|
[27 Apr 2008|02:03am] |
now i believe in unity
and i am willing to compromise
but i'm not gonna lie
or sell my soul
--Bad Religion, The Handshake
I didn't properly disclaim the last entry, but I will this time: I'm a bit intoxicated. But perhaps all the more impassioned for it. I feel strongly about my principles. And among those principles is the stipulation that I might be wrong.
Tonight, I was convinced of a point in an argument, essentially. As a little background, I wasn't formerly convinced of the imperativeness for our exit from Iraq. I subscribed to a derivative of Asimov's laws of robotics that assigned as much blame to inaction as action (reference wikipedia, "asimov's laws"). In other words, I wasn't convinced that us removing our military force from Iraq would absolve us of blame for the deaths that might be caused when we leave. I always attributed the possible casualties (on the Iraqi side of things) to a conjecture of what would happen, and never to empirical causal analysis, as it's all hypothetical in the first place, so no empirical analysis is valid.
When I thought of the process by which people determined whether we should remove our military force from Iraq, I believed it to be because people (both Iraqi and American) are dying, and we want to minimize the number of Americans on the tally. Personally, I'm intellectually offended by the proposition that an American life is more important than a foreigner's life (though I agree and thereby intellectually offend myself when I really want to think about it and get fucking depressed). From these two facts, I am put in a position of conflict about my opinion regarding our withdrawing our military from Iraq. When pushed, I would say that I want to minimize American deaths and casualties, and thereby want to remove the troops. But the lower-level "everyone's-a-person-and-carries-the-same-value" part of me isn't so sure. Maybe we should stay if, numbers-wise the total amount of deaths if we were to leave outweighs the total amount of deaths if we were to stay. It's economic (all decisions are (re: Weber's Formal Rationality, and the Iron Cage)) and therefore numerical in essence.
Causality is one thing to argue about, but perhaps causal responsibility is another? Upon whose hands is this blood? How far back should the line of causality go? I'm not sure, but I have absolutely been convinced that I want no part in it.
I might not be explaining this as well as I could if I were talking with you in person and while completely sober, but if you're still confused about what I mean then you should ask and I will explain myself to the best of my ability at some future time.
What this entry is essentially about is that I feel like my ability to be convinced of a point in an argument is a virtue. The President has declared himself to be The Decider, but I wouldn't trust him to decide his way out of a paper bag. I believe I have a better understanding of human psychology, sociology, politics, science, and general motivation than he will ever be able to understand, forgive me for being self-righteous. But I maintain that, if he were able to develop a cogent proposition that I did not agree with, and he was able to back it up with evidence or reasoning that were sound, I would be convinced to agree with him for it.
Is it a fault to be swayed by reason? Is it a virtue to be cocksure (ololololz)? I don't believe so.
So again, twice in two entries, I end with a thank-you. In this case, it's not so emo, but it's just as sincere (if not more).
|
|
|
[18 Apr 2008|12:51am] |
It's a paradox. It's absolutely everything I want and I want nothing to do with it at all. She's the second strongest woman I have ever known. Should I want her in my life? Is it a purely economic decision in which the benefits are weighed against the costs? Can one place a monetary (or otherwise) value on sanity, stability, or, in lieu of the rest, prosperity? Or is it an idealistic leap of faith? Should I blindly plunge forth into the abyss (while it blindly plunges into me, as well)? I don't know. It won't be exactly what I hope it will be. My fantastic hopes for reality will never come true. I hope for a lot of things. I've had enough of reality to know that dreams do not always come true.
I hope this paradox passes. I hope my life will go on. With the help I have gotten from a number of friends, it will.
Thank you.
And thank you, too.
|
|
|
[05 Dec 2007|12:55pm] |
"It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness. Nothing more."
--Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling
And people have such a penetrating fear of the unknown. This incredibly disappointing English class I'm taking started out with a diagnostic essay. The teacher has a preference for "horror" stories, as I mentioned before, so the topic of the diagnostic essay was either a fear that people have, or an experience where we were fearful for any reason. I wrote about the unknown, and how people are almost universally afraid of it. Death and the darkness are two of the best representations of the unknown.
But how do people deal with this fear? Probably the simplest way to deal with any problem is to investigate it directly. Grab a torch and march on in. This isn't a good metaphor for investigating death, though. You can't really march into death, investigate it objectively, and then come back. I'm not really up on the science of near-death experiences or the concept of technical medical death for short periods of time (recently addressed in an episode of House via a folding knife and a wall outlet). Anyway, I doubt many people would have the balls to try that one.
