|
|
Friday, March 22nd, 2002
| |
2:10 am
|
|
| Wednesday, March 20th, 2002
| |
7:54 pm - Food For Thought
|
misswiss
|
The pastimes of modern youth -- video games, the Internet, sports --truly seem like child's play when compared to the amusements of youths in medieval London, which included drinking and prostitution from a very young age. Young men practiced for adulthood by engaging in swordplay, with real swords, or watched amusements of the time such as bear-baiting. The amount of alcohol consumed by the youth of medieval London makes today's "drug crisis" seem tame by comparison.
All in all, today's children are infinitely healthier, safer, better nourished, and better educated than the youth of medieval times. Today's kids have a much longer period of time to enjoy the blessings of youth, and a far better chance of reaching adulthood. Even though child labor still exists in some parts of the modern world, its prevalence has greatly decreased from medieval times. The games and entertainments of modern youth are certainly safer and more constructive. Perhaps most importantly, even in our age of high divorce rates, the vast majority of children today have at least one loving parent. "
Taken from www.positivepress.com
So quit your whining about how the modern world is going to hell - obviously humanity has already been to hell and back, and survived.
If only we would take care of our environment...
current mood:  pleased
|
|
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
| Friday, March 15th, 2002
| |
3:41 pm - Hey buds
|
livenude
|
I guess I'm the new kid on the block, eh? Well, something like that. I just joined yesterday. This community looks exquisitely kick-ass and all the posts I have read thusfar have been delightfully intelligent. I hope that I too can contribute something thought-provoking and indelible.
But, I probably won't.
By the way, my name's Shannon.
|
|
(3 comments |comment on this)
|
| Thursday, March 7th, 2002
| |
10:47 pm - Other People's Thoughts
|
misswiss
|
Why do we live in a society where listening to or viewing other people's thoughts is considered superior to being entertained by our own imaginations?
By this I mean that it's "acceptable" to spend hours watching television, listening to the stereo, surfing the internet or reading the National Enquirer...but people who sit and stare at walls, pace back and forth and talk to themselves, or simply sit under trees in the sunshine and think are considered to be weird ???????
Has anyone else noticed this besides me? I think it's time for a rebellion. I'm all for other people's input, but I'd rather listen to my own mind than watch a television show any day.
Are we *as a society* afraid of our own minds?
current mood:  contemplative
|
|
(10 comments |comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, March 6th, 2002
| |
9:44 am - email I sent to Bob and Tom this morning
|
|
| Monday, March 4th, 2002
| |
4:15 pm - Spiritual Journal, 3/4/02
|
novapsyche
|
1:18 p.m.
To solve America's impending doom, we need to solve the 1984 problem. How can we escape a totalitarian democratic government?
We were in a Brave New World era (during the 1940s-1960s), but are heading dead smack into 1984.
My SO and I haven't come to an opinion about the 1984 syndrome. We don't know how a democratic populace could voluntarily undergo a revolution against an ultra-conservative capitalistic republic.
There has to be a solution, though. I feel it in my bones. Just need to figure out what parameters exist, how social groups react to crucial, acute political and cultural change.
|
|
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
| |
4:03 pm - Spiritual Journal, 3/4/02
|
novapsyche
|
5:30 a.m.
When we went from audiotactile [I was listening to a Terence McKenna recording recently] to visual, our perspective became perpendicular to the natural universe. On that day, we became abstracted from nature, homo sapiens sapiens.
Somehow [this is speculation], this has something to do with this last age, this age just after the last ice age (the Holocene Thermal Maximum, as described by Julian Jaynes in Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind).
|
|
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
| Thursday, February 21st, 2002
| |
5:59 pm - Some Bits To Chew
|
misswiss
|
Why do humans have such an intrinsic need for CERTAINTY?
For example:
Why are many people threatened by those who don't share their religious beliefs?
Why do people often hold on to ideas that are merely theories
(such as the widely accepted theories of evolution and natural selection) and talk about them as if they are facts?
