Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
The Question of the Conflicting Moralities
In my years, I've spent a lot of time mulling over the finer points of this thing called 'morality'. I asked myself the age old questions: "What is good?", "What is bad or evil?", "What is right?", and "What is wrong?". It's easy to sit in our corner offices or our cubicles as, perhaps, I'm doing right now and and pull half-assed resolutions out of our rear center pockets to sate our philosophical and emotional desires of how we want the world and the universe to be. But that wouldn't be a good thing in the long run. It would just set us up for disappointment, and the inevitability for struggling against an unyielding universe, as it would be.
So, I set on this philosophical (perhaps even existential to some degree) journey that took several years to come to fruition. I was fraught with confusion over how one could argue in favor of moral circumstances or constructs against another with the same conclusion, but with different results. I found myself nearly incapable, at times, to articulate what I thought I knew. After all, people should be kind and compassionate towards other people. That's the moral thing, right? (See the previous article: The Morality of the Two Wrongs) It was simply confounding how one moral construct could possibly conflict with another. Sure, I fully understood that the world isn't black and white. Life and interactions can be complicated as well as complex. That's no surprise and not unknown to me at this point. But since whether or not something is difficult has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is moral, I had to abandon the notion of whether or not that was the correct way to approach this question.
So, I was stuck again. Here I was, confronted with the conundrum of moral conflict. I tried to break it down and simplify things in an attempt to find some sort of explanation using Occam's Razor. But that was just a cop-out as I quickly realized that I was trying to make things easier in order to erect a substitute that satisfied my desires rather than striking at the heart of the matter, the resolution to this quandary. I decided that I had to take it on the knife's edge rather than glancing off the blunt side of the blade. Why could this contradiction exist? How is it that these universal constructs, found from one corner of the earth to the other, in all walks of life and cultures, could possibly find themselves at odds with one another? It didn't make any sense whatsoever to me.
I was ready to pull my hair out by the roots. I wanted to take a sledgehammer to anything that would shatter into a thousand pieces simply to relieve the stress this caused me every so often. Was it simply because I wanted to be right? Well, that's a silly question; of course I want to be right. But I wanted to be right for the right reasons, and that meant that I wanted to get it right - even at the expense of my own complacency or notions of comfort. Then I started taking a look at other people at their ideas of morality, and how sometimes they deviated from the universal moralities as discovered by Jonathan Haidt. Across the board, it appeared as if varying degrees of interpretation existed, whether individually or from doctrine to doctrine. From culture to culture and society to society there were even a few extras thrown into the mix. But neither of those circumstances seemed to be immune to the overlapping inevitability of the moral conflict. Eventually, someone would make the case that they were being wronged using a moral argument where in return the "wrongdoer" would accuse the "complainer" of violating some moral tenet. It would not be enough to simply "win" the argument, but rather it would only be enough if a.) it could be articulated, b.) it could be understood relatively easily, and c.) it could be practiced with relative ease. Yet, before all of that, it had to be deciphered across cultures and societies. It had to be broken down into some universal medium and translated for the masses.
Then I had an epiphany.
In the blink of an eye, the clouds parted. I had been looking at the problem in the wrong way, from the wrong angle. I was attempting resolve what I have come to call the opposing arguments of conflicting moralities from the wrong angle, the entirely incorrect perspective. This stroke of lightning that would alter my perspective on the problem would become my gateway to resolution. The conflict didn't lie in the moralities, but rather in the argumentative constructs themselves, in the very assumptions about what is universally true versus what is personally understood. In other words, there was a direct conflict between an individual concept (personal) and group concepts (universal). This was a fallacy of division (combination depending n which side you're coming from). Indeed, the universal constructs are more than what it is that the personal constructs are because they are observed by multiple groups of peoples whereas the individual constructs are based upon individual, societal, or otherwise cultural idiosyncrasies. This is where the logic was broken and why it didn't make any sense that one moral construct could conflict with another one. My mind had been telling me something was wrong with that, it just didn't know how to articulate what it knew. (Eat your heart out, Einstein!)
Now comes the simple explanation:
(Looking at you, again, Einstein.)
1.) The world's peoples and societies have agreed on a basic set of moral constructs. This has been observed all over the earth in numerous cultures and societies, and are the same everywhere. These simple constructs are the Universal Moral Constructs (UMC), and they are absolute. UMCs are top-level constructs and cannot be compared to constructs below this tp level . They are constant, unwavering, and persist as moral constructs and symbols of morality itself under any and all situations and contexts. These are the constructs by which members of a culture or society judge other members of that same society or culture.
2.) Each person interprets and incorporates belief systems and behavior patterns inherent of their environment and of the individuals with whom they interact. This includes themselves and others as well as physical presences or not (i.e. on TV, radio, pictures, movies, etc.) These may or may not include ideas borrowed from the UMCs. This can collectively be called a moral perspective or otherwise a collection of Individual or Personal Moral Constructs (PMC). Unlike UMCs, PMCs may waiver, disappear, or otherwise change over time or all at once. This is why PMCs are relative as they relate to individuals and single cultures or societies rather than to UMCs. (People, societies, or cultures may adopt UMCs into their repertoire, but because they relate to the whole of the peoples of the earth, they are disregarded as PMCs and defined as UMCs.)
3.) Because of their relationships to individual cultures, societies, and persons, PMCs are not comparable to UMCs which relate to all the peoples of the world as a whole. To do so is unsound; they are logical in-equivalents and are therefore not comparable nor relatable to one another.
OK, so how does this help us when confronted or otherwise involved with this sort of argument? Well, the simple answer is also the easy answer at this point. For one, we can't expect other people to hold the same PMCs as ourselves because they only really relate to ourselves, and therefore, there is no argument to be had. Anyone who argues this is automatically discredited. While two people can certainly hold the same PMCs dear, any variances in those interpretations result in clear differences and therefore are not comparable. In a nutshell, we can view the different argument types like so:
1.) UMC vs PMC Arguments: The PMC is automatically discredited because UMCs are absolute, and PMCs only relate to the individual and/or culture or society.
2.) UMC vs UMC Arguments: Two wrongs don't make a right. Both parties lose out in this one assuming that each party is guilty of the claims by the other.
3.) PMC vs PMC Arguments: Neither one should expect the other to follow moral constructs that are purely individualistic and only relatable to themselves. Should this happen, then they are both discredited.
In the end, if it's a personal moralistic philosophy, then its simply just not reasonable or justifiable to tell people how they should live. On the other hand, if it's something that is universally understood to be a moral construct, then it's not so unreasonable to expect everyone to behave in accordance with those standards. So, the next time you run into a conversational bully who wants to go toe-to-toe with you on all the horrible moral violations you've committed, know that now you can tussle with the best of them in a battle of wits. (Besides, on a personal note, I don't think too many people have thought this through anyways, and won't know what to say other than blatantly deny it without evidence to the contrary. The standard knee-jerk seems to be that two wrongs make them right. )
(Go figure.)
Invino Veritas
10/6/15
EOF
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Morality of the Two Wrongs
As long as I have been cognizant of my own reality and have had the ability to listen and interpret speech, the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" has been a part of my proverbial upbringing. I was reared with the idea of reciprocity. Do unto others. You get what you give. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. It all boils down to this universal, idea of reciprocity. But in an attempt to be more specific, I felt the need to define concretely this seemingly human construct, this concept of 'morality'. Well, it turns out I'm not the only one who thought about morality in a more definable sense, either. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in a 2008 TED talk entitled Jonathan Haidt On the Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, identified and defined five universal "foundations of morality". Let's explore each of these:
Harm / Care
As mammals, Haidt explains, we are all wired to"bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others - especially the weak and vulnerable - [and] gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm." These feelings and emotions we feel about those who do harm to people generally shows up in each of us in the form of fear, anger, or shock. Typically, we describe those individuals that are either devoid or lacking of these feelings as having a disconnection, a lack of "moral fiber", or lacking compassion. We attach negativity to their identifiers, to those who display these behaviors; We refer to them as unbalanced, apish, inhumane, primitive, and, in some cases, even pathological.
Fairness / Reciprocity
While there seems to be "ambiguous" evidence for reciprocity and fairness in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is easily observable in humans and very much present in culture, society, and humanity as a whole. Most of us have heard and understood the simplicity of its meaning in such parables as ones found in various bibles and religious texts. But to say that 'we reap what we sow' is as historically tell-tale and common as was the implications of Homer's Odyssey during the time of the Greek Empire. It describes where we come from and from what we evolved. Reciprocity is the remnants of the birth of mankind from a savage world wrought with predation and catastrophe, one from which we we lived as we fought to survive long ago. It was necessary to identify enemies, perhaps, and a simple act of reciprocity was a way to elicit a positive, useful, or otherwise compatible behavior from another.
