet there are pesky ‘pro-human’ activists that claim mass murder is immoral, even if done to benefit the human society as a whole more than a little more than merely marginally.

A third example is the case of drug addicts being paid for not reproducing. It is yet another case of trimming the fat of humankind. The fewer people reproduce, the less the problem of overpopulation grows. Not to mention that this way the children of drug addicts will not become a nuisance for the society. Completely moral in the big picture. And yet there are… you know the drill.

For some reason we ‘know’ that human cloning is immoral, we ‘know’ mass murder is immoral, we ‘know’ that paying drug addicts for basically no work is immoral. But it cannot really be competently explained. Hence morality is an irrational beast that has arbitrary value. It is something we heed, although it is very often illogical and inexplicable. These are the situations where a person has to choose the road he walks, listen to the brain, or listen to the heart. Partly listening to both is extremely hypocritical.

I am not saying morality is bad, I am saying it fogs things up. It always has.

I am also not saying that we should all start killing each other randomly. I mean, an unorganized mass murder will do a lot more harm than an organized one, a strong dictatorship is always better than anarchy. And let’s not forget, the question has not been definitely been solved so no definitive action can be taken.

Seriously, don’t kill random people, especially not me. I’m serious.

Ugh, morality again.

Oh I have a great topic^[1]. Is it ethical to pay drug addicts to get sterilized?

Well, the obvious pro-argument is the fact that drug addicts are generally a nuisance to the society. They drain resources while not really creating any value. They are vermin, they live on the society’s account. Therefore it would be reasonable to stop them from multiplying. The less vermin, the less stress on the society.

Secondly, they are drug addicts. Drug addicts. They can’t think clearly, they have a necessity. How could they possibly take care of a child? The child would most probably grow up in substandard living conditions, be offered for adoption or in the worst case scenario (possibly the worst in some way) left for dead. That can’t be good, unless one considers the argument of overpopulation.

However, some think it would be unethical somehow. It does not appear to conflict with the Golden Rule, categorical imperative or utilitarian views, which does not really speak for the argument of morality (or the lack thereof). Therefore those people who find it immoral consider the Darwinian perspective – how to preserve as many fellow humans as possible in the present. More on that once I’ve slept on it.

I can barely contain my enthusiasm.

Application is annoying. Just simply annoying.

You can tell them you don’t have Abitur, they will ask for the points of your Abitur.

You can tell them you have yet to graduate, they will ask for the grades of your final exams.

You can tell them you are not German, they won’t ask for language qualifications… yet.

I guess their application portal is still a WIP, though I am puzzled why they wouldn’t just use last year’s stuff. Perhaps they had the same situation last year as well, I don’t have the necessary information to assess that.

Though, if it baffles me, I feel sorry for those who are not as proficient as me, though it is possible that I am overthinking everything and simple thinking is what is expected.

Then again, if they really expect simple thinkers, what would the reason for it be? After all, it is not a field of study where simple thinking can get you very far, analytical and thoroughness are pretty much vital. Perhaps they wish to teach those skills themselves, so that there would be no ‘male logic’ vs. ‘female logic’ conflicts. Ah, who knows?

 

Also, for some reason I think this year’s Eurovision is going to be fun. You know, LT United and dancing babushka kind of fun. Though Jedward has lost a lot of its charm. No more playfulness. The same tragedy that happened to Lena – after making it really big, they lose what made them big. They lose the fun, the spark, the spunk, the playful, slightly mischievous spirit. And that is sad.

Though some trippy songs try to make up for the playfulness with apparent creativity crisis and bland lyrics. Yay.

 

First they built the road
Then they built the town
That's why we're still driving around
And around and around and around and around
And around and around and around...

Vicious circles in logic and general thinking are likely to occur when one thinks too much. Circular logic is not so bad, though. However, “it is only the appearance of sanity that is important.”, in that sure, you can build a circular road and go the distance, but as long as you keep it looking like there is a small settlement in the middle of it, nobody will bother you with it. At any rate, I do not believe anyone’s thinking can be quite circular. Perhaps curved, but never quite bent. Rarely broken, but never bent.

“Give me something to believe, cause I am living just to breathe.”

This topic is here just because I had to talk about it a few days ago.

Animal experiments are sometimes cruel, they cause uneasiness for several humans. Should they be banned internationally?

No.

 

Very simply, that is the answer. You might not concur, but let me explain. One can first say that not all experiments on animals are harmful to the animals. That would be enough if there was complete control over the experiments. Officials do not know the details of every experiment, they cannot know whether the experiments are harmful. Not to mention animal welfare is a mystery for all of us as animal psychology is a science that has had little success for absolute definition purposes.

So, for absolute border definition purposes I propose the following: products for animals can be experimented on animals. After all, to experiment dog food, there really is not substitute for a test group other than dogs. Any products meant for humans (such as make-up and drugs) can be tested on humans. Voluntarily and most probably paid, naturally. This would help insure the suitability of these products for the target group. After all, human testing for drugs exists for this purpose. The initial drugs are not tested on humans though. And that is quite unfair.

After all, humans are merely animals, just mammals. “Hurling your bodies into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out there. If you had known anything about the true nature of the Universe, anything at all, you would’ve hidden from it in terror.” (Emperor Ming from “Flash”).

