Paul Hakel .Info @ Blogspot

Defend the Internet's Freedom with Vigilance!

2012-02-02T09:56:00.001-08:00

While many Americans were aware of and in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), many were not aware that a perhaps more sinister Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) had been signed by our President Barack Obama by executive order back in October 2011. Many other countries also signed on to the International Bill which seeks to force Internet Service Providers to act as "internet police" rather than mere transmitters of information. ACTA was written and signed behind closed doors with little public input and scrutiny and threatens the sovereignty of nations' ability to regulate their own media and communications.

Many other bills have been proposed, such as H.R. 3782, the Open Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN). To be sure, internet piracy is a problem and readers are encouraged to pay for all the digital media they consume. Cyberterrorism is also a concern, yet terrorism and fears have been used far too often simply to take away civil liberties. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) suggested that cyberterrorism was perhaps the greatest threat to America and that "maybe it would have been better if the internet had never been invented".

Can you imagine a modern world without the internet? That kind of comment suggests to me that concern about the "security" of the internet is hardly what the issue is here. Perhaps the real agenda is about controlling the populace and taking away our ability to dissent, which has been largely aided by the tool of the internet. The internet has preserved a free press where larger, open discussions take place unlike that of our conventional newspapers and TV stations.

For all the problems of piracy that the internet's created, it's also undeniably created a lot of business. For all the terroristic capability of the internet, it also helps people to stay connected to deal with problems as they arise. In trying to solve issues that the internet creates, we should not destroy our civil liberties. Some of the bills proposed would make it illegal even to link to copyright infringing websites! That is overkill and overly draconian!

Please stay aware of whatever bills are being voted on and hold your leaders accountable! If your leaders don't serve your interests, help prevent them from getting elected. Campaign for better leaders! You can contact your representatives on house.gov and senate.gov. Please do that and tell your friends and family to do the same. The fate of the internet is in YOUR HANDS!

How to Dream More, How to Understand Schizophrenia - Hypotheses

2012-01-11T13:16:00.001-08:00

Last night I had powerful and intense dreams, which hasn't happened in a while to the same intensity that it did last night! I attribute it to a more extensive winding down period of time before bed and to having calmed myself down a lot using camomile tea. I stumbled upon some kind of understanding about how our brain works, I think, that should both explain schizophrenia more to a conceptual degree and to allow us to dream more, which I think is desirable. I wanted to write here about some of my hypotheses and understandings of our brains and mental illness.

I think that when we "day-dream" we're using the same part of the brain as when we "night-dream". I thus also think that "day-dreaming" or using the "imagination" more should lead to more "night-dreaming". When we "day-dream" or use the "imagination" (these are words for the same thing that we do), we use memories in our brain to create new experiences - a collage of memories, a new miss-matching or re-mix of them. When we use the word "imagination", that, too, is a bit misleading of a word: for it is also an "audio-ination" or way of "re-mixing" sounds, as well as all the other senses. The word "imagination" suggests that it is only images or sight that is what we conjure up; maybe that word was picked because sight is often a dominant thing that we use in our dreamings, whether they are during the day or night.

Daydreams are also LUCID, or more subject to our control. In contrast, night-dreams are often unconscious and directed more by our brain. Many people have been seeking to lucidly night-dream; in another way, it could be understood that this is day-dreaming at night, except that while lucidly night-dreaming there is less of an ability for a person to be aware of the external senses (that I know of). In night-dreams, the body usually cuts off input from the senses.

I think it's important for us to note that our brains, in normal healthy people, are like audio-visual-gustatory-etc. camcorders; we virtually "record" everything during our waking hours. Sometimes it is simply our ability to RECALL the information that we record which is difficult. But our daydreams are kind of like "editing stations" where we re-mix the experiences of our lives to create an emulation of other possibilities and even IMPOSSIBILITIES. Is FOCUSSING, then, partially just the ability to create more detailed memories by using our senses? Are movies and video games, in a sense, just a crystallized form of our brain's day or night dreams?

I think, then, that schizophrenia must be a confusion of daydreams and the input of the senses. Just as we can daydream or use our imagination to cause physical sensations, like someone who might sexually fantasize and become sexually aroused, the schizophrenic has an incredibly vivid blending together of sensual input and the output of the imagination. The psychotic, or one who is "disconnected from the world, must have damage in the brain that allows for sensual input, and this person is more exclusively lost in "daydreams". What if, instead of using medical jargon and esoteric terms like the word "psychosis", we called it "total daydream disorder"? I think that therapeutically we need to find the region of the brain responsible for "dreaming" (day or night) or the re-experiencing of memories, and look how it connects to the senses. In schizophrenics, it would seem that vivid stimulation of the senses in a predictable way would help to "re-connect" them with the world.

Remember when people say about psychotics, "That person's out of TOUCH with reality"? That's because their sense of touch is not being utilized enough - during all hours of normal healthy human beings, we have sensual connection to the world. The schizophrenic and psychotic have a disordered experience of that sensual connection. Stimulating the senses in a healthy, loving, non-violent way might help to re-order their brains especially in cases where the disorders have arisen spontaneously or not strictly due to obvious chemical causes.

While we're at it, too, I wanted to mention that when people fear having "flashbacks" from drug experiences, a flashback must be nothing more than an activated distressing memory. We have positive "flashbacks" every day when we remember an experience from our past that relates to our present moment. I think de-mystifying all of these supposedly strange things would be beneficial to understanding how our brain works so that we can use them better and heal others who have disorders of brain and mind.

To dream more at night, I think we need to use our memories more during the day and also juxtapose our different memories to form new ideas. (An "idea" is just another word for a "memory", physically speaking). We can also wind down before bed and try to remember what we dreamed when we wake up. Exercise and tiring one's self out should be helpful for inducing dreams, as well as drinking relaxing teas that don't interfere with the brain (like alcohol or caffeine might) before winding down and sleeping.

I also believe that during sleep we are somewhat influenced by our surroundings. In high school, I experimented with leaving classical music on while I slept. On nights when harmonic music was played, it seemed I had somewhat pleasant dreams. On nights where the music was chromatic and chaotic, I awoke from gruesome nightmares to turn the music off. This only happened a handful of times, but I think that more people should experiment with conditions and see what's possible. What about burning incense while people sleep? Very dark conditions before bed also seem like they would be beneficial for inducing dreams, in order to boost the melatonin production in the brain that the body naturally secretes in response to darkness at night in conjunction with our circadian rhythms.

Dreams of day and night can provide powerful insights for improving our realities. I believe that we should develop more reliable methods for inducing dreams in the general population as well as understanding physically how the senses relate to our imagination in order to heal the mentally ill.

Happy dream adventures, everyone!

Interrobang‽ Punctuation of the Future

2012-01-04T19:19:00.000-08:00

The interrobang (also know as the interrabang) is a symbol that expresses the exclamation point and question mark at the same time, written as "‽". What other punctuation will arise in the future? I think that the comma elipsis has some merit, as well as a comma colon and variations on the semi-colon including the semi-question-colon and semi-exclamation-colon. I think that either more popularly we need to be able to write and type these kinds of characters in normal writing or that it should become more socially acceptable to write ";?" to denote a semi-colon question mark. I've come across instances where these punctuations seem useful, and sometimes I also end up spontaneously using ".!." to indicate a subtler kind of excitement. These things need to infiltrate the formal culture and I suppose will do so by people's use of them.

I always wonder, "What other kinds of punctuation are possible?" It's fun to expand your punctuational vocabulary, a tool for writing and expressing more exactly how you're feeling. I noticed, for instance, on the Wikipedia article for punctuation , there were also something called an irony mark, written "⸮". I imagine the future can give birth to new forms of punctuation which are useful for various different applications. Consider creating them!