Why are we so frightened of madness?
Why are many of us so bent on finding the "right" answers in life?
I'd love it if you'd share any ponderings, theories, presumptions, meanderings or even stone cold facts on why people are so desperate to discover some sort of concrete reality.
current mood:  curious
|
|
(11 comments |comment on this)
|
| Monday, February 18th, 2002
| |
2:06 am - my first entry...lesse how it goes. something thought up over a cup of dirtydirty dorm water.
|
thoreauisdead
|
I grew up reading all of the greats. Thoreau. Hemingway. T.S. Eliot. On and on and on. All the great intellectual minds of the past two thousand years, and some that predate even that. I have read philosophers, poets, sociologists, social commentators. I have absorbed their ideas, and in many cases I have become their ideals. Sucking in their thoughts and words, I have built myself into what each and every one of them wanted me to be. The problem is, I am a creature that can read and can understand. That, in itself does not seem like so great a problem, to be sure. but for what purpose does all this go?
Sure, I have all their thoughts. They are all in my brain, floating around, just waiting to make connections to tie them all in together. But where do I find those connections? My whole life, I have been taught. These great ideas, these innovations in the way we think, they were all laid out to me on paper, and shoved into my head by other sources. When it comes down to reciting other's ideas word for word, I have that made. I can tell you Plato's views on society, and why they should still be important to the society of today. I rule over Shakespeare. John Locke is…well, Locke is my bitch.
This, however, gets me nowhere.
What is the use of all this knowledge without the means to grow off of them? All of this is stagnant. It sits in my head, weighing me down. I cannot do anything with it, because there is nothing to be done with it. These ideas have already been thought of. It has already been done. They have reached their completion, and there is nothing else to be done with it. No matter how important each of these quotes floating around in my head might be, there is no use in knowing them. They are past history. They belong to the past, and in the past. They are part of what we, as a people, used to be. Thoreau is dead, long live Thoreau.
Fuck Thoreau.
He is just that. Dead. Long gone and relegated to a rotting corpse under a pile of stones in the middle of some god forsaken forest. See where all his great thoughts got him? Same place it will get the rest of us, in the end. Nowhere. But this is besides the point. The point is, through everything I have learned, I have learned nothing of use at all. I know nothing. My mind has been relegated to the menial task of acting as a filing cabinet for information that in the long run really doesn't matter. I can access any of this information at any time, but I cannot put it to use. After all, it is not the filing cabinet's job to decipher what is in it.
And now down to the point. I have lost the ability to learn. I can no longer think.
This in itself is not even me. This, in a roundabout way, is nihilism.
(sigh)
current mood:  awake
current music: talvin singh-light.
|
|
(8 comments |comment on this)
|
| Saturday, February 16th, 2002
| |
11:26 pm
|
z_vapor
|
Heylow... I am here... I really have nothing smart to say right now, I'm very tired and irritated at the damage done to my computer by my nieces. Well... Night night all.
|
|
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
| |
6:23 pm
|
nanikore
|
(Glaring spelling and grammar mistakes included for your reading amusement. It's no research paper; It's an email)
Subject: RE: transdisciplinary research
To: "Derek Cabrera"
Hi Derek,
Yes, my direction is rather vague and scattered but the general idea I'm
hoping to work towards is that the conventional / formal means of
obtaining and certifying knowledge via proofs is not efficient nor even
sufficient. Using transdisciplinary means to study a variety of subjects
would be the starting steps of developing a new way of knowledge
gathering. I don't mean any disrespect whatsoever but the scientific
method, along with how philosophers routinely go through their motions,
contain in themselves assumptions regarding knowledge and truth. That
assumption is knowledge can only come from sensory information- intuition
is to be pushed aside in favor of reason. What is forgotten is that reason
is predicated upon the information that the senses receive, and if the
information is corrupt (as they often can be) or imperfect (as they must
be) then reason itself is suspect.