And another thing holds true as well, from Calvin and Hobbes: “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”

It is human nature to destroy. Then let’s give scientists that chance to trim the hedge a little legally.

 

To stress it, I am not anti-human, I am simply not quite confident in mankind’s supremacy.

“Gang fight, gang fight, the gang is down to fight!”

The song is rather beautiful, except for a few lyrics. For instance, it seems to me a little exaggerated to call Kenya a ‘hopeless place’. Even more so when the video depicts a completely satisfactory situation.

The lack of all kinds of technology isn’t sufficient grounds for hopelessness, even when we, the ‘developed world’, have people who cannot function properly without technology. The fact that some of us cannot, does not mean that it applies to everyone, especially when those others are not used to using a smartphone or checking the vastness of the Internet every day. They are not hopeless when they can live like they have for decades.

Another thing is using that situation for financial gain. Going there, playing a little violin, making a video of it and then selling it on iTunes?

Sure, it is better than donating a ton of money and then yelling all about it over public media, and it is a sure-fire way to benefit the people living there by giving them a pleasant day or week. After all, donations don’t always reach the people.

“Usually, when there are people going hungry, there’s a guy with a gun making it happen.” – from “Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe”

But at the very least the music is good.

I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and and of the end,
I start and I finish
I am inevitable.
Hence my life is a circle
that has been bound together
with the circles of others.

And that goes quoted only when you share it. It is mine, all mine! “Muahahahahahaaa! So, you know, that’s coming along.”

“Short and sweet, just like you.”

Now that the topic of beauty has been put to bed, other subject can be taken up. Snooker.

A wonderfully entertaining game with lots of sneakiness and accuracy. A game where taking chances in your favour is not sufficient, one must also make sure the opponent(s) shots would be hindered. A (un)lucky shot does not determine the whole game, as opposed to 8-ball or 9-ball. And that makes the game a lot more exciting in my opinion.

One of the many upsides of snooker is the fact that only one ball is allowed entry to any hole at any point, hence requiring sniping skills. Combo shots are irrelevant, luck becomes unimportant.

Smaller pockets and smaller balls mean a lot more difficult shots, every error is amplified, every mistake can cost the few essential points required to win. And every mistake can be corrected by messing with enemy’s possibilities.

It has none of that ‘2 balls in front of the pocket touching each other blocking all other shots into that pocket’, because two balls don’t fit to enter a hole simultaneously.

The next post will have more content, perhaps something about Africa and violins.

Beauty, again, again.

It has come to my attention that there was a grave mistake in that essay. Argument ad hominem should be argumentum ad hominem, I hope you can forgive me for this daft, foolish stupidity.

Anyways, continuing on the topic of the subjectivity of beauty, it has now been explained, how beauty depends on opinions and how opinions (world view) depends on outside influences, intentional or not. Therefore beauty is apparently influenced by personal and public manipulation.

This claim is very easily seen every day – the more people consider something beautiful and say it is so, the more people start to think the same way. If something’s beauty is stressed constantly, not calling it pretty becomes hard to resist. One could call it a kind of mass hypnosis. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule due to people being different, but those are minor deviations.

And it makes perfect sense from a Darwinian perspective as well, after all, we all look for the perfect mate to spend our lives with (this includes gay people, though Darwin and Co. might not see it this way). Perfection is different for each of us, but a lot of it is similar. Some say it does not exist in the real world, but I disagree. Perfection is what we make of it, we can influence our thoughts, self-hack our brains, if you will. And by making ourselves think differently, we pervert our own understanding of beauty.

 

It is us who define beauty by considering our needs, our wants and fears, our present world view and personality, and our understanding of logic.

 

So all I can say is that beauty depends on everything that has happened, happens, or will happen in the future, it depends on everyone we meet, see, and/or hear, it depends on our moods and emotions, it depends on our existence. As long as we have that, we can change beauty. As long as we have that, we have beauty. And it depends on everything that changes us in any shape or form.

And as we all know, we are what we were.

“We do not have a monopoly on the truth”

This quote by Stieg Larsson characterizes the essence of a person’s world view – it is a collection of opinions, which the person holds true, but which always are somewhat mistaken. It is a mental personal possession that is created in the past, present, and the future of a person. Due to constant change it can be altered with intent, all one would have to do is find a suitable method for it.

As a toddles, a person learns to act by observing and mimicking other people’s behavior. As a result of this proves the person attains a behavior type which is unique to him and which he will use constantly throughout his entire lifespan. The first world view is developed, because the person begins to learn the morality of actions by him and people around him. Hence an opinion develops defining morality. In childhood people hopefully obey the Golden Rule: do to others what you wish to be done to you. This moral is not always obeyed as the world is large and fascinating; during the discovery process many things are forgotten. At this stage a person finds something that is perplexing at first.

Advertisements that are aimed at children tend to be large and colorful, filled with abstract words like “cool” and “awesome”. Quite quickly can a child connect these words with positive emotions and start acting upon the criteria of cooldom defined by the advertisements. A person may start thinking that the release year of a mobile phone shows the quality of a person. Advertisements are not the only factors during the development of a world view. Morality is taught by parents and “Moomin”, interest in the external world is grown by books and “MacGyver”, not to mention relationships, which are described by friends and American sitcoms. The influence of the world on an individual does not stop in childhood, it continues through adulthood.