Top Five Reasons Why I Believe in Creationism

2012-01-03T12:28:00.000-08:00

1. There are still "gaps" in the evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated and has always been a stumbling point for atheists. How did something living come from something non-living? If atheists can't demonstrate EXACTLY what happened and yet they want to claim they have "certainty" of their hypothesis, why can't creationists justly appeal to the same amount of mystery? It is quite one thing for evolutionists to claim that something COULD have happened a certain way, but it is an unscientific leap of faith to claim that that's HOW they happened in the past. You can take that leap of faith, but allow creationists to leap in the opposite direction.

2. Hume's Problem of Induction: Just because we've consistently seen white swans throughout our lives, why couldn't there be a black swan? Or green, or blue? Just because we have the evolutionary theory today doesn't mean that a better theory couldn't triumph tomorrow. Hume's problem of induction also makes it impossible to say that, with any confidence, the "laws" of the universe were exactly the same in the past as they were today. So, since the "laws" of the universe aren't known to be inflexible, an all-powerful God could change how things operate over time. Perhaps there was a different biological reality prior to the Fall of Mankind in Genesis in the Bible, one of immortality, and then things were altered when Man biologically ate the tree in the Garden of Eden - maybe it was physical mortal poison, while other foods were immortal foods. Atheists reject any idea of God having super-natural powers because of the limited powers of their own scientific method of pursuing truth, but just because something isn't discovered using the scientific method doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, Paul Feyerabend, in "Against Method", noted that a lot of progress in science has hardly been "scientific".

3. An all-powerful, all-knowing God can create however God desires! Why does God have to use evolution to create humans? Answer: God can do whatever God mysteriously wants, just like a painter can paint a picture in whatever non-scientific way they want to. The painter may make sketches, but it's not clear to me that they "evolve" each painting by growing each tree in the ground before "planting" it in their pictures. God is the Supreme Artist (The Creator) who non-scientifically creates. Evolutionary theory constrains God's freedom to create as God wishes. Put it this way, "Why COULDN'T God create the world non-scientifically, non-evolutionarily?"

4. You can have evolutionary theists, but you can't have creationist atheists. For that reason, I think that creationism and theism go hand in hand more, and that atheism and evolution go hand in hand more. The ongoing impulse to physically describe how the universe started is a scientific one, rather than acknowledging the mysterious ways of God. Evolutionary theism tries to make rational the divine rationality of God and is perhaps as impossible as an ant trying to understand the intelligence of a human being. Evolutionary theory makes us look at God's Creation in a different way and threatens to make it seem random rather than deliberate, arbitrary rather than magnificent, and subject to deterministic scientific development rather than the free creation of a Spirit's will. Evolution threatens to make more and more of God's creation deterministic (out of God's direct control) and makes us think of God as being an inactive observer rather than a fervent participant.

5. Evolution has never been PROVEN to be true or correct, which points to our freedom to believe otherwise. Even Richard Dawkins, top evolutionary atheist, admits this in the creationist film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Dawkins said that he was "99% sure that God doesn't exist". Contrarily, theists feel the opposite, that they're 99% sure that God DOES exist. Anyway, that 1% of uncertainty is [paradoxical] proof that God's existence is neither proven nor disproved, strictly speaking, as is true with evolution. So when a creationist says, "I believe there's probably some unknown explanation for why your scientific evolutionary theory is wrong", that would be about as fair to say as an atheist a few hundred years ago who would say, "I believe evolution to be right, but I don't know the reasons yet…". Maybe if we were more "open-minded", we could see that explanations could arise in the future to refute evolutionary theory. And indeed plenty of super-natural solutions have already been proposed about the mysterious powers of spirits. Yet, the scientific community has become materialistic and denies that there can be any such thing as "spiritual powers". Spiritual powers still sound quasi-scientific even though quite natural powers like electricity weren't even known about hundreds of years ago. So, just because we don't know a power exists, just like we don't know (strictly speaking) that God exists, doesn't mean that spiritual powers or an unknown physical power like electricity doesn't exist.

Bibliography:
1. Hume's Problem of Induction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
2. Expelled: No Intelligence in the Classroom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
3. Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method": http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm

PA Texting Ban Lamentable

2011-11-15T19:11:00.001-08:00

Recently, Tom Cobett (the governor of PA) signed legislation that will make it illegal to text message while driving a motor vehicle. I hope that many are outraged and saddened that America is quickly and incrementally becoming more of a police state where the government runs each individual's life rather than serve as a protector of essential liberties. Texting itself while driving is not the problem or issue here, but rather our concern should be inattention to the road and a failure to teach and practice safe driving. It is a shame that such innocuous things like texting while stopped at a red light will become illegal. This policy will be hard for police to justly enforce: for instance, what is the visual difference between a person toggling songs on a music player or the radio and a person who is texting? If this law is just tacked on to crashes that come from texting, all they will do is add insult to injury, rather than seek compassionate healing to offended parties. They will not have prevented the crash in those cases. This pass in legislation only serves to create more paranoia in honest citizens who seek to exercise their God-given liberties and to put burdens on the young who have already adapted to this technological development and enjoy using it. It and similar laws should be opposed by PA residents.

"Tactile Deficiency Disorder"

2011-11-08T16:50:00.000-08:00

We are "out of touch" with reality. The healing power of touch is in much neglect today. Cases of people on the verge of suicide who have been revived simply by feeling the touch of another human being attest to the sustaining power of touch. That we have such a distorted view of the sense of touch today is evident in considering that if I were to say that "I want to touch you" that immediately such a suggestion has negative, immoral, sexual connotations. Yet, in our predominantly audio-visual world, the sense of touch is still VERY IMPORTANT and a life without a sufficient sense of healthy, loving touches is certainly a recipe for disaster.

To the list of "disorders" we could give names to, we could probably also add some other senses like taste and smell. I think generally I remember a more widespread appreciation of the sense of taste in the past, as in giving greater focus and attention to what one was eating. We are perhaps living in such a fast-paced world that we are unable to slow down and appreciate some of these senses and sensations and have mono-culturized our consciousness.

Perhaps a greater sense of loving touch could be used to help with many mental disorders, such as schizophrenia where a person has lost or a distorted connection to the world. Yet, I emphasize the need for LOVING TOUCH, because touch can be used as a weapon of violation and be used to exacerbate emotional wounds. Touch loosens muscles and relaxes the body-mind-spirit.

The power of touch is probably beyond our current scientific understanding; it is a total movement which, when broken down and analyzed, cannot do justice to the full scope of the power of touch. It is sufficient to learn to use it and appreciate its power. Even in sales, the experience of touching another person creates a greater sense of trust and a feeling of less likelihood of being harmed. I would contend that a greater appreciation of the sense of social touch would make it more difficult for people to be prone to violence in the world. It is much easier to harm someone you have not touched or experienced, but harder if you compassionately feel with your senses that another person feels just like you do; it seems like a great curative for narcissism and psychopathology.

Our culture has become touch-averse and it is important that we reflect on the different choices we are making in reaction to the new technological and social developments in our lives. In the Bible, in Romans 16:16 St. Paul wrote, "Greet each other with a holy kiss." It is amazing today that even among Christians and a Christian nation that there is such a shying away from the sense of touch.

So, the next time someone says, "this needs a touch of..." maybe you will think about the literal meaning of the metaphorical statement. Maybe we all need a little "touch of touch".

Old New Word: "Ambivert" - Between Introverted, Extroverted

2011-11-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

Ambivert - between introverted and extroverted, with qualities of both.

I found this in "30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary" by Dr. Wilfred Funk & Norman Lewis, Copyright 1942 and 1970!

Ahh, the joy of archaic words. There are whole treasure troves of them out there to be found in old dictionaries!