The three ideas that I presented were not purely scientific nor
philosophical in nature, but at the same time perhaps a little bit of
both. Actually, they are intuitive ideas and not rational ones:
The "Event Production Process" is a supposition that cannot really be
proved or disproved at the present time, at least as far as I know. It's a
guess on how the universe operates. Computer scientists can investigate
cosmology because it involves possible recursion. Biologists can do the
same, since the biological process is an integral part of the universal
process. Political analysts can study recursion to see how seemingly
disparate political events are chained to one another, and so can
economists. Just about any process there is can benefit from the study of
recursive phenonmenon because after all, that's how I think the universe
works. Even the government can use it to analyse how their military and
"political engineering" operations produce subsequent events (I would hold
my comments regarding what CIA's dealings in Afghanistan in the 80's here,
but I digress). As for philosophers, the very first discipline I could
think of is ontology. As far as causes of being are concerned, events can
be treated as metaphysical objects.
The supposition of "Chaos and Order as continum" is also something that is
probably not provable as of yet (If I start reading about even the
generalities of Chaos Theory now, I would have a whole lot of catching up
to do to say the least). Again, more intuitive thinking despite
sprinklings of reasoning. This is the sort of guesswork that produced the
flat earth and geocentric views. I see things around me that other people
could also see, and I basically jump to something even though I don't
necessarilly call it a conclusion. Here is where a philosopher may
criticize: "But wait, since science does not have all the data,
doesn't..." I need not to say the rest of the sentence but I think that's
where a great chism between science and philosophy was created, or at
least one of the places. I have seen an advertisement for an international
philosophical symposium, with one of the topics proclaiming "The Failure
of Science", or something pointless to that effect. However, if they are
to accuse the scientists, they should be aware that they are doing the
same thing- working from their limited senses and using their reasoning to
fill in the blanks. Philosophers contemplate fate versus free will, and
scientists contemplate order versus chaos. In my mind those subjects are
analogs, therefore I think both sides can benefit from a cooperation.
Different methods, same goal- knowledge of the universe, and hopefully
using that to bring peace and prosperity to mankind.
Lastly, the question of the black box of intuition being part of the base
structure and operation of the universe (what we don't know and are trying
to reveal) is important in many aspects. On the immediate practical
dimension, psychology, psychiatry, psychobiology, biology, zoology and
their affiliated branches of study could benefit from the study of the
source of intuition. If the metaphysical can be solidly linked to the
physical, it would carry great implication for the fields of medicine and
certainly religious studies. Theology doe not have to be left out of the
loop here- religious texts contain deep studies in philosophy and
psychology, and there are many agreements amongst them. Here is a passage
from the Online Catholic Encyclopedia (it's an interesting reference for
persons of any creed):
"Spinoza's pantheism was realistic: the one being of the world had an
objective character. But the systems that developed during the nineteenth
century went to the extreme of idealism. They are properly grouped under
the designation of "transcendental pantheism", as their starting-point is
found in Kant's critical philosophy. Kant (q.v.) had distinguished in
knowledge the matter which comes through sensation from the outer world,
and the forms, which are purely subjective and yet are the more important
factors. Furthermore, he had declared that we know the appearances
(phenomena) of things but not the things-in-themselves (noumena). And he
had made the ideas of the soul, the world, and God merely immanent, so
that any attempt to demonstrate their objective value must end in
contradiction. This subjectivism paved the way for the pantheistic
theories of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel."
I see the universe as the set of all sets (the only "thing" that is
objective in technicality), and what anyone can observe to be a subset of
it (subjective), the intersections of observations being localized
objectivities (agreements). My idea of the inobservable objective reality
("true reality", inobservable because we can not step outside of the
universe itself to observe it, plus a variety of other reasons. Perhaps
intuition offers the only possible exiting avenue) and the observed
subjective reality corresponds to Kant's phenomena and noumena. They also
correspond to a concept in Hinduism (Buddhism is derived from Hinduism).