There are many ways in which a person’s opinions can be altered, from lying, as was done to Americans before the invasion to Afghanistan, spreading false information, as Americans and Brits did before D-Day, to demagoguery and other propaganda. Demagoguery can be noticed in nearly every politician’s speech, may the fallacy be constant repetition of ungrounded facts, illogical jumps from one claim to another, or the most common fallacy – argument ad hominem – meaning criticizing the person, not his claims. The influence of propaganda is also evident because we constantly keep getting the message that America is one of the best places to live. This message echoes through nearly every TV-show, every movie, even news shows depict America rather positively, not to mention websites where more of the comments in English are written by people who support the United States. A large amount of all of the information that reaches us lacks solid facts; it substitutes them with opinions and slogans. It is presumed that a person accepts these opinions and becomes a silent lamb, who knows nothing about truth and does not really want to know it.

A group of people aiming for power is hindered most by a thinking person, someone who prefers critical thinking and whose world view is a result of life experience, not of outside influences. In this case we find a conflict between Isaiah Berlin’s proposed positive and negative liberties. Berlin believed that positive liberty, in which case the people hold their leaders to be infallible, always leads to oppression. For an example he brought the Soviet Union – beautiful ideals initially received public support, but later the people’s rights were limited and terror was spread. As J.M.Straczynski wrote “How many people actually belonged to the Communist party? The Jihad party? A very small number. But there were always plenty of other people who were happy to do the work for them, and others afraid enough to let it happen.”, the same connection can be used for Nazi-Germany. Berlin’s negative liberty means that the people believe in improving themselves better. In other words, instead of faith in the ruler there is faith in the people. The power of the sovereign has to be limited because the collective mind of the people – spiritus mundi – is less prone to error as the mind of a single individual. The rational result of this logic is a compromise between the two liberties, which was also the conclusion of Berlin. In other words the people must trust the sovereign but check his actions, also known as democracy. From this it emerges with elegant inevitability that theoretically a person’s ideology, his world view, should be in compliance with the rest of the society to shorten the amount of time necessary to reach compromises. On the other hand it has to be controversial enough to reduce the number of “wrong” decisions. So called “right” decisions can be reached most effectively through discussion.

A world view is a collection of opinions, each of those can be right or wrong. They can be changed, every method to do so varies in effectiveness by other opinions a person has and his ability to stand true to those opinions. They are created by living, by existing. These opinions are vital to cause discussion in society. And when the society becomes “better” through development, the individual reaps benefits as well. We do not know, which opinion is right, which one is wrong. We do not have a monopoly on the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more cold facts in there and any feeling you may notice of hatred or support towards anything can be fully ignored. However, the third and last paragraphs are the ones I will be concentrating on more later on.
It would also be worth noting that this essay was originally written in 1 hour and 20 minutes, and translated rather brutally (even more brutally than Philosophical Ramblings!) from a coarse language.

Beauty, again

“I said to Jon
Do you think the girls here
(Ever wonder how they got so pretty?)
Oh, well I do”

Back to the good old philosophical question^[1] that someone thinks I waste my mind thinking about. But since most of the things I think about waste my brains, it becomes a poor argument. I prefer to think like J.M.Straczynski: “The Universe is already mad, anything else would be redundant.”

So, what influences beauty?

It is already proven that beauty exists even post-observer and that it is always relative – there is no absolute beauty, no absolute lack of it. It is relative, hence it has to depend on some variable. Upon first glance, one would simply conclude that since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, it has to depend on the beholder. Let’s check the integrity of this proposed causal link!

Sure, we hold some things more beautiful than others. I find old Porsche 356 and 550 models exquisite, yet some argue that some kind of brickish Lamborghini Countach is prettier which I simply cannot agree with. Some say C is good for coding^[2], I think not^[3]. Yes, the last example was absurd but c’mon, you can’t resist them!

Back to topic, beauty is evidently dependant on opinion. And opinions are relative to the person in whose mind those opinions exist. But are they?

Opinions are vulnerable to influences from the world. They change through life and can be changed through various means^[4]. More on that in a future post, it will be translated in the nearer future. No spoilers yet but it will probably be worth an extra post to wrap the topic up once again. Until next time.

Today I was approached by an older male human.
He asked if it was Friday.
He asked if he was in Pärnu.
Then he asked if there had been a party last night.
And then he had no more questions.
All he needed was what, when and where.

A perfect start for a walkabout.

“It’s a brand new day, and the sun is high, all the angels sing because you’re gonna die!”

Let’s talk about something as random as magic.

Wikipedia says: “Magic is the art of purportedly manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of unknown occult laws.”

Google says: “mag·ic/ˈmajik/Noun:        The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.”, which is identical to Oxford Dictionaries.

These definitions are wibbly-wobbly. What should one consider ‘aspects of reality’? It would appear practically everything applies. Reality itself can be questioned. But that is the minor flaw.