Science Tomorrow: Questioning "Scientific Studies"

2011-10-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, articles have popped up about a study where women who took daily multivitamins were at an increased risk of various different diseases and disorders. In the past, it seemed like common sense that adding vitamins to one's life were always a good thing. I think, therefore, it's important to analyze these contradictions (perhaps in a Hegelian fashion?) and come to a more sensible conclusion about what's going on. The "scientific study" as being some kind of absolute indicator of what's true has failed to be adequately questioned. In the multivitamin debate, I am going to assume that some vitamins are good to take while overdose is possible - neglected, in the interpretation of this study, is the possibility of a correlation between women who take daily multivitamins and women who are already unhealthy (thus their reason for taking multivitamins). There are whole labyrinths of interpretations of studies that each person is going to sift through, but I certainly urge each person to look at the studies themselves to gather their own interpretation of the facts.

Are eggs a health food or cholesterol nightmare? Naturalnews posted an article about how women with higher cholesterol also had less heart attacks and longevity. Likewise, I'm a bit of a lone wolf here, but for many years creationism was held as a scientific truth, deriving from the revelation of the Bible. Our current scientific epoch hints at the theory of evolution as pointing to contradictory and superior explanations of the origins of the world's species. Yet, since I've grown up with some kind of grasp of creationism and capacity for critical thinking, I could easily see this attitude shift largely in the future. The same is true of sex: whereas masturbation used to be called "self-abuse" and yet is now called a "health practice" by the U.K.'s government, I imagine in the future Gandhi's claim that "sexual enjoyment is not only not necessary for, but is positively injurious to health" to be vindicated by "scientific studies".

I certainly, therefore, call for people to consider the value of anecdotes in giving us truth that is not yet "scientifically proven" but that effectively works, in practice, or is actually true, without the explanation yet being known!

Rethinking Social Networking

2011-10-14T21:36:00.000-07:00

The "hacktivist" group Anonymous has called for users to leave Facebook by November 5th, especially due to Facebook's lack of respect for the privacy of users. Plenty of other criticism of Facebook's practices have been noted. I think it's a good idea for us to consume plenty of other social networks and give ad revenue to many different websites. Facebook is not a monopoly on advertising, in the sense that other companies are still able to compete with it. But, in practice, since it is so large, the competition is often stifled. For this very reason it's important to question the usefulness of such social tools and to rethink what we think we "need" in order to socially network today.

I want to switch to Google Plus and see if I don't need Facebook for getting in contact with people. Perhaps many people would be better off to just scrap Facebook altogether and manually use the few contacts that one needs in order to function. Not all "progress" is good, and sometimes we may end up doing things that in retrospect aren't the most efficient or best choice we could make. So maybe we really don't need social media sites as much as we think we do, in order to live the best kind of lives. Far cries from my point are the Amish, who are leaps and bounds removed from these considerations. Yet still, what's the advantage over email or other website formats? The other problem with continuing to use Facebook, or any dominant social media, is the lack of progress that comes from other interesting ways to socially interact popping up and competing with the top dog of the day. If users are willing to experiment with other new formats, better tools can be discovered and honed.

It's also interesting to note how the "medium of [Facebook] is the message". We become 'Facebook PEOPLE' when we consume Facebook and use it to interact with people. Is that the kind of person you want to be? It's worth considering: how do these things we come in contact with shape our consciousness, our identity, how we interact with the world? Many people do not ask such questions and as a result are affected negatively by the unintended consequences of the things they absent-mindedly use.

I remember having much opposition to Facebook and Myspace, as well as other social networking tools, many years ago, especially because they seemed to set up "vain altars for self worship". Some social media sites simply waste a lot of precious time that could be used for nobler pursuits, yet they also provide ways for many people to meaningfully interact. Yet, social media sites are also not "neutral" - they have a format and an agenda behind them, and no two formats are created equal. I think, therefore, that we should question the format of the websites we use and vow to help the process progress forward by selecting the best social media options, the more interesting, some of the experimental. If everyone stays on Facebook, then we may not see social media change.

I think it's important to keep moving and try out any perceived better model. To that end, I join with Anonymous in getting off Facebook before November 5th (hopefully sooner)!

Lovarchism

2011-10-12T20:06:00.001-07:00

I am truly perplexed, in the study of political philosophy, why I don't come across government by love and for the goal of being the most loving government possible. All other virtues find their way into Constitutions, but I am hard-pressed to find governments founded and governed by love. That sounds like the real Christian nation to me, the one that is most dedicated to love.

Do we think there's supposed to be some kind of separation of love and state? How will the state make wise decisions without love? I came across some vague and nebulous writings in the past on the idea of lovarchism, which literally means, "love" + "-archy", "government by the authority of love". Or, as in anarchism, the lack of authority. My conception of lovarchism is decidedly Christian and has been formed in that tradition, though maybe that doesn't really give a greater picture of what I would advocate for. There are plenty of Scripture passages which display the power of love as a governmental force rather than using physical force or hatred to overcome problems in the world.

If one thinks about it, a world entirely dominated by hatred is not possible; one entirely dominated by evil is not possible, for both are contradictions of life. Evil is the absence of good. Vices are contrary to our ability to live and thrive. I mean literally that violent acts of hatred kill and are contrary to living; that violence is impotent, in a sense, because even if some kind of murderous tyrant wanted to control the world and killed almost everyone, he's still gotta eat! And without food, the wise tyrant knows that he can only be evil to a certain extent. Certainly, such a suicidal tyranny could arise, ignorant of the pains required for securing the necessities of life, but that should really be of little concern to a Christian absorbed by making love the end of one's life: unafraid to die, innocently loving as Jesus did and forgiving others up until death.

If Christians are to "build the kingdom of God", and God is Love (1 John 4:8), Christians are to build the kingdom of Love. That means a government ruled by love; that each person freely loves and is enthusiastic from being filled with the Spirit of Love. Imagine the kind of world we would live in if we tried to solve problems out of love of each other rather than out of our selfish concerns and fears. People readily sue one another for problems that arise; yet, one could also fundraise through a community to solve the same financial problem, or forgive an infraction. I'm sure that happens, but perhaps not enough, and there isn't enough press around it. If someone punches you, Jesus said to allow them to punch you again, to turn the other cheek! How many people would not have to steal if we would, in our excess of success, give to those who have nothing or little? And yet, Jesus did not say that we are to fear dying, but instead I think we should fear not being charitable. If we die innocently, what fear do we have? As a Christian I believe we should receive God's forgiveness and live without the fear of death, but the love of God. And if we love each other, we should inevitably create a government based on love.

What would such a government look like? How would it taste and smell? I think there would be more flowers in the courtroom, the judge would say that they love the criminal and that they offer them forgiveness, even though they must also offer justice. There is no contradiction in having "tough love" when others are uncooperative; love is also protective. Love is strict and disciplined and lovingly asks obedience. Love leads to freedom and becomes the perfect self-governed obedience to God, who is Love. Love is courageous in the face of death, love is cheerful hard work, love is self-controlled passion.

I recently brought up the topic of love at a local city council meeting. I think my message was well-received but won't yet be put in to practice. St. Paul, in Corinthians, talks about how if he is charitable but does not have love, that his charity is meaningless. So, too, I think that the government without love is meaningless, the life without love is meaningless. But, when actions are filled with love and inspired by it, they are made complete. The government by Love for Love is the perfection of Government.

SNOWSKATING!

2011-10-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

I’m posting today about something innovative that I’m surprised hasn’t caught on in popularity in the world as much as I thought it would. Snowskating is a combination of skateboarding and snowboarding; it seems like there are two ways to typically view it: as snowboarding without bindings or as skateboarding on the snow (as I typically think of it as). These distinct styles are seen in the former where riders do bigger air tricks and large rails, and the latter when riders do more technical and street tricks. Snowskating offers a feeling of a continuum to me in the gymnastic arts/motion sports/action sports. I’m glad to have found it. It let me expand my sense of creativity in experimenting with new riding ideas, styles, terrain, and tricks. I was amazed that I learned some skateboarding tricks on a snowskate before learning them on a skateboard.

For those who don’t know much about snowskating, there are two types, typically: the single deck and the bi-deck snowskates, respectively. The single deck or “flatskate” is usually a piece of hard plastic with foam griptape on the top; Premier Snowskates always seemed like king of the single decks, to me, and if you want to do further research on them you can do so here.