Ingroup / Loyalty
Likely leftover from when we began to live in tribes and bands as nomads, human beings have a strong sense of loyalty. Since ancient times, to be cast out of society was to punish. Oedipus cast himself out of Thebes as punishment for his actions in Sophocles famous play, Oedipus Rex. When people act as criminals, we take them out of society and lock them away in prisons as punishment. We are a communal species by nature. Hermits are regarded as strange, foreign, disturbed, crazy, eclectic, unrefined, and unconventional. The familiar saying, "it's always the quiet ones" refers to the belief that those who disconnect from their fellow human beings seem to perform the worst acts as evidenced by David Berkowitz, the famous 'Son of Sam' serial killer from 1976 and 1977. But tribal behavior is part of our competitive nature, too, alludes Haidt as he shows a group of people in a football stadium and say, "even when we don't have [tribes], we make them because it's fun."
Authority / Respect
While observers of animal species can see evidence of submissive behavior in a wide variety of species, human beings are the only species that seems to have alternative motivations for such behavior other than dominion and control. While the desire for power over another person is certainly a powerful motivator for many (not to mention a violation of the compassion aspect of morality), morality comes into play when we experience "voluntary forms of deference and even sometimes love." in the instances where we realize that we are wrong and someone else is right in an argument, we often submit to the truth wielded by another. It is a common belief and understanding that societies authorize elders to speak out about certain topics because their experiences are well respected. Consider, if you will, thefollowing quote from the 1997 film, Amistad, as spoken by the character of John Adams (Anthony Hopkins) to the US Supreme Court:
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
George Washington... John Adams. We've long resisted asking you for
guidance. Perhaps we have feared in doing so, we might acknowledge that our
individuality, which we so, so revere, is not entirely our own. Perhaps we've
feared an... an appeal to you might be taken for weakness. But, we've come to
understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we've been made to
understand, and to embrace the understanding... that who we are *is* who we
were. We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears,
our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it
means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last
battle of the American Revolution.
Purity / Sanctity
The concepts of purity and sanctity are historically regarded in terms of sex and chastity. The traditional, albeit largely mythical, view of chivalrous knights are that they rescued chaste princesses and damsels in distress. Until she ate the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, Eve was innocent and pure. After, Eve then saw that she was naked and became ashamed. Haidt regards this as a typically conservative view, but recognizes that this eternal, sacred quest for purity is one that can be found by liberals in food. "Food is becoming extremely moralized, and a lot of it is about purity and what you're willing to touch and put into your body" Haidt says, standing in front of an advertisement selling organic fruit juice. A common view of hippies in the 1960's and early 1970's were of a group of young people who wanted to "live off the land" and "get back to nature", believing that they would be rewarded in some sort of way in the long term. Either way, the body remains a temple of sorts, and should not be defiled or suffer acts of blasphemy, metaphorically speaking.
Ok, I admit that may have been a bit long. But that brings us back to the idea of reciprocity. See? I'm not the only one who believes that reciprocity is something that is characteristic of a moral mindset. This brings us back to the original question: why is it that two wrongs do not make a right? Well, at this point, we can take a couple of approaches: 1.) we can use the mathematical approach, or 2.) we can take what I will call The Moral Law of Reciprocity approach as reciprocity is explained above.
The Mathematical Approach
In simple math, a negative number added to another negative number cannot yield a positive number; it directs the count in a negative direction, always. On the other hand, a positive number added to a negative number does the same thing from the perspective of the positive number. However, only two positive numbers added together can be positive. This is the course of logic with the idea that "two wrongs don't make a right". The cause and result relationship between morality and opposing behaviors is in the negativity of the two behaviors, which repel each other and are, therefore, incompatible and incapable of combining to create anything but a negative result.
The Moral Law of Reciprocity
Recognizing that all things that are amoral because they are intrinsically amoral rather than because someone or something has deemed them as such, reciprocity is also true by this fashion. We don't go around murdering people because someone told us it is bad, but because it is bad, in and of itself. Likewise, if we want to be treated well, we have a moral obligation to treat others well. This truth is self evident. In the case of the "two wrongs" argument. each opposing wrong is, in and of itself, wrong; there is nothing good or true about either of them. Without a positive instance present, there can be no good to come out of them. Goodness does not create itself. Goodness doesn't spring from nothingness. Now, this doesn't mean that reciprocity of negativity is good because, well, two wrong don't equal a right. But also, reciprocity is only good if it is the result of something that doesn't violate the other tenets of morality, such as Haidt's harm / care. In this opposing view, it becomes not reciprocity but rather vengeance, vindication, compromise, or a unilateral result. In other words, the result can only be neutral or bad if both causes aren't good. Therefore, The Moral Law of Reciprocity states that reciprocity is a.) inherently good, b.) constructed of elements that are good, and c.) can only end with a positive result.
Invino Veritas
4/24/12
EOF
Harm / Care
As mammals, Haidt explains, we are all wired to"bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others - especially the weak and vulnerable - [and] gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm." These feelings and emotions we feel about those who do harm to people generally shows up in each of us in the form of fear, anger, or shock. Typically, we describe those individuals that are either devoid or lacking of these feelings as having a disconnection, a lack of "moral fiber", or lacking compassion. We attach negativity to their identifiers, to those who display these behaviors; We refer to them as unbalanced, apish, inhumane, primitive, and, in some cases, even pathological.
Fairness / Reciprocity
While there seems to be "ambiguous" evidence for reciprocity and fairness in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is easily observable in humans and very much present in culture, society, and humanity as a whole. Most of us have heard and understood the simplicity of its meaning in such parables as ones found in various bibles and religious texts. But to say that 'we reap what we sow' is as historically tell-tale and common as was the implications of Homer's Odyssey during the time of the Greek Empire. It describes where we come from and from what we evolved. Reciprocity is the remnants of the birth of mankind from a savage world wrought with predation and catastrophe, one from which we we lived as we fought to survive long ago. It was necessary to identify enemies, perhaps, and a simple act of reciprocity was a way to elicit a positive, useful, or otherwise compatible behavior from another.
Ingroup / Loyalty
Likely leftover from when we began to live in tribes and bands as nomads, human beings have a strong sense of loyalty. Since ancient times, to be cast out of society was to punish. Oedipus cast himself out of Thebes as punishment for his actions in Sophocles famous play, Oedipus Rex. When people act as criminals, we take them out of society and lock them away in prisons as punishment. We are a communal species by nature. Hermits are regarded as strange, foreign, disturbed, crazy, eclectic, unrefined, and unconventional. The familiar saying, "it's always the quiet ones" refers to the belief that those who disconnect from their fellow human beings seem to perform the worst acts as evidenced by David Berkowitz, the famous 'Son of Sam' serial killer from 1976 and 1977. But tribal behavior is part of our competitive nature, too, alludes Haidt as he shows a group of people in a football stadium and say, "even when we don't have [tribes], we make them because it's fun."
Authority / Respect
While observers of animal species can see evidence of submissive behavior in a wide variety of species, human beings are the only species that seems to have alternative motivations for such behavior other than dominion and control. While the desire for power over another person is certainly a powerful motivator for many (not to mention a violation of the compassion aspect of morality), morality comes into play when we experience "voluntary forms of deference and even sometimes love." in the instances where we realize that we are wrong and someone else is right in an argument, we often submit to the truth wielded by another. It is a common belief and understanding that societies authorize elders to speak out about certain topics because their experiences are well respected. Consider, if you will, thefollowing quote from the 1997 film, Amistad, as spoken by the character of John Adams (Anthony Hopkins) to the US Supreme Court:
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
George Washington... John Adams. We've long resisted asking you for
guidance. Perhaps we have feared in doing so, we might acknowledge that our
individuality, which we so, so revere, is not entirely our own. Perhaps we've
feared an... an appeal to you might be taken for weakness. But, we've come to
understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we've been made to
understand, and to embrace the understanding... that who we are *is* who we
were. We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears,
our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it
means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last
battle of the American Revolution.
Purity / Sanctity
The concepts of purity and sanctity are historically regarded in terms of sex and chastity. The traditional, albeit largely mythical, view of chivalrous knights are that they rescued chaste princesses and damsels in distress. Until she ate the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, Eve was innocent and pure. After, Eve then saw that she was naked and became ashamed. Haidt regards this as a typically conservative view, but recognizes that this eternal, sacred quest for purity is one that can be found by liberals in food. "Food is becoming extremely moralized, and a lot of it is about purity and what you're willing to touch and put into your body" Haidt says, standing in front of an advertisement selling organic fruit juice. A common view of hippies in the 1960's and early 1970's were of a group of young people who wanted to "live off the land" and "get back to nature", believing that they would be rewarded in some sort of way in the long term. Either way, the body remains a temple of sorts, and should not be defiled or suffer acts of blasphemy, metaphorically speaking.
Ok, I admit that may have been a bit long. But that brings us back to the idea of reciprocity. See? I'm not the only one who believes that reciprocity is something that is characteristic of a moral mindset. This brings us back to the original question: why is it that two wrongs do not make a right? Well, at this point, we can take a couple of approaches: 1.) we can use the mathematical approach, or 2.) we can take what I will call The Moral Law of Reciprocity approach as reciprocity is explained above.
The Mathematical Approach
In simple math, a negative number added to another negative number cannot yield a positive number; it directs the count in a negative direction, always. On the other hand, a positive number added to a negative number does the same thing from the perspective of the positive number. However, only two positive numbers added together can be positive. This is the course of logic with the idea that "two wrongs don't make a right". The cause and result relationship between morality and opposing behaviors is in the negativity of the two behaviors, which repel each other and are, therefore, incompatible and incapable of combining to create anything but a negative result.