This is from a Hindu website:
"The world in which we live is a world of ignorance and falsehood or
untruth, called Asat, in contrast to Sat or the world of Truth that exists
beyond it, where neither the mind, nor any of the senses can ever reach
even remotely."
I had never consulted any philosophical or religious texts before
formulating my personal system, nor have any of the above groups of people
I surmise. There are many other examples that I'm cetain others can dig
up. Athenian and eastern philosophy both have advocates in holistic
thought. This convergence of observations shows an underlying condition- a
glimpse of global "truth". Science, philosophy, religion, and even
mysticism do not have to be in conflict with each other because they all
contain natural analogs to each other. Everything in the universe is
interrelated and should be treated as such, and that includes fields of
knowledge (experiment finds that all points in the universe is connected
on a quantum level- now I don't know exactly what that means but it has to
mean something).
These are some rather scattered thoughts that I've spewed out. I hope I
could organize them a bit once I obtain a definite direction. Generally,
there are two pie-in-the-sky end goals for my line of thinking:
1. Have intuition recognized as a valid source of knowledge, thus opening
the door to the reopening of the investigation in esoteric knowledge by
any discipline (I recent read a book regarding the Tree of Life in the
Kabbalah to be quite interesting); An alternate "method without immediate
proof" (intuitive method) would also be deemed acceptable by "those in
charge".
2. Increase cooperation between the domains of knowledge (science,
philosophy, and yes, even religion. Politicians would also have to be
involved). In other words, try to return to the Golden Age, this time
without the mistakes. With all the disciplines working together, mankind
would stand a better chance.
D.H.
--- Derek Cabrera wrote:
> D.H.,
>
> I would be happy to discuss some of the ideas I am working on. I briefly
> looked at your site--the content of your thoughts is interesting but I
> was
> unable to establish a particular direction you are going in. For
> example,
> how are you connecting philisophical and scientific transdisciplinarity?
>
> My theory is quite simple and it begins from a singular point (a
> singularity) and then unfolds into Implicate and Explicate Order.
>
> Incidentally, where are you located?
>
> Derek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:34 PM
> To: derek@projectn.com
> Subject: transdisciplinary research
>
>
> Dear Mr. Cabrera,
>
> I wrote to AIS with the following letter because I was curious for
> information regarding current transdisciplinary research projects. I am
> not an expert in any field, but simply a layman who wonders if there is
> a
> channel for public discussion with those who are performing the work:
>
> ---
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to know where can I obtain information on any transdisciplinary
> research projects that may be going on right now. This is because I see
> all kinds of interdisciplinary projects within the scientific community
> and within the philosophical community but never across the two. I am an
> engineer with some ideas I would like to discuss with the ones who may
> be
> involved in those kinds of cooperative projects across different domains
> of knowledge. I have drawn up brief illustrations of some of my ideas as
> examples here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/event.html
> http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/continuum.html
> http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/intuition.html
>
> I would greatly appreciate it if I could be referred to someone who
> knows.
>
> Thank you,
> D.H.
>
> ---
>
> The executive director of AIS referred me to you on the receipt of my
> email. I would appreciate any information that you may be able to
> provide.
> As for pointers Bill Newell recommended your book, Remedial Genius. It
> looks like something that could help me greatly in every situation.
> Unfortunately I do not have enough time and energy left over from my
> regular work to formally research, develop, and disseminate a theory on
> my
> own. Discussions would have to do for now, if I can get them.
>
> Thank you,
> D.H.
Of course, never heard from him again. I just couldn't help being an individual with disrespectful views. Guess he didn't want to expend the energy to "correct" me...
http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/event.html
http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/continuum.html
http://www.geocities.com/nanikore.rm/intuition.html
|
|
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
| |
3:46 am - Cultural Exchange?
|
|
| Wednesday, February 13th, 2002
| |
11:21 pm
|
arjuna
|
I was reading Calvin and Hobbes today and I started thinking about perception. For those of you who have read this comic strip you know that Calvin has zany adventures with his stuffed animal Hobbes but when his parents see him he is shown as a stuffed animal vs the very animated creature he is with Calvin.