If you don’t have a snowskate and want to try it, consider learning about snowskating and buying one for yourself on 0910 snowskate’s website. I’ve been riding for them and have ridden some pretty crappy bi-deck snowskates before; theirs are good, in league with Burton’s Junkyard Bi-deck, which I rode for a while, and who I would say are also top of the line snowskates (except I don’t know if they make them anymore). The bi-decks have the control of a snowboard with the freedom of a skateboard. Though they are more easily scratched and damaged, perhaps, than flatskates, since they have a metal edge they can be ridden on most any hill a snowboard is allowed on at most resorts, as long as one has a leash. Usually it’s good to check with the resort before going, but I haven’t had too many resorts object to my riding in the limited experience I’ve had with them.

Snowskating also makes remember other things that I cherished riding: sleds attached to snowboards for extra speed, snow scooters, and snow bikes - all of which are other modes of riding that I’m surprised didn’t catch people’s attention, even if just for the effect of novelty. We live in a strangely homogenized world to some degree, and yet in other respects it seems too diverse. Yet everyone should have a childlike sense of wonder towards these potential gems.

My Small Snowskate Anthology:

NEWEST! A Snowskate Meditation from '10-'11 season

0910 Snowskate Video “Snow Pop” , in its entirety, in which I have a part starting at 11:30.

Here’s my 0910 snowskate part from 09-10 season from that video

Here’s my old footage before riding for 0910 snowskates. Part Two! I definitely thought I was the first in the world to take some of these skateboarding tricks to snowskating, and I have no way of proving it, but still think I had that innovation.

Premier Snowskates Video - “The Dream”

Practicing Typing for Maximum Efficiency

2011-10-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

Recently while practicing some guitar scales slowly and meticulously, I realized that as a writer I should also practice my typing technique to minimize errors and speed up typing time. Everyone should take some time to consciously evaluate their keyboard typing technique and find ways to improve it, especially if one cannot touch type without looking down at the keys to begin with.

When I evaluated my typing technique, I noted that I should work on the following challenges:

Typing Challenge and exercises:
1. Practice all capitalization with opposite shift keying.
2. Practice all numbers with proper fingers, back and forth.
3. Practice arrow keys
4. Practice any extended key (tab, etc.) and apple key combinations
5. Practice all symbols up above in the number keys and memorize them.
6. Posture
7. Alternate thumbing on space key.
8. F keys and memorize.
9. Take all that you've practiced up to speed!

It's pretty amazing to me that we don't have a more serious attention towards the necessity of having good typing today, since virtually everyone uses a computer. So much time is wasted by not typing properly, and then on not using hotkeys most effectively. I still love the program Butler and recommend it to any Mac user, and it would be great if you donated to them (which I still need to when I have some extra money to spare!)

http://manytricks.com/butler/

We also should encourage more people to find the maximally efficient keyboard design, an ever better one than Dvorak that takes into account all our symbolic needs, and perhaps also adding symbols for each person's need - perhaps in the future we will need to have our own keyboard design that will include things like german umlauts or heart symbols. Learning a different keyboard design for typing is just like learning a different language or different musical instrument. Maybe I can pioneer some keyboardology or help take it mainstream.

I also add on one other technique that I could think of to practice in my typing skills, a #10: to practice any word that I misspell constantly, to monitor my typing as I do it and to slow down my typing a bit in order to become conscious of my errors and to fix them, to build back up to speed in proper typing order. We could not only practice memorizing where letters are on the keyboard, but spelling words - the analogue is guitar licks or chords. The most frequently used words could be practiced, as well as other idiosyncratic needs. I, for example, make use of hotkeys in combination with my mouse which defy perhaps the "proper" finger technique, but allow me to use the mouse while I activate hotkeys.

Conservation of Semen is Supreme Health for Males

2011-09-28T17:38:00.000-07:00

Let's create a buzz by considering the case for male chastity, or voluntary abstinence from sexual relations. The female and male sexualities are different, so I am only speaking here for males. Why is it that the old folk wisdom for athletes was that they should abstain from sexual congress before an athletic competition? Why was masturbation referred to as "self-abuse" in the past? Why do most religions teach that viriginity, purity, and celibacy are virtues? I think one part of the answer lies in what I found in some Hindu writing: the loss of semen is destructive to the male body, to optimal functioning. I think this is probably a novel view that will catch on quickly and be vindicated by studies in a short while after I write and promote this view. Any male can directly experience and vindicate this through a voluntary period of abstinence if they are currently sexually active. Sexual release has distortedly been construed as a "need" today, which I think is a false view.

Sex as a necessity is false firstly because of the successful and happy existence of celibate peoples, religious or non-religious. There are plenty of cases of people who haven't ended up having to become pedophiles or engage in some kind of sexual activity, which seems to be what abstinence is accused of today. Nor am I convinced that males need to ejaculate in order to protect against prostate cancer; there are countless foods and anti-cancer measures one can take in life that are effective and purported herbal remedies like saw palmetto. Any other benefit ascribed to sex has something to do with affection or exercise, which can be achieved non-sexually.

Semen is taught as being some kind of waste product or neutral body fluid, rather than being something that flows throughout the whole male body. In Hindu thought, semen is at least forty times as precious as blood. I advocate the view that people think of the loss of semen as the giving of "life substance" in order to create new life, in procreation. It takes living substance to create new life, and the loss of that substance is a sacrifice. Semen is a creative substance, to be used for the energy for courageous work or for procreative purposes. See the connection? Procreation and creative energy and one and the same - the male vitality to create life or do productive things, produce goods.

The abstinence from sex gives great courage, strength, mental acuity and intelligence, passion and drive to love others, freedom, etc. Gandhi is quoted as saying, "I can affirm, without the slightest hesitation, from my own experience as well as that of others, that sexual enjoyment is not only not necessary for, but is positively injurious to health." In the Hindu culture, there is a fear of losing semen called "Dhat Syndrome". Rationally, the Hindu knows about the need for continence, but irrationally in this syndrome the sufferer thinks he or she is losing semen when he or she is not. A Divine Life Society, Hindu tract, says, "It is worth repeating that a true Brahmachari possesses tremendous energy, a clear brain, gigantic will-power, bold understanding, retentive memory and good Vichara Sakti." These insights are not unique to hinduism; in the West it was thought that masturbation could stunt growth, cause epilepsy, and cause schizophrenia. Since the loss of semen is literally the spilling out of brain and heart substance, I don't know why these are controversial views, but just like sex being healthy because it is also exercise, sex was thought to cause epilepsy because in epileptic brains the loss of semen or orgasm can trigger epileptic fits. Since semen is life substance, loss of this would be the stunting of growth. Because loss of semen causes headache and is the loss of minerals from the brain, such a disturbance might trigger schizophrenic symptoms in susceptible people. These are stretching my point further than I need them to; my point is that the conservation of semen is not only not unhealthy but is very healthy and good and something that all males should benefit from.

Now, I think many object and still argue, "Well I know plenty of people who are sexually active and still lead normal high-functioning lives." I think the analogy, bis just like someone who smokes and lives to be 80 or 90; they still lived well enough, but limited how much better they could be. Athletes can still perform strong feats but will be stressing their bodies more than they would have! The acceptance of sex as being something health positive or health neutral is just like debates over the use of cell phones, which I think are also harmful. Smoking also was thought to be healthy or not destructive to the body in the past and is now universally understood to be damaging. Semen loss will be understood in the same way in the future and perhaps this could spark a different kind of sexual revolution - one for celibacy in the future.

I contend that our immoral desire for lustful activities corrupted our supposedly objective science, here in the West. That, paired with the ambiguous truth that affection and exercise are good things, lead to the inevitable deception that sex is some kind of modern necessity. Napoleon Hill, in "Think and Grow Rich", also testified that the sexual energy could be "transmuted" or otherwise used for creative purposes when one is not procreating. In the Clifford Pickover book "Strange Brains and Geniuses", Nikola Tesla is quoted as saying that "inventors probably shouldn't marry". Could that be due to the intuitive grasp of how depleting sex is to the male generativity?