The Moral Law of Reciprocity
Recognizing that all things that are amoral because they are intrinsically amoral rather than because someone or something has deemed them as such, reciprocity is also true by this fashion. We don't go around murdering people because someone told us it is bad, but because it is bad, in and of itself. Likewise, if we want to be treated well, we have a moral obligation to treat others well. This truth is self evident. In the case of the "two wrongs" argument. each opposing wrong is, in and of itself, wrong; there is nothing good or true about either of them. Without a positive instance present, there can be no good to come out of them. Goodness does not create itself. Goodness doesn't spring from nothingness. Now, this doesn't mean that reciprocity of negativity is good because, well, two wrong don't equal a right. But also, reciprocity is only good if it is the result of something that doesn't violate the other tenets of morality, such as Haidt's harm / care. In this opposing view, it becomes not reciprocity but rather vengeance, vindication, compromise, or a unilateral result. In other words, the result can only be neutral or bad if both causes aren't good. Therefore, The Moral Law of Reciprocity states that reciprocity is a.) inherently good, b.) constructed of elements that are good, and c.) can only end with a positive result.
Invino Veritas
4/24/12
EOF
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Imports From The Livejournal Archives Vol. 1.1
The following has been archived from my blog on Livejournal.com:
---------------------
January 26, 2005
---------------------
The Natural Indifference
The universe and all its components exist with a certain degree of indifference, a certain superfluous disregard for the other components. Each component expresses this on its own level, and relevance does not lend itself to animation or the lack thereof. It does not lend itself to organic components nor does it lend itself to inorganic components. But it transgresses across all boundaries only relevant to itself, and the entire system. People, as components of the system, are no different. It is our nature to disregard the components around us. It is the fate of humanity that its components should be selfish.
"After a time, the sound of musketry grew faint and the cannon boomed in the distance.
The sun, suddenly apparent, blazed among the trees. The insects were making rhythmical
noises. They seemed to be grinding their teeth in unison....Off was the rumble of death.
It seemed now that Nature had no ears."
--Stephen Crane, The Red Badge of Courage, 1894
----------------------
Invino Veritas
Archive Created 2/13/12
EOF
---------------------
January 26, 2005
---------------------
The Natural Indifference
The universe and all its components exist with a certain degree of indifference, a certain superfluous disregard for the other components. Each component expresses this on its own level, and relevance does not lend itself to animation or the lack thereof. It does not lend itself to organic components nor does it lend itself to inorganic components. But it transgresses across all boundaries only relevant to itself, and the entire system. People, as components of the system, are no different. It is our nature to disregard the components around us. It is the fate of humanity that its components should be selfish.
"After a time, the sound of musketry grew faint and the cannon boomed in the distance.
The sun, suddenly apparent, blazed among the trees. The insects were making rhythmical
noises. They seemed to be grinding their teeth in unison....Off was the rumble of death.
It seemed now that Nature had no ears."
--Stephen Crane, The Red Badge of Courage, 1894
----------------------
Invino Veritas
Archive Created 2/13/12
EOF
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Convenience Store at the End of the World
Ok, strange name, but I must admit that the next topic or topics reminds me a little bit of Douglas Adams' Restaraunt at the End of the Universe. Have patience. I hope you read the entire thing, so grab a hamburger and put on the soundtrack for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Enjoy.
I'm going to take a moment to explain some fundamental aspects of something and a small number of related things in an attempt to better clarify the crux of it. I do this because i believe that to get to the heart of the logic behind things, you must first reduce it until it is no longer reduceable. Now, this is not meant to discount Aristotle's "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" principle. His principle is most certainly born of sound reasoning. But we're not always looking for more when we are bound in context, we just want the best way to derive truth from the qualities of that which we are presented.
So, what is this thing? Well, for millenia, human beings have been trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why are we here?". Some try to find it within religion. Others try to find it in science. Many try to develop some sort of spirtuality without religion. But a great deal of introspection must come into play at some point, frankly, because our own voice is the one voice we can't get rid of in our heads (not counting people with multiple personalities). I believe that, at this point, in order to make an informed decision we hae to try to understand each with a reasonable amount of certainty. This doesn't mean you should become a monk for a year and then go rocketing to Jupiter the next. This simply means you should educate yourself in order to make a good or right decision rather than an easy decision.
So, we'll start with religion. Religion is the belief and practice of a set of rules, morals, principles, doctrines, tenets, etc by a group of people. More often than not, this involves a deity of some sort. (There are Hindu sects that are actually atheists, believe it or not.) The difference between religion and a cult is that a cult doesn't generally have the population or 'blessing' of a significant portion of the overall population of the society. In addition to setting and adhering to social ideas, religion plays an important role for many in explaining their environment. Nearly all religions confront death and the question of an afterlife. Religion also attempts to make sense of the things we can't readily explain or that for which we might otherwise plan. It's easy to sit back and say, "I have no idea what that stinking orange ball rolling down the mountainside at us is, so it must be something God made." In this simplified example, God certainly does appea to work in mysterious ways. In the battle between Nature vs Nurture, religion takes the side of nuture more often than not. Religions, most deifnitely, try to tackle the nature side of things. However, religion is something that is nurtured. Nobody comes out of their mother holding a copy of the torah and singing hymns. Religion has to be taught to be understood much like any law code or moral doctrine. It takes time and effort to fully grasp the ideas that have been molded and developed over centuries - especially if some of them are purely conceptual ideas.
Science is the attempt to use logic to discover the order of our environment and understand it and its properties. Science is derived from millenia of thought and reasoning which in return makes up up our modern body of thought (at least in theory) and practice thereof. All true forms of science begin with the Scientific Method. The problem is that the de facto standard is often disagreed upon, and therefore revised from time to time. It is important to note though that science is dependant upon the use of such a method. If you abandon the logic, then you abandon the science. At that point, you are nothing more than a metaphysicist. But if you adhere to the principles of the current scientific standard, then you should be fine to call yourself a scientist. Thankfully there is a basic, western version that even children are able to understand, and that can be found embedded within the more complex versions. Where did we get it? Why, our good buddy and father of deductive reasoning, Aristotle. (It is important to note that there are variations that involve inductive reasoning, and are considered to be eastern versions as they were first developed in the middle east.) The basic western version can be found here:
1. Ask a question.
2. Research the problem.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test that hypothesis.
5. Evaluate your findings.
6. Conclusion.
Now, of course, there are far more steps, but remember: this is the basic version. At this point, you might ask yourself, "Then if religion is nuture then that makes science nature in the age-old argument, but why?" The answer is a resounding 'yes'. We don't need to be taught to question our environment and its properties. We don't need to be nurtured to form opinions, hypotheses, or conclsions. We don't need to be taught to evaluate our findings. We are able to put our questons to the test on our own without outside interference. We may not want to do this, but we are capable to do so if we please (mental handicaps aside).
So, where does this leave us? Let us look at some very clear facts. First, we know we live on a planet in a much larger area or region we call space. We know this because we've journeyed outside of our earth to that region. Second, we know that the universe is made of two types of things: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are the things that we can use one or all of our five senses with which to interact. The intangible things are those that we can deduce or induce through reasoning, but are those things with which we cannot interact. In the case of induction, take for example the neutrino. We can't sense it, but we have created tools to sense it for us, so in a sense (no pun intended), we are not interacting with the neutrino and the neutrino certainly does not interact with us that we can tell. But rather it is our tools that interact with them on some level, and therefore we can induce, or infer, that the neutrino exists.
Third, everything in the universe seems to be in one of two states with regards to energy: high energy states and low energy states. Those things, like for instance the sun, are in high energy states and will eventually lose that energy and become something of a low energy state. Every ounce of matter in the universe is trying to get rid of its energy in order to only possess that energy sufficient to sustain its molecular vibration. Over time, this expulsion of excess energy causes the energy to change and express itself dfferently. But adding blue light to blue light doesn't make it bluer, nor does removing blue from blue make it less blue. As energy is expelled, so it the ability of the properties of the whole to cling to its individual qualities fly off from the center. Suns turn color and lose mass as they get older and burn themselves away. Rotting flesh expunges things like Carbon-14 and Methane as it breaks down and gets closer to that low energy state.
So, what does this all have to do with the main question(s) here? We are all stardust. The material elements of the known universe (which includes us), save hydrogen and helium, were created in stars. How do we know this? Because we can observe the properties of this process of creating elements in the colors of the stars, and we can also see what happens when we combine related observances with that knowledge. These elements are the ones that exist in our bodies and make up our matter. But the energy of our bodies are also in a high energy state, and over time, it will seek out that low energy state. This describes the cycle of life as it relates to living and dying under normal situations; we are born, we live, we die. (In this sort of aspect, it's very caesarian - Veni!, Vidi! Vici!) But this is where we come back to the main question. What happens then? As the universe would dictate, it is still trying to reduce the energy of our molecules to a lower state of energy. We can't sense this because, well, at this point we are dead. But what about consciousness? What about the soul? While, I personally, don't believe in the soul, I will at the very least consider the notion that they are one in the same. In order for those to exist in the universe and function in the manner that we believe them to function, they must have energy of some kind. Therefore, their energy added to the existing energy of our bodies allows them to be released as energy after we die. Therefore, our energy is absorbed by the universe, thus completing the cycle of energy. It may be added to another system, it may be used to fuel something else, it may never be used - it doesn't matter. If you like, however, you can think of it as a part of you being in everything else with which that energy comes into contact. I, however, will be eating a sandwich and doing the crossword while you let this sink in.