Bill Watterson never wanted the comic strip to question or get into an area in which the conflict of perceptions was ever the focus. He simply wrote around it.
I think it's all too easy and reductive to say that "It's all in Calvin's mind and it's just his imagination", I think beliefs like the one Calvin has is so powerful that it cannot be reduced in such a manner.
Beliefs in such things as "the monster under the bed" or "snowmen that move". These are obviously easier to understand than miracles.
I do not agree furthermore that these beliefs can be reduced through psychoanalysis. To say "they are just..." is not in the spirit of the belief and is demeaning to the believer.
I want to focus the debate not on religious belief but in our everyday beliefs like the belief in "Santa Claus".
I'd like to take a moment to explore the innocence of belief in Santa Claus and the need to respect and not reduce it.
In believing in these things do we not create a reality that is congruient with our belief? Furthermore is not the power of our belief enough to give it a reality?
If I belief there is a monster under the bed so strongly that it alters the way I conduct myself throughout my entire life (and in a possibly benefitial) perhaps the nature of these beliefs are being misunderstood by most people who want to exchange wide eyed wonder for the harsh and bitter reality. Of course it is the reconciliation of the two that is in question.
Finally how do y'all feel religious belief ties in.
current mood: thoughtful
|
|
(5 comments |comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, February 12th, 2002
| |
4:13 am
|
arjuna
|
Many conflicts can be determined to be the clash of two values or virtues. In this conflict three possibilities exist:
There is a higher virtue and a lower virtue present: in which case it is our duty to uphold the higher virtue.
There are two virtues and it is undetermined which is higher. It is therefore our duty to understand the nature and value of each virtue before action is taken.
When a virtue is determined to be lower it must not be held higher on the basis of its virtue alone. It is our duty to move towards the "highest" virtue, not simple virtue.
As an example I will cite charity and self reliance.
A man is begging on the street. You walk up to him and have to make a decision of whether to assist him or not. On the one hand in giving him charity you are preventing him from becoming self reliant. He becomes dependent on the charity of others instead of developing his own abilities. On the other by giving him money or food you are expressing charity for your fellow man.
Conclusion: Therefore its wrong to give to panhandlers but correct to give to credible charities.
It is a competition of values. Which is higher?
This example is just to illustrate the nature of the conflict NOT to limit conversation. Please use other examples where your viewpoints would be challenged.
current mood: thoughtful
|
|
(2 comments |comment on this)
|
| Monday, February 11th, 2002
| |
10:08 pm - Ooops
|
|
| Friday, February 8th, 2002
| |
4:34 am - Pussyism
|
misswiss
|
Oh the seductive lure of mythology.
What is mythology? In my opinion, they are stories created by individual cultures that needed answers for the big questions, such as "Why is the sky blue, mommy?"
With the advent of more scientific thinking, one would think that mythological beliefs would become obsolete, even extinct. However, in light of the on-going religious wars in all over the world, this apparently is not the case.
Someone suggested to me tonight that "mythology and organized religion are useful because they cause most people to behave in a moral manner."
I am sickened by the above statement for three reasons:
1) It implies that there is an absolute morality
2) It implies that the majority of religious people are "good" ( i.e. peaceful, loving, non-judgemental. Yeah. You can stop laughing now)
3) It implies that atheists/agnostics and otherwise non-religious people are not capable of sound ethical practices - that somehow people will lose all love of humanity when devoid of the fear of some All Knowing Old Guy In Sandals Living On Mars. Hmmmm.
So, have you seen the news recently?
Apparently a Catholic priest was on trial for multiple cases of child molestation. In fact, he was protected by the Catholic church and perpetually employed as a priest for many years, even being a KNOWN PEDOPHILE. While on the stand, he claimed that he didn't realize that forcing his repressed sexual impulses on children was wrong.