I hope I've shed some light on why I think that male celibacy is healthiest and that what one needs to be healthy is affection, sharing of love, exercise, dealing directly with stressors rather than through sexual release, and good diet!

Check out some of these links to see more of what I'm talking about (Bibliography):
1. http://www.rkvenkat.org/chastity.html
2. http://www.dlshq.org/download/brahma_nopic.htm#_Toc441557058
3. http://www.biblebelievers.com/SDA/SDA3.html#3-b
4. http://www.reuniting.info/wisdom/sex_abundance_napoleon_hill_think_and_grow_rich
5. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/strange.htm
6. http://www.naturalnews.com/032480_cell_phones_human_health.html
7. http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspx
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhat_syndrome

Words With Friends and Thinking About the Math Behind It

2011-09-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

Math is beautiful.

It's no wonder Bobby Fischer said that "Chess is better than sex." There's something amazing about the symmetry and power of numbers. I saw one study that showed that two people's pleasure center of their brains looked identical: a person about to take a hit of cocaine and one about to make a stock trade! Something about quantity really gets our brain going.

Anyway, so I started to think that Words with Friends must have a finite amount of games that can be played. By trying to define the parameters that would lead to an ultimate equation, I came across a lot of interesting ideas and then ultimately decided that I was starting to understand how you would CREATE the game if you were a computer programmer, how to program the game.

Firstly, we could get 1 of 26 possible letters with 1-10 possible point values on each one, and there are ~100 letters used per game, 7 letters possible for forming words which are pulled at random, 15 x 15 (225) unique squares with each square having a tile point value of x1 or other multiples or multiples of the whole {set} = a word chosen. Literally, one also has to realized that there is a set of EVERY WORD programmed into the computer between the value of 1 and 7 letters, so in order to create this game they had to type out EVERY acceptable word (which is something in the ten thousands I think...?) 1 letter words would only be "a" and "i", I think, and two letter words would be one of 6 vowels x one of 20 other consonant possibilites, not all of which are included in the group called {words}. Likewise 3-7 letter words all have to have at least one vowel. Discrete mathematics can determine the possible word combinations using things like the "pigeonhole principle", but our brains will have to confirm them in a non-mathematical way. We have 26 letters; the set of possible words is almost like adding on a different letter in the order of (26 letters) x (26 letters) x (26 letters) for a three letter word (I think they might use !factorials there). A more efficient calculation would include the fact that you can't have three letters in a row to form a real word; we manually have to select the ACTUAL words from the large group of POSSIBLE words, since there is no mathematical logic to which letter combinations are 'words' while others are not. So the computer programmer would have to go through all those possible words and cross out non-actual words, OR just use the words from some kind of dictionary.

Now, so one could calculate all the possible combinations of starting positions which would also be based on if there are fixed letters (two z's) that occur in a set of 100 letters that are to be used for each game. That would decrease the amount of actual 7 letter words that are possible because there may not actually be letters to form them, like the word pizza.

Calculating the game's beginning moves could be done with something closer to certainty, of all the possibilities. 1 letter words to begin could only be "a" or "i" and would be on the star space, with a yield of one point. This is an example of knowing the outcomes. If a 7 letter word is put down, there are 7 positions it can be put down in. The next word will have to be parallel to the first word put down. This is another example of predicting the outcome of the game. But beyond that, the game becomes very complicated.

It would seem like it would be possible and interesting to calculate the highest score possible; but this also proves to be a difficult task because of the compound nature of combination moves. As I write this, I realize that words beyond 7 words are possible, but for certain no word longer than 15 letter is possible because the board will not be able to hold it. WoF is interesting to me because it both resembles chess and a knowledge of possible words, of a large vocabulary.

The general strategy of WwF seems to be: learn a lot of words, maximize point multipler spaces, try to create combos, and try to create the largest words possible given your random 7 letter limitation. For each turn, having at least 2 possible words to put down (in case the other player uses "your spot") as well as weighing in the other strategical ideas about getting rid of "junk" letters, is interesting to me as deepens the amount of logic used for justifying decisions in the game. The logic in our brains is in the form, "If I have (x or j or z) AND can use it, then it would be moderately good to do so (one extreme would be that you HAVE to in the 'then' portion of the logic, the other extreme would be you SHOULD NOT - this is towards the 'HAVE' pole past the center where perhaps it would not be in your decision making thoughts at all).

The beauty of competitive games is that we only set the parameters (rules) and let the infinite variety of nature determine the gameplay, like music - such infinite variety of possible notes. I once remember being afraid of learning music theory because then you would know all the possible combinations of notes; yet the arrangements of them and many parameters make for a virtually unlimited array of possible noises, and "multiple infinities", in a sense, if that makes any sense. The word infinity really just means "unbounded".

My math is incomplete in this post, but details some of the raw thought process that goes into the pondering of making a game like this. The total equation for how many games are possible in WwF is very intriguing to me because of its quantitative complexity and qualitative diversity.

Decentralized Health and Wellness; Rethinking The Medical Industry

2011-07-14T13:25:00.000-07:00

(As Published In Brainstream.us, November)

With medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S., according to a Harvard study, and with Medicare and Medicaid spending being at its highest in U.S. history, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, it's time we start looking for alternative, holistic, preventative solutions to the health woes that plague our contemporary situation. We need to decentralize our health decisions and take action ourselves and within our local healthful communities.
But can we make very powerful, healthful decisions or is health something more at the mercy of fate? Consider that a gram of arsenic is enough to kill most anyone. If that small amount of a substance can kill us, imagine what the cumulative effect of making all sorts of small (and large!) health choices is! If we can make forceful deadly choices, why don't we think we can make powerful healthful ones?
Why don't we have a health system where we pay doctors when they make us healthy and have the medical industry be penalized when we're sick? By paying for times when we're diseased, we are financially rewarding disease! It would be impressive to see health become more normative and expected within the medical industry, which is only something that can come about through popular demand and the vote of each person's dollar. I hope the prevailing view of health as being sick-care turns to more of a focus on growing in health and maintaining that physical development.
Education is important on this issue and internet search engines are full of ideas for getting a better control on one's health. A philosophy of prevention is very simple and practical: observe how your daily health choices either make you grow in health, maintain health, or become sicker and worse off, and consciously choose to do those things which make you healthier. Continue to learn and ask questions about specific things that you want to address based on your own idiosyncratic health needs.
Holistic solutions seek to strengthen all the parts of the person in order to make him or her healthy; what use is a sharpened intellect with an abused body, or a great body while one suffers from emotional turmoil?
Organic foods attempt to attain a greater purity and the nutritional wholeness of food. There are plenty of herbs and spices we could add to our diet on a regular basis that have simply fallen out of fashion or been forgotten about or weren't taught to everyone, from ginseng tea for vitality to ginkgo biloba supplements for circulation and memory.
As the old saying is, "Garbage in, Garbage out". We should constantly evaluate and compare what we are doing with better alternatives to see what is best for our health; actively caring for one's health is both a profound opportunity and a responsible capability.
So, why take the effort to become healthier? We can create a greater culture of health which will lead to lower medical costs, less instances of disease, greater energy and quality of life, and a longer quantity of life. Perhaps in the future, by our efforts, what we think of as healthcare will not simply be the care of the sick but the active pursuit of getting healthier and staying healthy. We cannot simply take the advice of overweight doctors who smoke, but analogously need to seek out the healthiest people we know and ask them what they're doing to create the well-being they have attained. By holding ourselves and others to higher standards of health quality, we will be better able to serve and love one another and solve the difficult problems that life throws our way. Unless we demand health from our health care providers and seek it out ourselves, it is unlikely we will see reform in the medical industry and we will persist in unhealthy ways that cause undue suffering.