So, what's the point? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? All these questions are fine to ask occasionally, but they aren't very good questions. They are too broad to succinctly answer. What context are we using here? What defition and usage are we applying to the words that make up this question? Perhaps we should rephrase the question to better find the answer. 'Meaning' is something you apply to things. In this context, it means the reason which really just brings us back the second question: Why are we here? One way you can answer "why" is in the context of what it was that created us. Another way you can take this is to question a context of answering "or what purpose are we here?" These are really two distinct, different questions entirely. In fact, to even suggest that they are the same question is, frankly, fallacious or showing a distinct lack of sound logic. It's a flawed conclusion. Now, to be fair, it doesn't mean that it's untrue, the logic is simply flawed and does not directly connect A to B. It does, however, suggest a high probability that suggestion is untrue. (I'm going to refrain from explaining this because it would take an extended amount of time, and is frankly out of scope of this essay.) But, again, why? Because it implies that something that has quantity is the same as something without quantity but rather quality alone. Again, let's let that one sink in. What does this mean? Anything tat satisfies the question 'what' can tangibly exist where there are more than one 'what'. For example, two robots can build, or create, one car. But 'purpose' is a concept and therefore intangible. While you can have more than one concept about an idea, we cannot hold each one in our hand and juggle them. In other words, we don't actually interact with our concepts; we neither feel, hear, smell, taste, or see them. Again, we induce, or infer, that they exist because we are able to see the results of their expressions.
Now that we have actually split the question of "Why are we here?" into two separate ideas, we can begin to address each one individually. From this point, everything is pure philosophy and only philosophy. First, we tackle the idea of reason. We ask, for what purpose do we exist? To answer this, I ask "Well, what is the human body designed to do as far as we can tell?" The human body is designed to convert matter into energy, and reproduce itself. It's a machine on the simplest level. Garbage in, garbage out. Energy in, energy out. Rinse and repeat until it breaks. Buy a new one along the way, and start all over. But in as much as its simplistic mechanized view, the machine that is the human body is prompted by gratification to perpetuate, so, in a nutshell, we do the things that we do to make ourselves happy. Your stomach hurts from hunger pains so you eat to feel good. The urge to pee is unpleasant so we alleviate that by getting rid of our excess water which, well, feels pretty good thus giving us relief. Finally, we have our answer to half of everything! The purpose in life is to be happy as often as you can be. Do that which is most gratifying.
We have solved one of life's msysteries already. Now we set our sights on the second half of the quandary: By what were we created? Chances are that if you are religious, you have already answered this for yourself, and that is perfectly fine if it makes you happy. You may go back to your double-stuff cookies and fuzzy flip-flops now. But if you aren't satisfed yet, why not consider that in the context of everything we've talked about in this essay that you were created by your mother and father (and possibly one or more contributors!). In context of energy states, two tangible things in high energy states were combined to create you, another one thing in a state of high energy. Going back to Aristotle, the whole is, indeed, more than the sum of its parts. Sperm will eventually lose their vigor if left to their own devices. Eggs will eventually be expelled from the body and die. But when combined, they feed on one another and grow into a being of greater quantity and greater quality. In all this, however, it doesn't really answer the question if we don't believe in a deity or deities nor we believe in the mother-father concept. What then? Well, what came first: the chicken or the egg? If you believe in a deity, then you might say chickens because deities have a way of creating animals rather than eggs. Otherwise, the universe created the first one of us millions of years ago if not billions. Remember that every element other than helium and hydrogen come from stars? The fundamental elements of our biology are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Three of four of those were created by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen and Helium and other elements in the center of stars. Mixx them up in the right proportions and 'bake at 350 for two hours, turning once when the one side is golden brown' (Ok, maybe not, but you get the right idea), and you have the first strands of amino acids which form the simplest beginnngs of life as we know it to be.
In summary, be happy and do things that make you happy. Live. Breathe. Eat chocolate pizza if that makes you happy. Stop worrying about the 'what ifs' and the 'why nots'. We're all made from stars and one day you are going to end back up in one. You're part of a universal cycle. Just be glad that you are included. Now, here. Have some toys and a banana, and go outside and play with your friends. Daddy's busy.
Buh-bye!
Invino Veritas
11/17/11
EOF
I'm going to take a moment to explain some fundamental aspects of something and a small number of related things in an attempt to better clarify the crux of it. I do this because i believe that to get to the heart of the logic behind things, you must first reduce it until it is no longer reduceable. Now, this is not meant to discount Aristotle's "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" principle. His principle is most certainly born of sound reasoning. But we're not always looking for more when we are bound in context, we just want the best way to derive truth from the qualities of that which we are presented.
So, what is this thing? Well, for millenia, human beings have been trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why are we here?". Some try to find it within religion. Others try to find it in science. Many try to develop some sort of spirtuality without religion. But a great deal of introspection must come into play at some point, frankly, because our own voice is the one voice we can't get rid of in our heads (not counting people with multiple personalities). I believe that, at this point, in order to make an informed decision we hae to try to understand each with a reasonable amount of certainty. This doesn't mean you should become a monk for a year and then go rocketing to Jupiter the next. This simply means you should educate yourself in order to make a good or right decision rather than an easy decision.
So, we'll start with religion. Religion is the belief and practice of a set of rules, morals, principles, doctrines, tenets, etc by a group of people. More often than not, this involves a deity of some sort. (There are Hindu sects that are actually atheists, believe it or not.) The difference between religion and a cult is that a cult doesn't generally have the population or 'blessing' of a significant portion of the overall population of the society. In addition to setting and adhering to social ideas, religion plays an important role for many in explaining their environment. Nearly all religions confront death and the question of an afterlife. Religion also attempts to make sense of the things we can't readily explain or that for which we might otherwise plan. It's easy to sit back and say, "I have no idea what that stinking orange ball rolling down the mountainside at us is, so it must be something God made." In this simplified example, God certainly does appea to work in mysterious ways. In the battle between Nature vs Nurture, religion takes the side of nuture more often than not. Religions, most deifnitely, try to tackle the nature side of things. However, religion is something that is nurtured. Nobody comes out of their mother holding a copy of the torah and singing hymns. Religion has to be taught to be understood much like any law code or moral doctrine. It takes time and effort to fully grasp the ideas that have been molded and developed over centuries - especially if some of them are purely conceptual ideas.
Science is the attempt to use logic to discover the order of our environment and understand it and its properties. Science is derived from millenia of thought and reasoning which in return makes up up our modern body of thought (at least in theory) and practice thereof. All true forms of science begin with the Scientific Method. The problem is that the de facto standard is often disagreed upon, and therefore revised from time to time. It is important to note though that science is dependant upon the use of such a method. If you abandon the logic, then you abandon the science. At that point, you are nothing more than a metaphysicist. But if you adhere to the principles of the current scientific standard, then you should be fine to call yourself a scientist. Thankfully there is a basic, western version that even children are able to understand, and that can be found embedded within the more complex versions. Where did we get it? Why, our good buddy and father of deductive reasoning, Aristotle. (It is important to note that there are variations that involve inductive reasoning, and are considered to be eastern versions as they were first developed in the middle east.) The basic western version can be found here:
1. Ask a question.
2. Research the problem.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test that hypothesis.
5. Evaluate your findings.
6. Conclusion.
Now, of course, there are far more steps, but remember: this is the basic version. At this point, you might ask yourself, "Then if religion is nuture then that makes science nature in the age-old argument, but why?" The answer is a resounding 'yes'. We don't need to be taught to question our environment and its properties. We don't need to be nurtured to form opinions, hypotheses, or conclsions. We don't need to be taught to evaluate our findings. We are able to put our questons to the test on our own without outside interference. We may not want to do this, but we are capable to do so if we please (mental handicaps aside).
So, where does this leave us? Let us look at some very clear facts. First, we know we live on a planet in a much larger area or region we call space. We know this because we've journeyed outside of our earth to that region. Second, we know that the universe is made of two types of things: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are the things that we can use one or all of our five senses with which to interact. The intangible things are those that we can deduce or induce through reasoning, but are those things with which we cannot interact. In the case of induction, take for example the neutrino. We can't sense it, but we have created tools to sense it for us, so in a sense (no pun intended), we are not interacting with the neutrino and the neutrino certainly does not interact with us that we can tell. But rather it is our tools that interact with them on some level, and therefore we can induce, or infer, that the neutrino exists.