The definition of ‘supernatural’ is rather vague. Is it simply something we don’t understand? Not ‘naturally’ occurring? In that case, is science supernatural as, for example, the invention of synthetic materials can hardly be called natural, or is it merely explaining the supernatural, thereby reducing the amount of magic in the known Universe? Also, are Murphy’s laws some of those ‘unknown occult laws’, after all they apply very successfully, they can’t really be explained (unless one believes that psychology is a real science) and they have quite a following. Oxford adds ‘mysterious forces’ that ‘apparently influence the course of events’, which can applies to pretty much every physical force there is. We don’t actually know why Gravitons do what they do or why they even exist. We don’t know why matter exists in the first place, and since every force is in a causative (not just correlative) link with the existence of matter itself, which is mysterious, every force must be as well.

So, by analysing the definitions of ‘magic’, we can surmise that every single action is led by a kind of magic. Sort of awesome, sort of… ordinary.

“If everything is awesome and there is no un-awesome, then awesome by definition is just mediocre.” (From Chuck)

And this applies to magic as well. Magic loses its charm by being everywhere, it is no longer the special kid we all know and love.

From Babylon 5: “When we went back in time a thousand years and tried to explain this place to people, they could only accept it in terms of magic.”

“Then perhaps it is magic. Magic of the human heart, focused and made manifest by technology.”

It compares magic with technology and understanding. Yes, magic is something we don’t understand, but so is a lot of technology we have now and most of what we will have at our disposal in the future. Yet we don’t really usually (there are exceptions) consider our phones working on magic. Then where to draw the line between magic and technology?

Relative absolute.

By remaining silent, we bottle ourselves.

We seal ourselves up, and hide.

Hide in the darkest corners of our dreams.

Hide in the farthest edges of the world.

 

By speaking out, we show ourselves.

We demonstrate our existence.

Stand up for what we believe to be true.

Stand up for our wildest dreams.

 

By showing our emotions, we define ourselves.

Who, what, when, where, and why?

An action speaks louder than a million voices.

We speak the truth by remaining silent.

“The soldier accepts that the face of the truth changes every day.”

Why is Windows still called Windows, when it is now focused on tiles and full-screen apps? Sure, windows exist as a ‘feature’ one can choose to use, but the main user interface is all ugly boxes.

 

“Every day you here create greater miracles than burning bush.”

“Maybe, but God was there first and he didn’t need solar batteries and a fusion reactor to do it.”

 

Today, I read a long text supplied by the Krishna. One of them tried to coerce me into joining to spread their word. The idea was great, to spread the message of love. Basically saying that happiness comes from the heart and is bound by love, love that is directed towards another person, may that be strangers, parents, siblings, or a significant other. And once a person finds that love, that person can be happy. Avoiding or ignoring love is, on the contrary, a blasphemous action and will lead to reincarnation. This is bad because the soul, the spirit is the truest form of existence and sticking it in a body is simply cruel.

It was doing so well… it is an ideology that allows free interpretation. Right up to the point they started claiming that it is a FACT that God lives through the holy writ and it is a FACT that Krishna (their fluffy god) lives through his/her/its words. Not to mention the awkward chanting that is necessary to live graciously. It makes the religion definable as a religion, but on the other hand, it makes it ridiculous. It is petty. The return on the large investment (sacrificing a large part of one’s life) is spiritual freedom after death (not getting another life). It would appear then, that if one does not believe in spiritual sanctity and thus lives life as one chooses, say to the fullest in one’s opinion, he gets to live it all over again, to the fullest. An endless cycle of joy.

Sure, the problem with being born again and again and again is that one does not recall the events of a previous life (although for some reason it is possible to recall the events of the present life in the future, more on that sometime later) and hence is unable to ignore the temptation of Krishna by using the argument that he chose this way of lives in a previous life. Not only that, recalling the arguments against becoming a follower of Krishna becomes rather impossible as well.

In conclusion, having an enlightening idea is not worth much if one does not know how to put it into practice. And yes, this is a point where the Krishna get compared to Communists. Beautiful ideals does not instantly mean beautiful consequences of those ideals.

 

“We are the dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, crystal and scanner, holographic demons and invocations of equations. These are the tools we employ and we know many things.”

“Such as?”

“The true secrets, the important things. 14 words to make someone fall in love with you forever, 7 words to make them go without pain or say goodbye to a friend who is dying. How to be poor, how to be rich. How to rediscover dreams when the world has stolen them from you.”

- All quotes belong to the genius of J.M.Straczynski

Self-interpretation

“What is best, is prologue.”

It is what we believe, it is what we know.

It is the hook that catches us.

It is the justified truth.

 

The book is never as good as our dreams,

The movie is never as good as the book,

The reality is never as good as the movie,

But reality can surpass our dreams.

 

It is the title we come for,

it is the prologue that makes us stay,

it is the content that makes us leave.

But perhaps there is more between the lines?

 

The deepest thoughts go unheard.

The deepest thoughts go unsaid.

 

“What is best, is sometimes also the future.”

“The Universe is already mad, anything else would be redundant.”

“Evil I can do, but matters of the heart baffle me.”