Oh really? Does this mean that the Catholic church employs retarded individuals as spiritual leaders?
Mythology keeps people on their best behavior? Try again.
current mood: bemused
current music: "Opiate" Tool
|
|
(2 comments |comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, February 6th, 2002
| |
8:04 pm - The "Make Everyone Hate Me" Post
|
misswiss
|
This is a sensitive subject,but I feel as a United States citizen this is an issue that certainly merits discussion.
If you've ever lived in the Los Angeles area, keep up with current events,or have just seen moving, realistic films such as "American History X" , you are very aware that there is a horrifying race/gang problem in the SouthWestern U.S.
It seems ridiculous to claim I'm not racist, so I won't...I HAVE noticed certain segments of the immigrant population taking advantage of/manipulating the system.
If I encounter one more Mexican who refuses to learn English and cries "viva Mexico!" with a gleam in their eye while living in this country, I may kill someone. I mean, I don't move to Italy and refuse to learn Italian. It's that simple - you want to live in a country, you learn their culture.
But the gang problem realistically is a frightening detriment to our society, and I feel that residents of other parts of this nation turn a blind eye to how bad it is in Los Angeles and even in Las Vegas.
Do you think the lenient United States immigration laws and sloppy governing on the part of the state of California have significantly contributed to the gang problem in the greater Los Angeles area?
Do you think there really is a solution to ignorance, poverty and racism?
current mood: judgemental
current music: The Philosopher Kings
|
|
(17 comments |comment on this)
|
| Monday, February 4th, 2002
| |
1:44 am - Hypothetical Question Based On A Dream
|
arjuna
|
You've just saw your best friend get beated up and taken into a white van. You know where they are going and you know they are going to kill him. But you know a short cut past the lake.
You're riding past the lake when you hear a cry for help. There's a boy in the middle of the lake and he appears to be drowning. There is no one in sight. You see some people far away approaching and it's unlikely they will make it to save the boy. You can save the boy but in doing so you will not be able to save your best friend.
So what circumstances would make you pass the boy over your best friend or vice versa? What would you do naturally? This is assuming that you have to make a choice between their lives.
In my dream I rode past the boy justifying it to myself by saying the voices, who sounded much closer in the dream than they would be in this hypthetical question, and was able to deftly knock out the bad guys with a bookshelf filled with satanic literature including a copy of "Human Sacrifices for Dummies". I then grabbed their guns and expertly shoot them all and save my friend and then day. I have to say it was impressive even if it was just a dream.
current mood:  mischievous
current music: KARMA POLICE -- RADIOHEAD
|
|
(8 comments |comment on this)
|
| |
12:35 am - Random questions from a member of my dear diary... I thought they were fun to think about.
|
firefly_orchard
|
OH! How come, when it's winter and dark outside, I can see my breath but I can't see the wind blow.
Why do we cry in our sleep? Or it just me? Cause sometimes when I wake up, my eyes are stuck shut something serious and I don't remember having a painful dream, one that would cause me to cry. And other days, I'll have a sad dream but I'll wake up fine, no dried tears and stuff.
current mood: awake
|
|
(2 comments |comment on this)
|
| Friday, February 1st, 2002
| |
7:39 pm - Keeps Me Awake At Night
|
misswiss
|
Legend has it that Bobby Fischer, chess genius, had very few interests than chess and never dated as a young man ( at least before he disappeared.)
My questions are these: Do you think all "geniuses" are defective in some way? Do you think extreme mathematical intelligence ( the kind that computer programmers, physicists and chess players have) causes mild autism? Is there a fine line between genius and insanity? Do people with disorders such as autism get lonely? Do asexual people still have a need for one on one companionship?
All feel free to discuss, please.
current mood:  bouncy
current music: Fat Boy Slim " Gangsta Trippin"
|
|
(5 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|