Third, everything in the universe seems to be in one of two states with regards to energy: high energy states and low energy states. Those things, like for instance the sun, are in high energy states and will eventually lose that energy and become something of a low energy state. Every ounce of matter in the universe is trying to get rid of its energy in order to only possess that energy sufficient to sustain its molecular vibration. Over time, this expulsion of excess energy causes the energy to change and express itself dfferently. But adding blue light to blue light doesn't make it bluer, nor does removing blue from blue make it less blue. As energy is expelled, so it the ability of the properties of the whole to cling to its individual qualities fly off from the center. Suns turn color and lose mass as they get older and burn themselves away. Rotting flesh expunges things like Carbon-14 and Methane as it breaks down and gets closer to that low energy state.
So, what does this all have to do with the main question(s) here? We are all stardust. The material elements of the known universe (which includes us), save hydrogen and helium, were created in stars. How do we know this? Because we can observe the properties of this process of creating elements in the colors of the stars, and we can also see what happens when we combine related observances with that knowledge. These elements are the ones that exist in our bodies and make up our matter. But the energy of our bodies are also in a high energy state, and over time, it will seek out that low energy state. This describes the cycle of life as it relates to living and dying under normal situations; we are born, we live, we die. (In this sort of aspect, it's very caesarian - Veni!, Vidi! Vici!) But this is where we come back to the main question. What happens then? As the universe would dictate, it is still trying to reduce the energy of our molecules to a lower state of energy. We can't sense this because, well, at this point we are dead. But what about consciousness? What about the soul? While, I personally, don't believe in the soul, I will at the very least consider the notion that they are one in the same. In order for those to exist in the universe and function in the manner that we believe them to function, they must have energy of some kind. Therefore, their energy added to the existing energy of our bodies allows them to be released as energy after we die. Therefore, our energy is absorbed by the universe, thus completing the cycle of energy. It may be added to another system, it may be used to fuel something else, it may never be used - it doesn't matter. If you like, however, you can think of it as a part of you being in everything else with which that energy comes into contact. I, however, will be eating a sandwich and doing the crossword while you let this sink in.
So, what's the point? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? All these questions are fine to ask occasionally, but they aren't very good questions. They are too broad to succinctly answer. What context are we using here? What defition and usage are we applying to the words that make up this question? Perhaps we should rephrase the question to better find the answer. 'Meaning' is something you apply to things. In this context, it means the reason which really just brings us back the second question: Why are we here? One way you can answer "why" is in the context of what it was that created us. Another way you can take this is to question a context of answering "or what purpose are we here?" These are really two distinct, different questions entirely. In fact, to even suggest that they are the same question is, frankly, fallacious or showing a distinct lack of sound logic. It's a flawed conclusion. Now, to be fair, it doesn't mean that it's untrue, the logic is simply flawed and does not directly connect A to B. It does, however, suggest a high probability that suggestion is untrue. (I'm going to refrain from explaining this because it would take an extended amount of time, and is frankly out of scope of this essay.) But, again, why? Because it implies that something that has quantity is the same as something without quantity but rather quality alone. Again, let's let that one sink in. What does this mean? Anything tat satisfies the question 'what' can tangibly exist where there are more than one 'what'. For example, two robots can build, or create, one car. But 'purpose' is a concept and therefore intangible. While you can have more than one concept about an idea, we cannot hold each one in our hand and juggle them. In other words, we don't actually interact with our concepts; we neither feel, hear, smell, taste, or see them. Again, we induce, or infer, that they exist because we are able to see the results of their expressions.
Now that we have actually split the question of "Why are we here?" into two separate ideas, we can begin to address each one individually. From this point, everything is pure philosophy and only philosophy. First, we tackle the idea of reason. We ask, for what purpose do we exist? To answer this, I ask "Well, what is the human body designed to do as far as we can tell?" The human body is designed to convert matter into energy, and reproduce itself. It's a machine on the simplest level. Garbage in, garbage out. Energy in, energy out. Rinse and repeat until it breaks. Buy a new one along the way, and start all over. But in as much as its simplistic mechanized view, the machine that is the human body is prompted by gratification to perpetuate, so, in a nutshell, we do the things that we do to make ourselves happy. Your stomach hurts from hunger pains so you eat to feel good. The urge to pee is unpleasant so we alleviate that by getting rid of our excess water which, well, feels pretty good thus giving us relief. Finally, we have our answer to half of everything! The purpose in life is to be happy as often as you can be. Do that which is most gratifying.
We have solved one of life's msysteries already. Now we set our sights on the second half of the quandary: By what were we created? Chances are that if you are religious, you have already answered this for yourself, and that is perfectly fine if it makes you happy. You may go back to your double-stuff cookies and fuzzy flip-flops now. But if you aren't satisfed yet, why not consider that in the context of everything we've talked about in this essay that you were created by your mother and father (and possibly one or more contributors!). In context of energy states, two tangible things in high energy states were combined to create you, another one thing in a state of high energy. Going back to Aristotle, the whole is, indeed, more than the sum of its parts. Sperm will eventually lose their vigor if left to their own devices. Eggs will eventually be expelled from the body and die. But when combined, they feed on one another and grow into a being of greater quantity and greater quality. In all this, however, it doesn't really answer the question if we don't believe in a deity or deities nor we believe in the mother-father concept. What then? Well, what came first: the chicken or the egg? If you believe in a deity, then you might say chickens because deities have a way of creating animals rather than eggs. Otherwise, the universe created the first one of us millions of years ago if not billions. Remember that every element other than helium and hydrogen come from stars? The fundamental elements of our biology are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Three of four of those were created by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen and Helium and other elements in the center of stars. Mixx them up in the right proportions and 'bake at 350 for two hours, turning once when the one side is golden brown' (Ok, maybe not, but you get the right idea), and you have the first strands of amino acids which form the simplest beginnngs of life as we know it to be.
In summary, be happy and do things that make you happy. Live. Breathe. Eat chocolate pizza if that makes you happy. Stop worrying about the 'what ifs' and the 'why nots'. We're all made from stars and one day you are going to end back up in one. You're part of a universal cycle. Just be glad that you are included. Now, here. Have some toys and a banana, and go outside and play with your friends. Daddy's busy.
Buh-bye!
Invino Veritas
11/17/11
EOF
Monday, July 25, 2011
Random Crap For The Day
I suppose you might say that I have a few points to ake today. I was going to make a poit to mention boredom, but that seems superfluous like putting a point value on the king in chess. After all, that's largely why I'm here at all. It's a pretty slow day at work, and I'm just waiting for diagnostics to run their course. At 3:00, I head back to Dunderland (this is the name I use in place of the name of my home town for those of you who know me) because I have some business to take care.
The first point I wish to make is that the entire universe is in a state of either flux or stasis. Seems easy, right? No? Ok, I'll expound upon this. Every action in the universe is the expression of a transformation of energy. This is my theory. Even things that don't involve action of some sort involve energy exchanges of some sort; we usually refer to this as potential energy. To understand this, we must acknowledge there are a finite number of types of energy. These include gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagetic, kinetic, potential, electrical, chemical, chemo-electrical, and so forth. (There are a few others we can point out I'm sure, but that's really not te point of all of this.) Atoms have energy that keep their particles in one place. Molecules have bonds that serve the same purpose. When we split an atom, all that energy is released in the form of kinetic, heat, and electromagnetic energy. When we eat certain types of matter, we break them down by acting upon them with chemicals by either breaking them down which releases energy, or building them up in which case we add energy to them. (A catalyst is just something that facilitates energy from one place to another, or energy to or fom a medium.) Left to its own devices, the universe would constantly change to alternate forms of energy until it reaches a single state of energy or whatever you wish to call infinity.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I realize I will have made a poor explanation of this idea of a universal energy exchange as a constant by the time I finish this point and/or this post. Opposing energies that stalemate each other must be acted upon by an alternative source of energy tochange its state. Likewise, if any one of two energy acting upon each other is greater than the other, then the state that the one energy takes will overcomethe state of the second until we have one energy state or the energies balance out or are forced into change in some way. Make sense? Not yet? Ok, imagine you have a rock and a plate of jello. If I drop the rock ino the plate of jello, the energy of the rock breaking through the jello will result in jello everywhere because the kinetic energy of the rock will make a mess of the jello. Now, let's say our rock is an asteroid with many times more energy, hurling towards earth. As it strikes the earth, all the energy is transformed from kinetic energy and mass-releated energies directly into heat, electromagnetic (light), kinetic, etc. Basicaly, we'd end up with a molten ball of earth. In fact, you can really say that a state of matter is really a state of energy because it really describes the energy that the atoms have.
Make better sense now? No? Yes?
Ok, let's move on. I'm bored of this right now....