So what do we do? Make up mythologies about what exists in this unexplorable abyss? Tell our children that there are otherworldly creatures waiting for us when we're finally plunged unwillingly into this undiscovered country? And that they have been watching us since birth, analyzing our movements and thoughts? Making records and calculations? Deciding what is good and what is bad, and what should and should not be? I don't buy it. There are thousands of books that describe what happens and why and how, and there have been for thousands of years. And there's not a single piece of empirical evidence for any of it. While I can't deny that pure empiricism is not the best method of analysis, there is equally no place for pure rationalism.
Scientific development and progress is valuable. Historically, science progresses as far as the scientific ability of the time can manage. At the point where ability fails, but where there is obviously more at work that has yet to be systematized and codified, God is said to be beyond. Throughout the development of physics, progress was made by individuals for great leaps, but at the end of each leap, the innovator becomes overwhelmed and eventually gives up, attributing the remaining complexity and uniqueness to God's work. And progress halts for some period of time, until the next innovator comes along and makes another leap, only to be struck down by some other form of complexity, which they also attribute to God. "I don't know how this works. Nobody can know how this works. Therefore, a higher intelligence must be responsible for it." *hands thrown up into the air*
And modern science? Opposition comes in the form of arguments for Intelligent Design. "It is obviously impossible that something as complex as the human eye could have come from nothing, so it must be the product of a higher intelligence." And this sounds like a cop-out to so few people? It's hard for me to understand how people can possible choose to think that a philosophy of ignorance is more valuable than a philosophy of curiosity and progress. Limiting our imaginations when it comes to scientific development, for reasons other than ethics (which is another controversial issue, I admit), is terrible.
Maybe we shouldn't exactly embrace the unknown, but avoiding it? Giving up on it? I don't buy it. That dog don't hunt. Maybe it's true that there are some things in the universe that cannot be known by us (for whatever reason), but I absolutely sincerely believe that we're nowhere near that sheer cliff. There's still an enormous amount we can learn in a thousand different directions, and I'm going to drop a political statement on you right now, so you might feel somehow betrayed, but it matters who's in charge. I don't just believe that America's president has control over areas and amounts of scientific research: it's a fact. So maybe you agree with me, what can someone do? Voting is good. Do it.
|
|
|
[26 Nov 2007|11:07pm] |
"If science has taught us any enduring truth over the course of its tumultuous history, it must be that the pursuit of knowledge inevitably yields more questions than answers, that in general we know less than we believe we are sure of, and that the horizons seem more distant the longer we walk. The antithesis of ignorance has never been certainty, but rather an open mind and an open heart, approaching the Great Mystery with humility and joy."
--ktaks808, http://youtube.com/watch?v=49fmm2WoWBs comments
If anyone can find another source for this quote, or something like it, I'd like to know. I like it.
|
|
|
[20 Oct 2007|08:18am] |
The first quiz thing I've taken in a long time...
( Read more... )
|
|
|
[12 Oct 2007|12:50am] |
|
I read in Bruce Schneier's blog that his Q&A from DEFCON 15 was posted on Google Video. It's really interesting, and I've been watching a few other talks from DEFCON 15, too. An interesting talk on lawyers and computing, NLP/Social Engineering, and hacking your car. I recommend browsing.
|
|
|
[30 Sep 2007|03:54pm] |
School's been going pretty well so far. It's been a handful of weeks, and nothing has overwhelmed me yet.
The Human Heredity class I'm taking with Bill and Steve is interesting enough, even if the professor is a little strange in her expectations. Memorization of details is fine, but there was a question on a recent quiz that referenced something we had never mentioned in lecture and was only mentioned once in a diagram caption in a chapter of the textbook that we haven't gotten to yet. Other than that, she's definitely intelligent and competent in the field.
The Political Science class I'm taking, Introduction to International Relations, is definitely interesting. I can't really tell whether the professor is liberal or conservative, but he makes comments that he seems to think are good jokes (I'm not a huge fan of them, honestly) that could either be genuine or could be him trying to pander to the students through their more basically political senses of humor. Despite all that, though, it's an interesting class. I'm looking forward to this one outspoken Republican classmate making some vaguely-controversial comment and having a nice vocal backlash against him from someone else in the class, starting a nice healthy debate. I want to hear what this guy has to say.
The next class I have is an American History/Government class, alternating professors weekly. I've known the History professor for a few years, and respect him. I'm pretty sure he's a bit on the conservative side of the line, but he does a good job of keeping that to the side. He really is a nice guy, so I wouldn't mind if my suspicion turned out to be perfectly true. The Political Science professor of the duo is also very good. She's maybe a bit obviously on the liberal side, but definitely not rabidly. She's one of the most rational and competent professors I've had, while still being obviously passionate about the subject.