It is quite difficult to define ‘evil’. It is a word each of us knows, yet none of us know what it really is.  It is widely considered a negative adjective (or, at times, noun), but it is not always so. For ‘evil’ people, ‘evil’ is more of a compliment, a statement of work well done. Basically like calling ‘smart’ people ‘smart’ or ‘abnormal’ people ‘weird’.

Let’s go out on a limb and call manipulation ‘evil’. This means the ends do not always justify the means (using manipulation for a ‘good’ cause does not make manipulation a ‘good’ method). So the status of manipulation is a constant and therefore is unaffected by other factors. It is the general consensus that manipulation is evil, so any blames of bias go to the general population, not to me in specific.

Manipulating with other people and situations is an easy task any of us can do. Doing it well, on the other hand, takes some finesse. It is especially straightforward and simple for people that are cold and calculated. People who prefer to analyse every situation before it has had the chance of occurring. People who prefer knowing everything remotely possible about the situation and people involved therein. It is basically determining the outcome of any situation by knowing the current location, direction, speed and influences of every single particle. Sure, while that is as of yet impossible, generalisations based on certain known groups of particles (say, people) can be made. This means the ability to predict the probable, not definite, outcome of any influence of any factor, including the spectator. You could call it playing God, I call it overthinking life (not thinking over life).

Manipulation is easy as 1, 2, 3, or A, B, C, if you prefer. Turning situations into one’s favour is generally not a difficult task as one can benefit in numerous ways. And that is what ‘evil’ is generally all about – profiting the ‘evil-doer’. This is precisely the reason why so many people decide to join the dark side – it gives them great power without great responsibility.

Matters of the heart are a different matter altogether. They are sometimes selfless, sometimes extremely egoistic. Well, they are always egoistic in the sense that selfless actions are motivated by our desire to feel ourselves better about something or alter public opinion, but that is not the point. Acting on those feelings tends to be irrational. Emotions do not obey the rules of logic, and that is seriously bugging. This means that emotions, just like surprises, can throw a cold, calculated person off-balance.

Some say that being cold and calculated is heartless and robotic (as if that was always a bad thing!), some say acting upon emotions is illogical and hence certainly not reasonable (as if that couldn’t be a good thing!). It is a debate with no clear victory for either side. But having both, as a compromise, is kind of contradictory.

 

“I'm one card short of a full deck
I'm not quite the shilling
One wave short of a shipwreck
I'm not my usual top billing
I'm coming down with a fever
I'm really out to sea
This kettle is boiling over
I think I'm a banana tree”

- Queen

Heart at Midnight

You are a jinx, you create problems that correlate with Murphy’s laws.
You bring the darkness into the light.
With you comes overthinking, with you comes braindeath.
With you comes all that is evil in the world.

You are a swan, you inspire problems to find solutions on their own.
You bring a ray of hope into the dark tunnel of despair.
With you comes peace of mind, with you comes calmness of soul.
With you comes all that is good in the world.

You are a paradox, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You are controversy in its entirety.
With that, you are every idea in the world, you are a muse.
You are… you.

“We have all the time in the world.”

Is it ‘more right’ to obey the reasonable transaction rule or should one avoid responsibility at any cost?

In other words, let’s take a popular experiment. There is a train charging down the rails with no brakes. Let’s say you know that the train is unable to decelerate because, say, it is using jet propulsion and all the people on the train have jumped ship and you know for a fact that the jet engine can only be turned off manually from inside the train. Then let’s say you are located at an intersection of railroads, and it is up to you, whether the train is going to continue down its current path, or turn onto an another track. Then let’s push it a little further and say that on the current path of the train are 5 workers, unable to get off the track because of a force field or something, and on the alternative track is a baby, left there for no reason you know. There is nobody else around. Do you switch the junction so that the train would turn and kill the baby (assume that the baby is not simply between the rails, but on top of one rail), or leave it be and let 5 people be slain instead?

The ‘reasonable transaction’ would mean you would rather let one die so that 5 would life (thus preserving more life). The ‘avoiding responsibility’ would mean you would not interfere, as otherwise your action would cause the death of a human being.

Sure, one might argue that by inaction, you would cause the death of five, but it is your preset responsibility to avoid such loss of life. Basically meaning that every single person has a moral responsibility to preserve human life as much as possible (which would comply with categorical imperative, the Golden Rule, utilitarianism and many other moral laws). This, I believe, is called death by negligence.

Then again, one might argue in return that the life of a small child is worth more than five lives of people that have already grown up. Basically meaning that the existence of unreached potential is worth more than potential reached. Besides, the five guys have already had their chance at life, they simply got unlucky that they got pitted against a baby. In this case, where to draw the line? Is 5 lives less worth than a life of a small child? Or is 6 the limit? How about 10, 15, a hundred? Or does it take merely two? In the end we would face the question “How much is the life of one man worth? Millions more?” (The Hire).

This problem is at present time even more current that one might think. This is because one of the strongest arguments for inaction is actually ‘to benefit the world’. Let’s not forget, overpopulation is a growing problem. In fact, perhaps it would be morally correct to let more people die to create more room for the few. It would be wrong to let everyone in the world die but practically every rule of morality, but just a few. Life blooms most after chaos.