It seems as if every ten years or thereabout, a hugely influential and talented artist dies in some tragic way. These artists seem to imprint themselves upon the medium and define (or redefine) it in some way. These artists are innovators and help to create perspective and break down walls. Jimi Hendrix could be seen as one such artist. Some might argue the same for Curt Cobain. Perhaps Janis Joplin, John Lennon, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Randy Rhoades, Bob Marley - the list goes on and on. I guess it's not really true to say 'every ten years', but rather it's a matter of mainstream change that happens every ten years, and as a result, perhaps, those dedicated artists that are so fragile in some sort of way get affected by the uncomfortable prick of fame's spindle. What makes them so fragile? Well, quite plainly, reality is a hard pill to swallow much of the time. When reality comes knocking, there's no avoiding it, but each person has to address reality in their own way. Some people get a heavy dose, others get a lesser dose. If we are fortunate to be given a path of artistry that is appreciated, then we really don't have to live in reality. But unfortunately, at least for me, this is not the case. I spend an extraordinary amount of time doing things I don't like in order to have time to do the things I do like. In other words, avoidance of reality is, well, gratifying, and its what many of us (if not the majority of us) want to spend time doing. (Wow, I really got off point here. Ok, back to, umm, reality.) It's when these artist's realities become unavoidable that they break open like a rotten orange, once full of sweet nectar but now shriveled and devoid of life. An encumbering amount of fame came be an unavoidable form of reality . In other words, one having to deal with so many people so much of the time. Or perhaps an increased workload just to maintain expectations or increasing lifestyles could be seen as reality closing in. Maybe even the destructive nature of drug addiction conflicting with the reality of the reality is what might take them out n the end. Who knows?
Ok, I've burnt myself out on that one.
Next!
Actually. I'll just try to be short-winded and list my random thoughts here:
1. Lewis Carroll didn't look like I originally thought he might.
2. There seems to be a large amount of disagreement upon the features of Samuel Taylor Coleridge as no two
paintings of him seem to look similar to the other.
3. Man, I could really go for some of that spreadable cheddar cheese that comes in the wax ball that is made
with the red wine. That stuff is awesome and would totally match my palate's mood right now.
4. I think I'd rather be lounging on my couch pretending the world doesn't exist except to randomly create
entertaining things that drop out of the sky for my to spend my time upon.
5. I just erased part of the last random statement. Can you guess what it said?
6. The Spaceballs Animated Series isn't really very good.
7. Shin Chan, however, rocks balls.
8. "Did I leave the iron on?" [Random Airplane! Reference]
9. I bet it would be pretty neat, for about thirty minutes, to hang out with Dr. Fillipenko.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Filippenko)
10. I think I like it best when the meat of my hot wings slides off the bone like they did today at the
Mexican restaraunt.
11. Who would have thought decent hot wings would come from a Mexican Restaraunt's buffet?
12. If this blog were a robot, it would be one those trash robots from Spaceballs. (Or was it Ice Pirates?)
13. I have mentioned Spaceballs way too much in this blog.
14. Eighteen minutes until go time.
15. Twiddle.
16. Damn, the nerd itch is hitting me. I must have comic books and magic cards. Give me Dungeons and
Dragons!
17. Can you imagine if Wizards of the Coast made a Dungeons & Dragons candy bar? That would be
completely strange and funny. It would remind me of the Reggie Jackson candy bar, only far more
slly and nerdy. The mascot would be some goofy knight without about as much serious consideration
as the Justice Friends.
18. I want to make octopus. I bet they are expensive, though. They are probably at least five dollars. Maybe
six. Yeah, expensive. [Stare.]
19. 9 minutes.
20. What do you mean "in nine minutes I've produced 6 random statements"? I can't really tell you guys
everything. I'd probably get flagged for pornography or erotica.
21. By the way, we are available for weddings, bar mitsvahs, and brisses.
22. "HEY! You guys see that chicken?" [Random Young Guns Reference]
23. Yes, I did reference a Lou Diamond Phillips movie. What do you mean there's no such thing as a Lou
Diamond Phillips? Well, now that you mention it, he really IS kind of like the Ringo Starr of the 1980's
Young Male celebrities. The only difference is Ringo continues to be successful.
24. Too soon? Hell, it's been 20 years for pete's sake.
25. Twenty-Five!
26. Ok, I go post now.
27. Say goodbye, Gracie.
28. Goodbye, Gracie.
29. [Crowd Laughs]
30 [Fade to Black]
Invino Veritas
EOF
7/25/11
The first point I wish to make is that the entire universe is in a state of either flux or stasis. Seems easy, right? No? Ok, I'll expound upon this. Every action in the universe is the expression of a transformation of energy. This is my theory. Even things that don't involve action of some sort involve energy exchanges of some sort; we usually refer to this as potential energy. To understand this, we must acknowledge there are a finite number of types of energy. These include gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagetic, kinetic, potential, electrical, chemical, chemo-electrical, and so forth. (There are a few others we can point out I'm sure, but that's really not te point of all of this.) Atoms have energy that keep their particles in one place. Molecules have bonds that serve the same purpose. When we split an atom, all that energy is released in the form of kinetic, heat, and electromagnetic energy. When we eat certain types of matter, we break them down by acting upon them with chemicals by either breaking them down which releases energy, or building them up in which case we add energy to them. (A catalyst is just something that facilitates energy from one place to another, or energy to or fom a medium.) Left to its own devices, the universe would constantly change to alternate forms of energy until it reaches a single state of energy or whatever you wish to call infinity.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I realize I will have made a poor explanation of this idea of a universal energy exchange as a constant by the time I finish this point and/or this post. Opposing energies that stalemate each other must be acted upon by an alternative source of energy tochange its state. Likewise, if any one of two energy acting upon each other is greater than the other, then the state that the one energy takes will overcomethe state of the second until we have one energy state or the energies balance out or are forced into change in some way. Make sense? Not yet? Ok, imagine you have a rock and a plate of jello. If I drop the rock ino the plate of jello, the energy of the rock breaking through the jello will result in jello everywhere because the kinetic energy of the rock will make a mess of the jello. Now, let's say our rock is an asteroid with many times more energy, hurling towards earth. As it strikes the earth, all the energy is transformed from kinetic energy and mass-releated energies directly into heat, electromagnetic (light), kinetic, etc. Basicaly, we'd end up with a molten ball of earth. In fact, you can really say that a state of matter is really a state of energy because it really describes the energy that the atoms have.
Make better sense now? No? Yes?
Ok, let's move on. I'm bored of this right now....
It seems as if every ten years or thereabout, a hugely influential and talented artist dies in some tragic way. These artists seem to imprint themselves upon the medium and define (or redefine) it in some way. These artists are innovators and help to create perspective and break down walls. Jimi Hendrix could be seen as one such artist. Some might argue the same for Curt Cobain. Perhaps Janis Joplin, John Lennon, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Randy Rhoades, Bob Marley - the list goes on and on. I guess it's not really true to say 'every ten years', but rather it's a matter of mainstream change that happens every ten years, and as a result, perhaps, those dedicated artists that are so fragile in some sort of way get affected by the uncomfortable prick of fame's spindle. What makes them so fragile? Well, quite plainly, reality is a hard pill to swallow much of the time. When reality comes knocking, there's no avoiding it, but each person has to address reality in their own way. Some people get a heavy dose, others get a lesser dose. If we are fortunate to be given a path of artistry that is appreciated, then we really don't have to live in reality. But unfortunately, at least for me, this is not the case. I spend an extraordinary amount of time doing things I don't like in order to have time to do the things I do like. In other words, avoidance of reality is, well, gratifying, and its what many of us (if not the majority of us) want to spend time doing. (Wow, I really got off point here. Ok, back to, umm, reality.) It's when these artist's realities become unavoidable that they break open like a rotten orange, once full of sweet nectar but now shriveled and devoid of life. An encumbering amount of fame came be an unavoidable form of reality . In other words, one having to deal with so many people so much of the time. Or perhaps an increased workload just to maintain expectations or increasing lifestyles could be seen as reality closing in. Maybe even the destructive nature of drug addiction conflicting with the reality of the reality is what might take them out n the end. Who knows?
Ok, I've burnt myself out on that one.
Next!
Actually. I'll just try to be short-winded and list my random thoughts here:
1. Lewis Carroll didn't look like I originally thought he might.
2. There seems to be a large amount of disagreement upon the features of Samuel Taylor Coleridge as no two
paintings of him seem to look similar to the other.
3. Man, I could really go for some of that spreadable cheddar cheese that comes in the wax ball that is made
with the red wine. That stuff is awesome and would totally match my palate's mood right now.
4. I think I'd rather be lounging on my couch pretending the world doesn't exist except to randomly create
entertaining things that drop out of the sky for my to spend my time upon.
5. I just erased part of the last random statement. Can you guess what it said?
6. The Spaceballs Animated Series isn't really very good.
7. Shin Chan, however, rocks balls.
8. "Did I leave the iron on?" [Random Airplane! Reference]
9. I bet it would be pretty neat, for about thirty minutes, to hang out with Dr. Fillipenko.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Filippenko)
10. I think I like it best when the meat of my hot wings slides off the bone like they did today at the
Mexican restaraunt.
11. Who would have thought decent hot wings would come from a Mexican Restaraunt's buffet?
12. If this blog were a robot, it would be one those trash robots from Spaceballs. (Or was it Ice Pirates?)
13. I have mentioned Spaceballs way too much in this blog.
14. Eighteen minutes until go time.
15. Twiddle.
16. Damn, the nerd itch is hitting me. I must have comic books and magic cards. Give me Dungeons and
Dragons!
17. Can you imagine if Wizards of the Coast made a Dungeons & Dragons candy bar? That would be
completely strange and funny. It would remind me of the Reggie Jackson candy bar, only far more
slly and nerdy. The mascot would be some goofy knight without about as much serious consideration
as the Justice Friends.