Ethics of Dreams, Video Games, Media

2009-10-15T11:26:00.000-07:00

I believe that everything we do has a morality or an ethic. As one who is interested in nonviolence, I now take much less pleasure in violent video games. I think that the pleasure you take in such things as games, dreams, or film reveals your true intentions. If I enjoy killing someone on a screen, it seems to me there is little difference in my intention off the screen: I enjoy killing. The only thing that separates this virtual reality from actual reality is lack of fortitude in deciding to murder someone, or fear of consequences, or degree of hatred, but the seed of violence is still within me. It may be necessary in a film, for example, to portray violence, but to revel in the violence as an end in itself rather than being a means to the film is to show ill intention. Even in dreams where one thinks of or has sex, one must have already given that desire free reign, for one who does not desire such things dreams of other things. There is something curious about enjoying "fiction", as fiction is not something remotely removed from reality, but is a part of reality and challenges us to integrate living stories into our lives. It seems to me, therefore, that the claim is false that immoral media is simply "play" and not "real" or that it is ok to dream of bad things but to not do them. Great evil may be dreampt of but only as a means to understanding the good; in themselves, dreams of evil are the seeds of destruction.

New Proposed Punctuation: Question Semi-Colon, Exclamation Semi-Colon, and Interrobang Semi-Colon

2009-06-04T22:54:00.001-07:00

Throughout my experience of writing, I've come across the need for new punctuation in order to express my thoughts more clearly.I was happy to discover the interrobang (‽) at one point, which is a combination of a question mark and an exclamation mark. Instances of where the interrobang could be used are frequently observed wherever one sees alternating question marks and exclamation marks at the end of sentences, especially on the internet and in informal use. Therefore, out of necessity in the course of writing, I'd like to propose three other punctuation marks: the question mark semi-colon, the exclamation semi-colon, and the interrobang semi-colon, so that the first independent clause of a whole semi-colon phrase could have clarification and expression. How would they be written? A question semi-colon would be a question mark with a comma under it instead of a period, and the same would be true of the others. This introduction of punctuation into our language could help to expand our ability to think in novel ways and encourage the flow of creative dialogue.

Dreaming Technique

2009-04-21T22:09:00.000-07:00

I speculate that one day they will teach people how to dream in schools one day. Dream retention will become more important, because there are many tangible benefits to experiencing and remembering dreams. Lucid dreams (dreams in which one is aware that he/she is dreaming and can exert influence upon the dream) will also become more popular once explorers of the mind develop a technique that is healthful and not disturbing of rest. Lucid dreams could be used to simulate reality in the most convincing way to experience things that one desires but cannot achieve in the state of being awake. This is the real "experience machine" which philosophers have used in thought experiments. Dreams will be mined on a greater scale for their inspirational depth and insights about the individual and the world will come to the level of consciousness from the unconscious. These movements have been hinted at but have not yet fully actualized, and yet they will happen some day, undoubtedly. Also, I recall in the past running experiments to affect my sleep by altering my environment. By playing classical music while I slept for about a year, I affected my dreams - they were positive from the music source, and when I put on some frightening music, I had nightmares and woke up to turn the music off. I suspect we can create more optimal sleeping arrangements - find optimal postures, improve air quality, etc. Perhaps we can learn to accomplish some sort of tasks when we sleep, like being massaged gently to take the stress out of our body. Sleep will certainly be "hacked" in the future and newer techniques of sleep will be developed in order to bring about the greater progression of human development.

Hacking Requirements, Expectations, Prerequisites

2009-03-05T21:54:00.000-08:00

We are very seriously in need of some hacking of requirements in our society. Everywhere one turns, there is the expectation of some kind of previous achievement in order to go on to the next one. For example, I'm sure there are many people out there who are capable of being acceptable grade school teachers who don't have any sort of degree whatsoever. The requirement of a college education for many jobs and of specific degrees and achievements made in the past is hindering growth, is controlling who each person can be needlessly, and is making it needlessly difficult to function in society, especially if you are poor and uneducated. We need people who can do jobs but are "unqualified on paper" to start applying for the jobs they want, so that we start to get people who are passionate about what they do and break down the expectations of what is "necessary" in order to do a given job. Once enough people apply for jobs who aren't "technically qualified", wherever this isn't "illegal", and they do as good of or better jobs than people who are supposedly "qualified", we will see a radical shift in attitude towards who is capable of doing what. We won't think narrowly that there's one fast track that everyone has to go through if they want to be x or y in society, we can allow each person to take a varied path towards their own personal discovery of how they must learn in order to perform the tasks they want to. We have very radically lost the value of knowledge and ability vs. certification, or at least the myth has been perpetuated that one needs to be a certain person in order to be accepted in society. We need to dispel the myth that it is inherently safer to hire someone who's "qualified" for a position, and open our hearts to the labour offerings of each person who wants to actualize.

Myth and Images vs. Logic = Truth

2009-02-12T13:25:00.000-08:00

I have only briefly come upon the idea that myth could have more explanatory power than trying to use logic to explain everything. This appealed to me as it was connected with anarchism (draw your own conclusions, non-coercive) and spirituality (gurus and spiritual masters seem to use this). It also seemed to be a radically different way of thinking, a new modus operandi, a new operating system for our lightning brain computers. To answer questions mythically, through use of a story, seems to be a different approach I don't see as much anymore. Instead of simply replying "Good" to "How's it Goin'?!?", one could say something like, "The sun is shining, my heart is beating, I am simply treading". This gives no artificial answer, allows one to not define how they're feeling at the moment, allows others to draw their own conclusions based on other possible behaviours. Myth seems to connect us to the concrete more, it involves more of life and its ambiguities rather than perfectly sort everything out by the dominating force of a supposed logic. Perhaps the higher forms of truth are found in art, dreams, and myth, the experience of living which is more powerful than any argument.

On Meaning

2009-01-16T14:56:00.000-08:00

I think that nihilism is a distorted, inhibiting philosophy that prevents us from accomplishing meaningful goals that we want to. I find it to have a tie to negative thinking and melancholic thought, although it is an interesting philosophical theory. Meaning is grounded in present moment achievement, as the present is the only moment that exists. When one projects one's self into the future and asks about the "ultimate significance" of our actions, one projects meaning into a nonexistent context. Life is inherently meaningful; it may not have the meaning you yet want it to, but it does mean something and can be a source of inspiration. Each person's life affects the universe, as we are totally connected to everything; we are inextricably in a web of influence. Meaning is the accomplishment of purpose; sometimes we may not get our egocentric purposes gratified, but we may create a challenge, obstacle, or lesson for another person. Meaninglessness and nonexistence go hand in hand, but life is intrinsically meaningful: We exhale air as a gift to the trees, we create compost for the plants, we offer unique experiences and stories to others, and so on. If we broaden our understanding of meaning and learn to enjoy what we are doing, we can experience a deep sense of meaning in the present moment - the only real moment.

Movements and Progression in Life

2008-10-17T19:42:00.000-07:00

Each individual's life has movements, just as society does. We talk of certain revolutions, wars, cultural movements, and so forth in society. These also exist in each individual - we go through stages, progressions, movements, and changes. This insight is empowering in one's life; we can see our lives as a song, or a book, or a society that's developing. We are composers of our lives, and the various parts of our lives yearn for unity and harmony. Many analogies can be drawn between the individual and society. We embody totally different movements during different "phases" of our lives, and it is important to reflect upon them in order to understand them to compose the next passage and phrase in our lives.