And let’s not forget, nobody can actually dictate morality. We do not own a monopoly of truth, we do not know what is right and true, and what is not. It is up to the person, whether it is better to let five die due to inaction, hence saving a single life, or it is better to let one die, hence saving five. Suicide is not an option and both tracks lead to a ravine, so that the train will most certainly not cause any more human deaths than just the ones you know about. What would you do?

“All of your quotes are getting on my nerves.”

Alas, I fear it is, at last, beginning to look a bit more like summertime. Which means, as usual, overheated brains. Neurons shooting signals all over the place. Irrationality Now, if you prefer.

But it does bring some sort of freedom, no more fooling the weatherman using Murphy’s laws, no more skating on the sidewalks, no more constant vigilance of puddles on the roadside where a car might drive through and splash dirt all over the sidewalk.

And let’s not forget, this is the time a lot of people get a large part of their futures’ defined. At this point, I shall apologize, as this will be yet another place where education is a topic at this present time. It is very annoying, I admit it, but one does not simply ignore the topic altogether! It’s better to take the topic up once and have a follow-up in a few weeks and be done with it than to keep it bottled up and let it spray out like Coke and Mentos in those few weeks.

For fairly young people, career options are nearly endless. Sure, some fields of work or study can be crossed off the list by anyone. For instance, I wouldn’t want to take up a field of study where I am accepted to in the best university of the country four times before even graduating. Yet it is pretty much the only uni I would be willing to go to in this country, anything less and I will be feeling that I am wasting myself. Only a couple of possibilities remain. Others have other criteria by which they exclude fields, perhaps some hate maths, blood, sociology, or thinking. Possibilities are endless. I am me, you are you, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri are small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

There is, however, one criterion that, as a rule, cannot be ignored by any one of us. The final exam session. I am going to be frank, the exams are not that difficult, not when you know what to choose and what to study. So getting average results should be pretty much standard for most common folk. After all, that’s why they are called ‘average’ results. In this specific country, a person can choose the exams one has to sit through. The absolute minimum is 3, but it is usually reasonable to take 5 at the very least. This way, with a failure, one can compensate with some other exam. Not taking the maths exam can close a whole lot of doors for one’s future academic future, but for many it does not even matter. But the general rule is that any exams a person chooses, the person should then try to squeeze the lemons out of those exams.

And all this creates a fascinating view for anyone near people having to take exams. Psychology is one of the most awesome pseudosciences around. Emotions run high, stress hits the ceiling, the dark cloud of depression descends on many. And, as I have most probably mentioned before, people’s behaviour is “interestingly curious” to observe, especially when it is out of the ordinary. For many people, this is considered an extreme circumstance, which only makes it more entertaining. As they say, a person’s true face comes out only when he/she is put to the extreme.

It is possible to see the true nature now. It is springtime, nature awakens.

 

And trust me, I will avoid the extremes whenever possible. Have fun figuring me out.

 

And now, a quote from Jimmy Fallon:

“I also want to thank Mr Mills, my 10th grade history teacher, who said I would never amount to anything if I kept screwing around in class. I am about to high-five the president of the United States. Eat it, Mills.”

Which shows that even those of us who don’t win in school life, can still win in general life. Winning is relative.

Viva la Karsumm.

“Cannot say. Saying, I would know. Do not know, cannot say.”

War is fought on many fronts, from intelligence to actual confrontation. The intelligence war alone has multiple parts – from protecting own information and feeding false information to the opponent to affecting the morale of the other side. The amount of true information is usually not a problem, there is so little of it anyways. But making sure the fake information is believable and reaches a wide audience, now that is tricky.

History has shown us the power of information over the people. May it be the Vietnam war, where too much information caused dismay among the crowds and eventual retreat, or perhaps Nazi Germany, where by giving the Germans an old code book, the Allies managed the Normandy assault with a lot less difficulty than without having fed the opposing force fake information. Information is also important inside a single society.

“How many people actually belonged to the Nazi party? The Communist party? The Jihad party? A very small number. But there were always plenty of other people who were happy to do the work for them, and others afraid enough to let it happen.” – J.M.Straczynski

Argument ad hominem is a popular weapon of choice of nearly every politician aiming for power.

“Nobody takes power, they are given power by the rest of us.” – J.M.Straczynski

And by the process of elimination and manipulation of public opinion, it becomes a straight road to chaos. Because by allowing a single small group of people make a powergrab is one of the final steps to oppression, as proposed by Isaiah Berlin. This would be the case of positive liberty – the kind where people believe that their leaders know what the right things to do are. The negative case would be when the people limit the power of their leaders and hence believe that every person has to think of the bigger picture and that everyone can be fallible. The trick is to find a balance between these two liberties, as both extremes have a detrimental effect to the society, as extremes so very often do.

For now, let us contemplate on the idea of Gods and Their fluffy existence or a single one and His lonely existence.

“Probably too much wine, women, and smoke.”

“He didn’t do any of those things. To see him dead, how terrible for him!”

“Why, he wasn’t missing anything?”

The time of the year is coming…

For the past few days I’ve been listening to a video where famous scientists say things that have been autotuned to sound like a song.

 

Now, I find a problem with it. Not that it doesn’t sound good per se, but the contents are… odd.