18. I want to make octopus. I bet they are expensive, though. They are probably at least five dollars. Maybe
six. Yeah, expensive. [Stare.]
19. 9 minutes.
20. What do you mean "in nine minutes I've produced 6 random statements"? I can't really tell you guys
everything. I'd probably get flagged for pornography or erotica.
21. By the way, we are available for weddings, bar mitsvahs, and brisses.
22. "HEY! You guys see that chicken?" [Random Young Guns Reference]
23. Yes, I did reference a Lou Diamond Phillips movie. What do you mean there's no such thing as a Lou
Diamond Phillips? Well, now that you mention it, he really IS kind of like the Ringo Starr of the 1980's
Young Male celebrities. The only difference is Ringo continues to be successful.
24. Too soon? Hell, it's been 20 years for pete's sake.
25. Twenty-Five!
26. Ok, I go post now.
27. Say goodbye, Gracie.
28. Goodbye, Gracie.
29. [Crowd Laughs]
30 [Fade to Black]
Invino Veritas
EOF
7/25/11
Friday, July 15, 2011
Zen and The Art Of Printer Repair
This post brougt to you by Pink Floyd's Animals and Dark Side Of The Moon.
I've been thinking a lot of my own, ever-evolving theory of universal chaos. I even see it's strands of truth appearing in the most unlikliest of places and even the most likely of places, umm, alike. I'm going to skip as much of the usual sort of jargon that I tend to use, and try to speak plainly because it is more of a personal, perhaps intimate, perspective on life and the universe that I am presenting today. We'll leave the math and take a less conscientous aproach to logic. But that doesn't mean that what I discuss here cannot be, in some way, influenced by either of those things.
See, chaos, that is to say, the eventual and inevitable randomization of the elements and properties of nature as a whole, both earthly and universal, is an inevitability. Human beings and even parts of nature itself struggles against this all-encompassing law. The universe expands away from its own parts, people move away and leave teir roots, and gases expand to fill volumes. Even as gravity pulls us to the surface of the earth, we are actually trying to leae the grasp of gravity and separate from Earth. Electromagnetic bonds are responsibile for keeping our atoms secured to the other atoms that make up the very molecules that make up our body.
But I really didn't come here to talk about science today, for the most part. I really came to talk about something really very different, but still somewhat related to the chaos that creates each of these things. I came, more or less, to explain that chaos is a necessary component to most everything. Our attempts to create or restore order in our universeor reality is proof of its existence. After all, who wouldn't want something reliable and consistent in their lives? But the fact of the matter is that nature constantly creates and manifests variations on itself with no apparet rhyme or reason but merely on whim alone. So why struggle so hard agaisnt it? Relax. Remember the last battle scene in the original version of Walt Disney's Tron? Tron ad to wait for the opening to the Master Control Program's face to become visible before he could launch his data disc into t and destroy the MCP. This is how one might view it. Sure, it's important to defeat the MCP, but you got to wat for the moment to present itself.
Now, this doesn't mean that every little thing in the world should be approached this way, just most things. This is because some things are what they are because they do what they do. Bees make honey. Bees also buzz. But bees do not make french toast, and will probably never make french toast. It's simply not reasonable in the slightest to expect to be served some good french toast by an insect any time within our lives. Likewise, f you want to have some things happen in your life, you must be proactive and create those things or situations for yourself - bottom line.
But we actually do this to some degree anyways. We prioritize things according to how much chaos they actually create in our lives. Our leaders send troops to the middle east because it is creating immediate chaos in their lives, perceived or not, and redrect things away from other areas like education and solving the homeless problem. (This is not meant to ignore other reasons for these things.) Inasmuch as politics, a mother may choose to console her baby to keep it from crying instead of pick up the child's toys at that very moment.
Our lives are filled with so many things that can distract us from our major goals. Few things have ever been so apparent to me as this, partly because (I imagine) I've lived with an attention deficit for several years. One of the things that makes everything so difficult sometimes is learning to choose which components of the chaos to act upon and which components to let act upon you. Chemistry tells us that as a force or stress exerts itself upon a system, that system has a way of moving in a direction to relieve itself of that stress. Peoeple really aren't that much different. If you feel pressure from your neighbors to cut your lawn, chances are that you will eventually cut the lawn when they arrive at your door with a meat cleaver and a number of a good lawn care service. Everyone has certain things that are common that they canot live without. These things include things like food, clothing, shelter, health, water, oxygen, etc. Then there are those things that directly facilitate those things. These two kind of things are the necessary things in life. Everything else is just luxury. I need water, but I want beer. See the relationship? You can prioritize these things in the order that I have presented, and do just fine (i.e. create some order from the chaos).
Now, let's put everything together. This is the point of the discussion that I relate everything that I have talked about to printer repair. Many days, I get a broken printer, a printer in a state of chaos and dysfunction, to repair. Feeling the stress from my boss to perform, I begin work on my broken printer. The idea here is to return this printer to a state of function and representative of some sort of order that represents exactly what it is: a printer. But, wow, there's a lot of parts, and often I have to completely disassemble and reassemble these things. How does one do it? Well, we can't fix anything until we know how it is failing, so we check it out by running it through the tests to diagnose prblems with its basic functions. (Can this bee buzz? Can this bee make honey? Why is this bee making french toast? That's weird!) Once we determined what it's not doing properly, we then devise a plan to address those parts and functions. We can't very start in the center of the printer, we have to remove its outer compoents before we can reveal the problems on he inside. So, we start with the simple stuff on the outside and work our way into the thngs that are most important. This is like making the choice between those things that facilitate the things are important versus the things that are the mos timportant. (For the purpose of illustration, we note here that every printer part is treated as one of these types of things.) We find, as we go through our process, we need to make some changes to create some order (i.e. replace parts). After rreplacing these parts and reassembling our printer, we check it out again to make everything works right, and that we are indeed in a state or order once again. After a quick clean-up job, we send our bee back into the garden to collect some more pollen, and brave the elements. Congratulations, we've staved off another episode of chaos! You can look at the cleaning of the printer to remove the dirt as a matter of aesthetics, and thereofre like those things tha aren't really important because they do nothing to facilitate or keep the printer in order and functional.
So, in summary, I present these few, what I will call, truths or laws:
1. The universe moves in the direction of the least amount of order. This is The Law of
Chaos.
2. All things acted upon by the chaos in the universe can be organized into four categories:
The thing itself, the necessary components of the main thing, the properties of the
necessary components that cause the facilitation, and the things that are inconsequential.
This is The Law of Order.
3. It is the nature of the universe to create chaos, and it is the need of human beings to act
upon their realities to create order and make sense of things. This is The Law of
Opposition.This is akin to Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry.
4. Things are what they are because they do what they do and vice versa; they have intrinsic
qualities and properties that define and distinguish them from everything else. This is The
Law of Uniques.
Invino Veritas
7/15/11
EOF
I've been thinking a lot of my own, ever-evolving theory of universal chaos. I even see it's strands of truth appearing in the most unlikliest of places and even the most likely of places, umm, alike. I'm going to skip as much of the usual sort of jargon that I tend to use, and try to speak plainly because it is more of a personal, perhaps intimate, perspective on life and the universe that I am presenting today. We'll leave the math and take a less conscientous aproach to logic. But that doesn't mean that what I discuss here cannot be, in some way, influenced by either of those things.
See, chaos, that is to say, the eventual and inevitable randomization of the elements and properties of nature as a whole, both earthly and universal, is an inevitability. Human beings and even parts of nature itself struggles against this all-encompassing law. The universe expands away from its own parts, people move away and leave teir roots, and gases expand to fill volumes. Even as gravity pulls us to the surface of the earth, we are actually trying to leae the grasp of gravity and separate from Earth. Electromagnetic bonds are responsibile for keeping our atoms secured to the other atoms that make up the very molecules that make up our body.
But I really didn't come here to talk about science today, for the most part. I really came to talk about something really very different, but still somewhat related to the chaos that creates each of these things. I came, more or less, to explain that chaos is a necessary component to most everything. Our attempts to create or restore order in our universeor reality is proof of its existence. After all, who wouldn't want something reliable and consistent in their lives? But the fact of the matter is that nature constantly creates and manifests variations on itself with no apparet rhyme or reason but merely on whim alone. So why struggle so hard agaisnt it? Relax. Remember the last battle scene in the original version of Walt Disney's Tron? Tron ad to wait for the opening to the Master Control Program's face to become visible before he could launch his data disc into t and destroy the MCP. This is how one might view it. Sure, it's important to defeat the MCP, but you got to wat for the moment to present itself.
Now, this doesn't mean that every little thing in the world should be approached this way, just most things. This is because some things are what they are because they do what they do. Bees make honey. Bees also buzz. But bees do not make french toast, and will probably never make french toast. It's simply not reasonable in the slightest to expect to be served some good french toast by an insect any time within our lives. Likewise, f you want to have some things happen in your life, you must be proactive and create those things or situations for yourself - bottom line.