The Modern Philosophy class I'm in is with the same professor I had a couple of semesters ago. He's cool, and I have to say I've learned a little about the views of Descartes and Spinoza, so far. I hate them both with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, but still, it's nice to know how they feel (to some degree). I think I've developed a bit of a report with him, since I gave him my copy of George Boole's An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, in which Señor Boole analyzes the straight logic used by Spinoza in the latter's Ethics. Basically, what I understand of Boole's analysis is that Spinoza's work is better appreciated if you just ignore his use of "logic" and take all of his work as just as opinion-based and theoretical as any other philosopher's work. It doesn't add anything to imagine various sentences as axioms and propositions and postulates, if it's all just made-up shit about God and his infinite attributes and whatever other bullshit you can think of. I want to dig Spinoza up and punch him in the face, sometimes. But anyway...
Finally, I have an English 1B class on Saturday mornings. The professor is a little weird, and I take issue with some of the stuff he says, but he has been able to connect with the class and convey the information well enough, so far, so it ain't no thang. I give him props for theming the class around gothic and horror literature, but one of the best instances of something I take issue with him on is his classification of Kafka's The Metamorphosis as "gothic" or even "horror." Definitely absurdist, or proto-absurdist, but never in a million years "horror." Ah well. I'll live.
A happy addiction I've taken to recently has been watching Beauty and the Geek. I'm not usually interested in reality shows, but this is different. It bills itself as a "social experiment," and I don't think that's too terribly far off. The concept is to get a group of socially retarded geeks and a group of academically challenged hotties together, and to let them teach one another how to be more complete people. It's definitely still ratings and commercial oriented, but I think the concept works surprisingly well. The guys become less socially awkward and get a considerable amount of interpersonal confidence out of the experience, and the girls learn to take pride in their intelligence and understand that they can accomplish things without relying solely on their looks. I've been impressed by the first three seasons (which I downloaded and watched over the course of probably two weeks or so), and I think I'm successfully getting my sister and mother addicted to this season, so I won't be watching it alone, at least.
I kinda get the feeling that this entry is going to be WALLOFTEXTWALLOFTEXTWALLOFTEXT-y, but I think these paragraphs are divided up well enough. Sue me. Self-conscious, even in my infrequent writings.
Also, I support Barack Obama. Whole-heartedly. I'm going to vote for him, and I think you should too.
|
|
|
[10 Sep 2007|10:31pm] |
|
Yeah. Goddamn, Californication is getting good.
|
|
|
[03 Sep 2007|10:07pm] |
Californication has really grown on me. The first couple episodes were practically full of gratuitous nudity and sex, but the last two episodes have been practically devoid. I attribute the leading edge of the series' content to an interest in hooking an audience. After establishing the audience who has an interest in watching (because the nudity and sex was pretty hot, I must say) they get into the main story arc(s) of the season. And this brings me to something I find interesting about myself: My own conservatism (or modesty? prudishness?).
I generally think of myself as liberal. I am against censorship, I support the legalization of marijuana (at least), I do not think that taxes are evil, I am pro-choice. That being said, something that has irked me in the past (Showtime's The Outer Limits, anyone?), and irks me sometimes these days, is gratuitous sex or nudity on television. Now, I have to say that I am a fan of nudity and sex. I do not take issue with their presentation in media, usually. But I usually get the feeling that, at least in premium cable comedy-dramas, it is sometimes used in place of good writing. Honestly, if I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. I watch most shows (Californication and Weeds are both prime examples) because a) I want to laugh at well-written jokes, and b) I want to see the stories unfold.
Basically, what started me thinking about this topic was how much I appreciate the direction that Californication seems to be taking (for all of two episodes, so far, so I could be pretty damn far off, honestly). David Duchovny is fucking hilarious.
But I really have to admit, it was also fucking hilarious (literally) when he got punched in the face. Twice. An in-joke to people who have seen it. Maybe sex on TV isn't all bad...
|
|
|
[18 Aug 2007|11:31am] |
My sister, her boyfriend, my mother and I started watching the BBC's Planet Earth series a few weeks ago, and it's seriously great. Always interesting, more than occasionally beautiful. I highly recommend it.
In particular, in the episode about freshwater around the world, there was a feature on the Iguaçu Falls, where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. The falls are only about 300 feet tall, which isn't nearly as impressive as many other touristy waterfalls, but it stretches for over a mile and a half, the longest in the world. Here's a picture (but there are so many other pictures you can easily find), if you're interested.
So now I want to go to Brazil. I want to visit Rio de Janeiro and see the beach at Ipanema, and Corcovado Mountain, and even the huge statue of Jesus on top of it. That's seriously something I want to do. And while I'm there, I figure seeing Iguaçu Falls wouldn't be too far out of the question.
|
|
|
[24 Jun 2007|12:20pm] |
|
Some of the best days I've had in a long time happened over these past two weeks. Including last night and this morning. And there's one person who's practically responsible for it all. Thank you.
|
|
|
[11 Jun 2007|07:10pm] |
Mom, to Lou: Someday, I hope you have crazy kids like I do.