Theology, Cosmology, and Evolution

2008-06-13T21:44:00.000-07:00

It is quite possible that the Big Bang never happened, and neither did the story of evolution as to how creatures came to be how they are in our modern world. This is a totally unpopular view, but I find creationism to be totally rationally defensible, which has even troubled me at times. Now, firstly, I enjoy the ideas of the Big Bang and Evolution, which are both committed to the universe slowly unfolding, which I find to be in tune with a divine ideal of delaying gratification, but I find there to be some problems in this scientific approach, as they seem to lend more credence to an atheistic worldview and less of a need for divine providence and help, as evolution renders a few of Aristotle's four causes obsolete. I have found that I have needed a lot of help from God in my life and haven't been recognizing how much He has helped me until recently. Simply put, we were not there to witness creation, and our post hoc scientific reasoning is not, strictly speaking, justified. We think that since the universe is moving a certain way, that if we go backward in time the forces point to springing forth from a singularity. This idea, though, could have simply been suggested due to our personal preference for uniformity and simplicity, and ignores the fact that this process was not observed and could have been radically different. Simply put, there is no reason why the laws of nature had to act the same way in the past as they do now, and there is no reason why the universe had to start as a singularity, instead of just being formed by God. We shy away from this interpretation because it seems less universal and because we do not have faith in this idea of creation, but philosophically there is no disproof against this view. We can view the laws of the universe as being created by a God, and we may be extending them into the past to a time that did not exist, but we have conveniently created to satisfy our atheistic, secular longings. I think that there must be equal and opposite theistic and atheistic conceptions in the universe so that we can have the freedom to choose our belief, and I see these issues as being part of that "veiled truth". Evolution is also a created law, and there is no reason why God could not have created different creatures some few thousands of years ago, to operate by the laws of evolution since that time. I see God as creating a free world with reasonable and different possible philosophical/scientific interpretations. I like the idea of divine creation rather than slow evolution because of the order we observe, and the difficulty of it coming into play without help - the rain and sun nourish the plants, which feed the animals, which feed us humans. I see the chance of all this just happening in the universe as being astronomically low, and don't see why we can't simply believe that God has the power to contribute to our lives. We can put on different lenses and worldviews that give us different understanding - simply try to believe these and tell me where they go wrong. Could we simply conceive of an infinite creator with the sufficient causal power to do this as a sufficient explanation of the evidence? Supernatural causation also cannot be philosophically disproven, but it takes faith, which is what is lacking. Likewise, "matter is not created nor destroyed" by other material energy or beings. This admits no impossibility of matter being created by an infinitely powerful God who has the sufficient causal power. I simply see no reason to reject creationism as I think it is in tune with the Biblical way and isn't contradictory. I ask for any opposing views to be stated.

Infinity

2007-12-05T23:19:00.000-08:00

I had an intellectual problem that was resolved by the thinking with the imagination: that of infinity and wondering if this world and universe is all that is possibly that which exists in toto; I consequently concluded that there are likely many other possible senses that can exist and wholly transcendent purposes, ideas, and abstract qualities we know nothing about. By appealing to mystery and letting my imagination flow with thoughts of truly what our finite understanding of infinity means, I have stimulated my mind to think positively beyond my wildest dream; indeed, my dreams and visions are much wilder due to this sacramental imaginative orientation. Infinity offers many possibilities and solutions to our problems, as a never-ending amount of things is possible; but I do not know how infinity can metaphysically be understood, and to assert that there are infinite amounts of a given metaphysical thing does not employ the use of reason but that of tyrannical assumption. But being open to the possibility leads us to feeling a great wonder towards our universe as we experience it in its fullness and richness.

Imagination

2007-12-05T22:49:00.000-08:00

Imagination is important, for it leads us to consider other possibilities. For example, while we generally think that things are either "true" or "false", could there be any other possibility for truth values? Could there be a transcendent, metaphysical truth we are unaware of or unable to understand? I think this is quite possible, and although it involves a great deal of faith and belief it is a potential answer to many questions which reason cannot resolve or has difficulty resolving. We also have five senses, but could there be other senses we could eventually develop? Could we conceive of a potential metaphysical other universe that has completely different senses, like nothing we've experienced, that exist and are under God's jurisdiction?

Through a self-examination, I know not if there is a self or what it is, but I experience being a self. Even considering myself as a process or verb or action, as other languages do, I see my "self" as being a different "process" from that of my friend or colleague, but I see my "process" as interacting with other processes. The Buddhists do certainly put knowledge of a self to shame, but there is still a definite possibility of an unseen self, which can be understood through faith. Indeed, I do not identify myself with my mind, body, or being in control; I think perhaps a problem that selfishness encounters is that it interrupts the "process" that each of us is, and is fundamentally opposed to change, when in reality the nature of a process is change, which is probably somewhat of a motion. I think that each person has a blank slate (a soul) on which different experiences are imprinted

It is also possible to think of existence as being deathless, as nothing would prevent an infinite amount of new beings coming into existence as long as there was a corresponding infinite amount of space and time to compensate for such matter and peoples. Perhaps there is another existence or multiple existences that do not entail death in the way that we experience it, and perhaps there are other avenues of existence with different senses, objects, things, modes of being, or other qualities or abstract phenomena we cannot conceive of in the slightest bit. It seems wholly possible though to think of other possible modes of existence and this poses no conflict for science at all; we may have opposites in this universe and think that many things are relative, but there may be many other universes or metaphysical existences that put many of our thought-problems to shame. Many academic questions of religion and metaphysics could somewhat be explained by an appeal to mystery with the use of a magically real imagination, as reason has its definite limitations, especially evident in insight problems.

The imagination can take one to great places and helps to keep us creative and aware of beauty. Our imaginations can fill us with great pictures of fantastic moments and possibilities, and give us fodder for happiness and leading a fulfilling life. Our imaginations can lead us to understand ourselves, others, our universe, God, and many other things because of its rich, unique experience. I pray you use your imagination and would ask that you challenge yourself to do so. Also, our minds must be fed with beautiful imagery and sensual experience, so watering our mind will help it grow. Explore the mind, and leave no stone unturned.

2007-12-04T22:57:00.002-08:00

Harmony with Materiality

2007-12-04T22:57:00.001-08:00

Our world demands that we use material objects, but we ought seek economy in doing so. Material objects provide our lives with many different functions, many of which benefit us. But there are ways of using material objects that may hinder us. For example, a surplus of unused material goods does not benefit us, and makes us anxious as we must look after such goods. We ought share and sell that which we are not using and seek an economy of life in all that we do. If we sought to use the least amount of things as necessary, we would lead more fulfilling lives. "Material goods weigh down the soul" saith the old adage, and indeed it always rings true. A complete, good life consists of the proper use of material goods and in valuing others and nature over them.

Proper use of material goods leads to a deep, profound life of understanding the world more fully in all that we do. We must always question that which we have and consider if we need it or not. We ought keep a reign over our desires, as if we simply acquired that which we desired, we may never be satisfied. Or, perhaps we ought learn not to desire many things but only a modicum of goods; indeed I believe that there are good things out there that are a manifestation of God.

Time's implications for Life

2007-12-02T01:35:00.000-08:00

We all desire to lead good lives, yet one must continually ask, "What contributes to making life good?" As an academic, I also often ask, "How much learning is sufficient to leading a good life?" While the process of learning is never complete, there must be an adequate intelligence each person is capable of achieving such that he/she can navigate life appropriately and lead a functional, meaningful life. Since we have only a finite life to live, we ought seek to cut out extraneous facts and ideas from our diet. General ideas usually help us, but we only have enough time to specialize in a given amount of things. We ought seek to simplify our and others' lives by abstaining from wasteful time-consuming practices.

On Death

2007-11-12T21:48:00.000-08:00

Death is a major part of our lives; it has both a positive and negative role. For the individual person, death can seem overwhelming, or it can be the end of something and the start of something new. I like to view it as an end of human experience and beginning of something new, which is of course a philosophical stance. It is quite limiting to think that this is all there is in reality; there could be quite more which science will never discover, but philosophy may ever speculate about.

In tying death to morality, every sin has an element of death/injury in it. For example, stealing may kill off relationships or damage them severly. Sin is an inordinate desire for something death-producing; morality is not at all arbitrary and simply states the proper technique of living that will lead to the most wholesome, long life.