Being fascinated by something is great. It is inspiring, motivating and exhilarating. It makes a person want to learn more, be more, do more. But there is a limit to everything.

Sure, knowledge is extremely awesome, I cannot deny that, and sharing the knowledge is twice the fun. But sometimes people get all worked up over simple information. By being impressed by the fact that the atoms in our bodies haven’t always been there, but instead are a product of a larger process, we are simply impressed by the fact that we are made of matter. By being impressed by the fact that lightyears away from here, the constellations don’t look quite the same as they do here, is like being impressed by the fact that a cube has edges and can be viewed from different directions. Sure, it sounds fancy at first, but when one really thinks about it, it ceases being amusing.

The Universe is full of wonders, including the Earth as we know it. But not everything is a wonder. Also, Feynman is quite a groovy fellow.

Also, what kind of a person sets their SMS ring as ‘Hallelujah!’?

“Put a smile on your face. Make the world a better place.”

Certain events are prone to triggering vast amounts of nostalgia. May it be a celebrative event reminding one of the past three years or hearing some songstress triggering memories from more than a decade ago. It brings hope that life will get better in the future, as it has in the past. “Oh 90’s music how you make me smile.”
We get motivation from two basic interests: curiosity (the kind that motivated the cat to be more self-serving) and self-serving (the kind that motivated the cat to flee the box before Schrödinger or his followers could carry out the experiment). Pretty much all other interest are products of these two main points. It is also important to note that while curiosity and egoism overlap surprisingly often, they practically never conflict. Try to think about it.
Altruism is about making us feel better about who we are.
Altruism is a curious thing, I would classify it as phase 3 of rationality. The first would be complete rationality – not thinking before acting whatsoever. This means direct actions,  basically what animals do. They see food and they are hungry, they eat it. They see food and they are not hungry, they try to storage it if possible. Nothing too complex, even a monkey can do it.
Phase 2 would be balance. A balance of rationality and irrationality. This assumes the existence of consciousness. Basically the phase where most humans are located – sometimes we do things we find reasonable, but sometimes obey our emotions instead. It is the life of the average Joe.
The aforementioned phase 3 would be the phase where the being understands that it has no rational cause to exist. Hence the being would most probably either self-terminate or become altruistic. That is until the being either reaches the underworld, phase 4 or revert to a previous phase.
Phase 4 is, obviously, overrationalizing. This is when the being has understood that not only he/she/it has not rational reason to exist, neither does anyone else. Hence there is no reason why not use this knowledge and live life to the fullest. If nothing matters anyways, why not have fun not mattering? This means the lack of regrets and denial of emotions. It is not a sad life per se, but some people may claim that life that follows only strict rules of logic is sad and cold as there are no emotions. They forget that for the person in Phase 4, it doesn’t really matter anymore. Anyway the wind blows, nothing really matters. And in that state, a being can thrive. With no morals, no regrets, no actual emotions, all kinds of possibilities open up ranging from simple manipulation to world conquest.
Perhaps there are more phases, perhaps not. I have yet to observe them. And one cannot argue with these phases because neither side could possibly have any hard evidence or cold facts to support their claims. Psychology is, after all, a mere pseudoscience, because empiric observations are impossible and every claim can be true or false, depending on the person deciding it. We would need intricate knowledge of the brain’s functions and once we have that and can definitely claim the existence or non-existence of these phases, it is no longer psychology, it is biology.
This is because it was a part of my childhood, my past. And someone reminded me of it.

“That general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.” – Sun Tzu

CNN remains funny – now they have a news story about a cow that went to a McDonald’s drive-thru.

 

A great point to add to my previous post is the infamous Target scandal.

Yes, the one where a Target employee revealed that their market research reveals pregnant customers sometimes before the customers reveal it to others by tracking their purchases made in Target. This made them create personalized advertisement packages to maximize sales. It is yet another example of how corporations can persuade people into consumption targeted in the corporations’ favour. People are powerless.

Now one may argue that instead of talking about democracy, I’ve been rambling about capitalism and drawing an equals sign. I assure you, this is not the case.

Democracy is demos kratos – people’s power. This means that they are governed by a body of people they elect as their representatives. The upshot of which, is that politicians, whose views are those of the people, gain power to enforce policies that people want. The whole idea behind effectiveness is spiritus mundi – a hive mind of the people, basically the belief that while an individual can make mistakes, a society as a whole is nearly infallible. While it is logical that a single person’s mistake does not echo as much in a crowd as when he is alone in power. However, the belief that a large groups of people are not wrong and cannot orchestrate their own demise is, put quite bluntly, hogwash. Alas, all there is to do now is to agree with Mr Churchill – democracy is indeed a bad form of government, but it is the best that has been tried so far.

One of the main problems with democracy is that not everyone agrees with any given claim, decision, or policy. This causes unrest at every step. After all, if all people agreed on the same, it would no longer be democracy, it would be unification. And even that has its problems – if everyone were to think alike, what would happen to creative culture, what would happen to science? If everyone thinks of the same joke, then there will be nobody to tell it to. If everyone creates the same work of art, there will be nobody to receive credit for it. If everyone liked the same fashion, everyone would dress up as clones. And if everyone really thought alike, there would be no scientists – after all, they would be equal to a street bum, thinking no more than that bum. The fact that there would perhaps not be any bums either, is a minor nuisance. I’d say there are bums in every society, I’d say they are an inevitable product of the existence of society.