Lou: Me too, so I can beat them. 'Fuck you, Bill!' 'My name's Ted!'
|
|
|
[30 May 2007|02:36am] |
|
Happy birthday, Hélène!
|
|
|
[16 May 2007|06:55am] |
|
Happy birthday, Tony!
|
|
|
[13 May 2007|08:23pm] |
|
Everything is perfect, now. My computer works. I'm kinda happy about that. I guess.
|
|
|
[13 May 2007|03:18am] |
My personal computer has been in a state of disrepair for a few days, now. A long while back, the motherboard's northbridge's heatsink/fan's fan crapped out, and I'm a lazy bitch, so I just unplugged it, plugged another fan in, plopped the new fan on top of the old one, and kept the case on its side so gravity would keep it in place. Quick fix, and it worked, think what you will. A few days ago, I woke up to an off computer, which is not the usual, since I leave my tower on all the time (if you've ever seen my AIM uptime, you'll know this to be true). I thought it was strange, but didn't think twice about turning the computer on. Not too terribly long after turning the machine on, I smelled smoke. There was no fire, per se, but I knew something was burning. I promptly turned the computer off, turned off the power supply, opened the case, and began sniffing around. Being familiar with the northbridge's history, I was quick to assume that something about the makeshift fan setup I had going was amiss. To add believability to this diagnosis, the dining room computer (which I am using right now to type out this entry) had the same northbridge fan issue as I had, and since this computer and my own use the same model motherboard.
I was wrong. I replaced the northbridge's heatsink/fan combination on my computer earlier tonight. After booting up, I still smelled smoke. I looked around a bit more, and noticed that the video card's fan wasn't turning. And any part of the card itself was too hot to touch. Ding ding ding. Opening up the card's onboard heatsink/fan enclosure, I noticed a fair amount of scorched dust (obviously the actual culprit). The fan is just fucked, and it's practically integral to the card.
So basically, my northbridge will be fine and healthy for a long time, but my video card is totally fucked. God willing, tomorrow I'll just buy a new one somehow, pop it in, and everything will be perfect. Perfect. Perfectly fucking perfect.
I want to stab someone. I think I'm a pretty reserved guy, weighing the amount I want to stab someone against the fact that I haven't stabbed anyone.
|
|
|
[04 May 2007|02:24pm] |
|
It was my birthday yesterday. I am now 22 years old. Ice cream cake is good.
|
|
|
[09 Apr 2007|12:53am] |
I thought these should be separate entries just because of how completely different their affects are. So here's the second of tonight's.
Thanks to my cousins' family's extra tickets, my brother and I got to go to the SJ Sharks game yesterday afternoon. We were playing like crap, and I was surprised when we managed to tie the game up and get it into overtime, but not so surprised when we lost soon after a 4 on 3 faceoff in our own zone.
A few short hours after the game, though, there was a shindig at Tony's place. It was a lot of fun, and I can still own some fools at Guitar Hero while slightly intoxicated (only on Medium, though, because I actually suck). The point of the shindig was actually to get everyone together and ready to see Grindhouse at Camera 12's Midnight Movie feature.
Shortly before the movie started, a theater employee announced a bit about future Midnight Movie screenings. Then he said that they had a little trivia question for which there were more than one answer, and each correct answer would earn a little prize package. The question was for us to name one of the four movies for which there are fake trailers within Grindhouse. They took raised hands, and someone called Eli Roth's Thanksgiving first. I raised my hand second, was called on, and named Rob Zombie's Werewolf Women of the SS. So I got a poster, a t-shirt for Hot Fuzz, and the Hot Fuzz soundtrack. Throughout the movie, after the movie, until I finally got home, I thought the poster was for Hot Fuzz. As soon as I unrolled it, though, I realized it was a 27"x40" Grindhouse poster. Pretty awesome.
And the movie itself. Planet Terror was absolutely ridiculously fun. Gore. Disgusting amounts of disgusting gore. And Fergie. The back of Fergie's skull ripped open. Death Proof, the more I think about, the less I love. At this point, I really have to agree that it was the weakest part of the whole feature. The entire beginning was pointless except to indicate that Stuntman Mike was evil (dur), the dialogue (quadralogue?) was uninteresting, despite being written by Tarantino. The only really redeeming parts were the plethora of attractive females and the climactic chase scene(s). Despite being the weakest part, though, I can't say I disliked it.
And seriously, I would have paid $10 just to see the trailer for Werewolf Women of the SS. Speaking of which, I owe Tony $10.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
fotoplasma's journal