In the view of a Catholic worldview, material death is good, because it allows us to put our selves to rest and allows us to be born again into a heavenly state of perfection as dictated by God. Death is a wonderful challenge to our faith and hope in existence. Death is a perfect check/balance on life that pushes us to be the best that we can be - now. Material death also points to the freedom of existence, that we must choose our philosophy and worldview, and if it were strictly known that a given philosophy was true, there would be no need for belief. But that is not the case, and we are called to believe and choose our metaphysical views.

Death is something quite profound and odd; for if there's something after this life, we will be instantly falling out of this life and into another; even an infinity of time could pass after our death and we would not notice, because we would not experience it. How much time can pass without someone there to experience it? And during an infinite time span, would it be somehow possible that we could be reincarnated again? If infinity entails all possibility extending into time, would part of this infinity be reincarnations we experience? Is there a sense in which a reincarnation can occur (in a Christian or non-Christian sense?)

Potential Linguistic And Information Goals

2007-11-01T22:57:00.000-07:00

In trying to simplify our lives, we need to be flexible to changing our language. There has been little attempt to modify our existing languages, probably due to an unnecessary attachment and affection towards our language. We need to find a way of condensing our language or in some way making it simpler without compromising the quality and beauty of it - the raw verbal material from which poetry is made. But, for example, we could encode letters into simpler designs so instead of writing letters like "W" or "M" which use 4 strokes, we could use simpler designs with only two or three. We could also eliminate the letter "x" altogether and instead use "ks" in its place, as an English language example; or change words to the least amount of letters necessary, such that all letters are sounded out so there are no extraneous letters; or get rid of capital letters, and simply use bigger lowercase letters as capitals for all letters -0r- indicate a capital letter with some sort of mark; or dispose of synonyms of words so that less words need to be learned and understood.

I think that someone needs to seriously analyze our language or create a synthetic one with these possibilities in mind, and also to consider the universal nouns, verbs, etc. that are common to most languages, such that a new language may be constructed with the adequate expression of all facets of life, and a language ought also be prepared to efficiently create new words to express new technologies. We might also take into an account how each of us read, for if the first and last letter of a word are correctly in place, the arrangement of letters in between does not matter (for the most part) and we will still understand the word.

The benefits of modifying a language are in the ability to find, access, and transmit information in a more/most optimal fashion, which allows one to learn more at a faster pace. This would lead to a complete change in how we operate and would save money, time, etc. One thing that we ought be mindful of also is learning how to describe things in the simplest way or alternate ways of thinking of things. For example, a Hawaiian word for computer is a combination of the words lightning and brain; a sort of electric brain. Instead of making up new words, most things simply need combinations of simple parts. We ought think of the simplest modes of expression and how we can simplify the complexities of life without sacrificing the value of culture and language's distinct subtleties.

A Goal (Telos) for Everything

2007-11-01T22:34:00.000-07:00

In constucting a comprehensive philosophy of life, one must examine his or her own needs and see if they are being met. I assert that we ought make it our job into securing the needs of our self and others, and that we ought transform our hobbies into fulfilling self-need or the needs of others in all that we do. Such needs can be found to be generally represented in, for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we examine our own needs and see how many are actually unmet, we would see that truly what we desire is to meet such needs. We ought work towards transforming our desire into fulfilling these needs, which will, in turn, lead us to lead a more complete life and will extensively benefit others.

We must also become aware of the fact that everything we do is goal-oriented and that every choice is a moral choice. Even if one decided to do nothing, the goal then would be nothingness and the choice would be somewhat moral and immoral, as one could have committed a heinous crime or could have done a good deed in the time one chose to do nothing. Some things are, to be sure, trivially moral, such as picking up a piece of paper, but we can still choose to do better things, more morally sound things, that will contribute to our betterment and a sounder well-being. Likewise, since we find that we are finite creatures in this world, we feel that we ought always do the most moral thing possible, for even if we must choose between the lesser or two evils, it is never moral to choose that which is more immoral. Of course we often fall short of this ideal, but it is helpful and motivating to keep in mind. We can choose to accomplish more goals by consolidating efforts or by thinking of possible ways to multitask, without diminishing the quality of any one particular task. For example, if one enjoys walking, and if there is a Walk to Benefit Cancer, one can multitask walking, showing approval for a cure for cancer, and socialize, etc. simultaneously.

Some Aesthetic Thought

2007-10-23T13:36:00.000-07:00

*When we judge whether or not something is beautiful, we make a value judgment. We also make value judgments in what we think is morally good and in what we physically value, as each dollar spent is a vote that a certain product is the best we wish to purchase (dollar voting).

I've been annoyed by the apparent subjectivity of beauty, as everyone seems to think that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. There must be some kernel of truth to this, but I've also found some objective criticism. There must be a bit of objectivity in beauty, as we all more or less agree that some things are ugly and some are beautiful. We could reach some consensus on what is generally beautiful. Yet postmodernism has found beauty in an ugly place; how does one respond to this claim of minimalism, etc.?

There must be good and pleasant beauties. The Hindus make this distinction with value judgments of morality. Sure, stealing when one won't get caught may be pleasant, but it is assuredly not good. We also can find a beauty in war, as in movies, but in real life a real war's beauty is compromised by the lack of morality in the making. Indeed, if you see where I'm going with this, moral value judgments and beauty (aesthetic) judgments are related. So postmodern art is pleasant, but it often does not tend towards any moral value.

Another thing that always bothers me is rap music. Rap, like the real war example above, lacks moral value for me, as the quality of a song is compromised by the [con]artist's choice of hateful, childish, or meaningless words. It also lacks novelty, as a new riff gets formed but is endlessly repeated. Novelty is another important bit to take note of; I didn't want to watch '8 days a week' because I've already seen it; it is not novel or new. If something is not new, we get bored of it. For example, if we eat the same food every day, we grow tired of it. Likewise, parodies aren't as valuable because they lack novelty; they use the old as a crutch to create their new, as do cover bands, which leads me to the next important point - we need variety. Rap lacks variety in its fixation on one constant riff; it has trace amounts of originality. Classical music, by contrast, constantly changes notes, tempo, dynamics, etc. And one likes to hear something new, because we don't have all the time in the world to experience the old.
And because we lack a major supply of time, each artist should, through his work, seek to seriously benefit an audience through every part of the performance; otherwise, his work is an act of intellectual pollution. An artist also adds value to his work by displaying truth, as many stories (particularly parables) have been employed as a means of demonstrating moral or physical truth. I am generally of the opinion that the value of most stories can be reduced to a poignant ideas or quotes and synopsis.

Then, of course, are the classical speculations about beauty: that it is harmonious, that things are proportional in beautiful things, that there are patterns and a lack of chaos (or a contrast of chaos/dissonance and consonance or conflict resolution), and that each work aims towards perfection, all of which I agree with. Lastly, an important concept taught by my music teacher last year was that of tension and release; that great works of art constantly build up tension or ease tension, and especially combine both. Sex is a perfect example of tension and release, and is also a serious source of motivation for creating, as sex is procreation.
In a different vein, I think I've reached a conclusion about value judgments in relationships. In order to have a good sexual relationship, the two must possess aesthetic value (must have beauty). In a spiritual relationship, the two must possess morality (have moral value). Thus, this is my old restatement that: either someone is pretty without a personality or vice versa. Finding someone with a balance of both values is ideal, and one or both must provide physical value (money, caretaking, etc.)

In conclusion, one can see how the values come together. Morality is the beauty (aesthetic) of living or has mental aesthetic value and allows for someone to have physical value yet is physically invaluable, for if one were to commit suicide and de-value his life, there would be no physical value. Aesthetic is 'good' beauty, as opposed to the pleasant, and 'good' works of art have physical value (worth money). Ok, that was a bit rough.. but whenever we do something, we are showing what we value, as actions speak louder than words or thoughts.

Final thought: Each life is a work of art, as it is a valuable thing. Make yours beautiful.