A product of a democratic society is the free market – free at first. By forcing corporations compete against each other for market share, the public benefits most. It forces the corporations to seek effectiveness and keep the prices low. This is why people think it is a fine idea and put it into practice. However, the result of a free market is the emergence of market leaders. And people are not really fond of some markets being lead by large corporations like Microsoft or Apple. Sure, there are many people who like the aforementioned market leaders, otherwise they would no longer be the market leaders. But they do create a threat to free market – a market leader has an established position as part of people’s lives, something they have grown accustomed to. As such, they have the power to chance people’s habits in their favour. By introducing new gadgets to the old ones, a market leader can easily force its competition to give up. After all, the market leader as a rule has more resources at its disposal than smaller companies. Sure, the smaller companies can survive as some niche product providers, but tackling a market leader is a task a little too difficult to undertake. Hence market monopolies are a result of democracy, may the monopolies be shared by two or three enterprises or not. With two corporations having the monopoly, it becomes a lot simpler to avoid any anti-monopoly laws and policies. And once those monopolies are born, it becomes near-impossible for people to affect economic democracy by the use of targeted consumption.

With a little bit of luck, the corporations sharing a monopoly continue to compete against each other, as opposed to friendly unofficial cooperation, unofficial to avoid any cartel accusations.

“O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.” – Sun Tzu (“Art of War”)

Do be do be do

Small step for a man, a huge leap for a rubber chicken.

 

How can targeted consumption change public policy to improve society (or improve society without policy)?

Well, by purchasing certain products and/or services and not purchasing certain other products and/or services, a large number of people can manipulate the demand and hence influence the supply. This can be applied almost anywhere, and is. When people found out that McDonald’s was not using proper meat in certain burgers, the sales dropped significantly. That is, until they announced that they were reverting to ‘proper’ meat.

However, this requires a rather large number of people and their success depends on other people’s greed and cooperation. Manipulation requires an unified front. If there are too many ‘traitors to the cause’, the sales won’t drop as significantly, and, as a corollary, the supplier has less reason to change the product or service according to the demand as this may cause a drop in the profit margin – after all, they must fund the change and perhaps the new ‘improved’ product or service requires more monetary resources to be used for them to be supplied. Sure, an increased price could help, but it has a slight problem.

When a supplier is dealing on a small market – with little competition, the supplier can dictate the terms on which products and/or services are offered. Basically a monopoly – people won’t stop buying if they have no other option and they are able to afford the goods. Hence market manipulation is practically impossible on the consumer side, and practicable only on the provider side. This applies to a large number of cases, because even in markets with larger competition, loyal customers and the sheer amount of supply dictate the rules – a small supplier can hardly keep the market satisfied when a larger supplier raises its prices and the number of customers for the little guy increases very quickly. Hence, the small supplier runs out of stock and the larger enterprise can continue with the high price tag, as it has removed other options for a lot of its customers. This, in general, is considered bad business strategy. This is why the prices go up a little at a time, but often (as opposed to sharp raises very rarely). The effect is the same, but with a lesser loss of customers. And henceforth the consumer loses anyways.

Let’s be honest, this strategy applies in markets with several larger providers as well. It is enough to take Microsoft and Apple – basically the same product, slightly different design, but one costs about twice the price of the other… and makes a neat profit. Unfortunately this means changing the consumption habits of a large number of individuals has little effect. Sure, there can be some effect, but usually it is insignificant enough to be pushed aside.

In reality, the consumer can do little by targeted consumption. Using pressure groups to influence political powers appears a more viable option, which is why it is (I assume so) the most popular weapon of choice. But I wonder how can targeted consumption benefit the society. One can’t deny the existence of the influence it has over corporations and governments.

 

But I feel good, I had a brainwave.

Brainwaves are cool. Like bowties and fezzes.

Holy Swiss cheese

For now, the Unites States has limited its demands of banking information to American citizens. Inadvertently, since countries in the EU don’t wish to give out personal information and hence filter any and all information they do reveal, the IRS will receive information about some non-U.S.-citizens and lack information about some citizens. In any case, they obtain personal data through legal extortion. Let’s not forget, the United States has already demanded passenger data. And if someone chooses not to cooperate, those people will suddenly face difficulties communicating and trading with the States. It is evil. And I cannot think of a reasonable reason to demand so much. Why would they want to track every single one of their citizens all over the world? Or is the goal tracking every single person in the world, just they have to use salami tactics for now, just as Russia is?

It is no secret that ever since their unprovoked assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan, every single international action has been more than simply suspicious. World Police… bossing around at every opportunity. Apparently their local laws have international significance, otherwise SOPA would’ve been totally useless. I wonder where it will all stop. When the world is a police state? In any case, the result can’t really be good.

It is no wonder then, that the United States have earned the title ‘Empire of Evil’. Ironic.

 

Also, the storyblog is once again being updated relatively regularly. Now with Act II, the one where chaos develops.

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.