But we actually do this to some degree anyways. We prioritize things according to how much chaos they actually create in our lives. Our leaders send troops to the middle east because it is creating immediate chaos in their lives, perceived or not, and redrect things away from other areas like education and solving the homeless problem. (This is not meant to ignore other reasons for these things.) Inasmuch as politics, a mother may choose to console her baby to keep it from crying instead of pick up the child's toys at that very moment.
Our lives are filled with so many things that can distract us from our major goals. Few things have ever been so apparent to me as this, partly because (I imagine) I've lived with an attention deficit for several years. One of the things that makes everything so difficult sometimes is learning to choose which components of the chaos to act upon and which components to let act upon you. Chemistry tells us that as a force or stress exerts itself upon a system, that system has a way of moving in a direction to relieve itself of that stress. Peoeple really aren't that much different. If you feel pressure from your neighbors to cut your lawn, chances are that you will eventually cut the lawn when they arrive at your door with a meat cleaver and a number of a good lawn care service. Everyone has certain things that are common that they canot live without. These things include things like food, clothing, shelter, health, water, oxygen, etc. Then there are those things that directly facilitate those things. These two kind of things are the necessary things in life. Everything else is just luxury. I need water, but I want beer. See the relationship? You can prioritize these things in the order that I have presented, and do just fine (i.e. create some order from the chaos).
Now, let's put everything together. This is the point of the discussion that I relate everything that I have talked about to printer repair. Many days, I get a broken printer, a printer in a state of chaos and dysfunction, to repair. Feeling the stress from my boss to perform, I begin work on my broken printer. The idea here is to return this printer to a state of function and representative of some sort of order that represents exactly what it is: a printer. But, wow, there's a lot of parts, and often I have to completely disassemble and reassemble these things. How does one do it? Well, we can't fix anything until we know how it is failing, so we check it out by running it through the tests to diagnose prblems with its basic functions. (Can this bee buzz? Can this bee make honey? Why is this bee making french toast? That's weird!) Once we determined what it's not doing properly, we then devise a plan to address those parts and functions. We can't very start in the center of the printer, we have to remove its outer compoents before we can reveal the problems on he inside. So, we start with the simple stuff on the outside and work our way into the thngs that are most important. This is like making the choice between those things that facilitate the things are important versus the things that are the mos timportant. (For the purpose of illustration, we note here that every printer part is treated as one of these types of things.) We find, as we go through our process, we need to make some changes to create some order (i.e. replace parts). After rreplacing these parts and reassembling our printer, we check it out again to make everything works right, and that we are indeed in a state or order once again. After a quick clean-up job, we send our bee back into the garden to collect some more pollen, and brave the elements. Congratulations, we've staved off another episode of chaos! You can look at the cleaning of the printer to remove the dirt as a matter of aesthetics, and thereofre like those things tha aren't really important because they do nothing to facilitate or keep the printer in order and functional.
So, in summary, I present these few, what I will call, truths or laws:
1. The universe moves in the direction of the least amount of order. This is The Law of
Chaos.
2. All things acted upon by the chaos in the universe can be organized into four categories:
The thing itself, the necessary components of the main thing, the properties of the
necessary components that cause the facilitation, and the things that are inconsequential.
This is The Law of Order.
3. It is the nature of the universe to create chaos, and it is the need of human beings to act
upon their realities to create order and make sense of things. This is The Law of
Opposition.This is akin to Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry.
4. Things are what they are because they do what they do and vice versa; they have intrinsic
qualities and properties that define and distinguish them from everything else. This is The
Law of Uniques.
Invino Veritas
7/15/11
EOF
Friday, July 1, 2011
Relativity, Energy Drinks, and Nat'l Geographic.
Recently, I've been watching a lot of science shows on Netflix. I have a certain proclivity to gravitate towards shows and documentaries about ancient history and cosmology. Most recently, I began wtaching National Geographic's The Universe, a 64 episode series, and I think it's begun to affect the body of things that I think about these days. that is, to say, I think about physics and the cosmos and interaction of those things with a distinct regularity. I've always been interested in those types of things, and have retained a fair amount of that knowledge from when I was studying chemistry and physics in high school and early college.
Last night, as I was trying to go to sleep, my mind was racing (attention deficit is a bitch, let me tell you). My mind began to apply logic and a rudimenary understanding of mathematics in one coalescing body of theory. The theory is a rather simple one, but takes a bit of conceptualization to grasp methinks. It begins as a the concept that one result, A, is the sum of its causes, B and C. In logic, the cause is almost always a result of the variable that are applied in some way to produce the result. For instance, when you add yellow paint to blue paint the result is green paint. Taking this model, we can see that the yellow paint, B, and Blue Paint, C, combine to form green paint, A. This can be described in a simple equation:
A=B+C
In describing the simple logic of combining values to yield a new value, we can infer a couple of things:
1. A is the sum of the properties of both B and C.
2. The properties of B are independent of the properties of C.
3. The properties of C are independent of the properties of B.
The forst statement is proved by the original eqation. The next two statements are proved by a simple mathematical reorganization where the original equation is rearranged thus:
A-B=C
and
A-C=B
Both B and C have an intrinsic, or inherent, values that are true regardless of whether or not those values are known. The mere existence of one paint doesn't determine the properties of another paint unless combined with that paint, therefore paints B and C are independent variables of A. At this point, we can apply the Law of Composition as derived by the logical premise that states while A is the result of both B and C, the properties of each of the three variables are, for the most part, separate from one another. In other words, while A may have properties similar to properties that exist in both B and C, the totality of said properties in each are not equal. As pointed out by Madeleine L'Engle in her famous book, A Wrinkle In Time, "Like and Equal are not the same thing."
Q1: Ok, so how can we use this in everyday life? After all, I'm not a painter.
A1: Let's pretend your boss comes to you and says "Finish your work. You're spending too much time fraternizing and playing on the internet." For now, we'll assume that there are only two apparent variables that yield a result. Your boss assumes that a lack of production, A, is due to fraternizing, B and Internet usage, C.
First we infer that your internet usage is intrinsically independent of your fraternizing, or B has a value that would exist whether or not C was present, and vice versa. If your boss observed a decline in your production, he or she could also infer that if you removed B or C from A, then the value of production, A, would increase. This is easily stated as A-B=C. But to this point, we've only proved that B and C are independent. Surely, if you cut out talking to your co-workers the time you spend unsing the internet will not equal the time that you spend working, right? Wrong.
Q2: But this contradicts what you just said. How can this be?
A2: When we start talking about things relative to a time frame, then we have to include another variable because time itself is only relative among the variable themselves. This is the dependent variable. Our equation has evolved at this point. Time was previously irrelevant to blue and yellow paint, but it is a key component, the crux of the argument by your boss, if you will. In order to instigate an change in A, it must be offset by a change in time, x. Let's take a look at our new equation:
Ax=(B+C)(-x)
As time is relevant to both cause and result, it exists on both sides of the equation. In order for A to increase with the reduction of the equation by B (or C, depending upon which value you use), then some varaible, x, (time in this case) has to become dependent upon one of the other variables. Here, we can say that when A is reduced by B, the value of x is decreased by a factor of C. But how can this be? Because the relationship between varaibles B and C to that of time, x, is inversely proportional.This also means that as x gets smaller on one side of the equation, it gets larger on the other side. Thus we get:
Ax=(B)(-x)+(C)(-x)
In conclusion, if we spend less time (-x) doing B and C, then we will spend more time (+x) doing A. This brings us to two equations:
The relationship of a sum to its elements:
1. A=B+C
The relationship of a sum to its elements when time is introduced:
2. Ax=[(B)(-x)] + [(C)(-x)]
See? This is what happens when I drink energy drinks and watch National Geographic. I told you this stuff was happening. I've got to get this sort of thing OUT OF MY HEAD. Math isn't my strong suit, and I freely admit that. In fact, if t wasn't for my buddy, TD, then I'd be stuck like a broken record at the very end of things. So, what I'm trying to say is don't beat me up if there's some mathematical problem there. I don't take too much responsibility for it i it exists.
Invino Veritas
7/1/11
EOF
Last night, as I was trying to go to sleep, my mind was racing (attention deficit is a bitch, let me tell you). My mind began to apply logic and a rudimenary understanding of mathematics in one coalescing body of theory. The theory is a rather simple one, but takes a bit of conceptualization to grasp methinks. It begins as a the concept that one result, A, is the sum of its causes, B and C. In logic, the cause is almost always a result of the variable that are applied in some way to produce the result. For instance, when you add yellow paint to blue paint the result is green paint. Taking this model, we can see that the yellow paint, B, and Blue Paint, C, combine to form green paint, A. This can be described in a simple equation:
A=B+C
In describing the simple logic of combining values to yield a new value, we can infer a couple of things:
1. A is the sum of the properties of both B and C.
2. The properties of B are independent of the properties of C.
3. The properties of C are independent of the properties of B.
The forst statement is proved by the original eqation. The next two statements are proved by a simple mathematical reorganization where the original equation is rearranged thus:
A-B=C
and
A-C=B
Both B and C have an intrinsic, or inherent, values that are true regardless of whether or not those values are known. The mere existence of one paint doesn't determine the properties of another paint unless combined with that paint, therefore paints B and C are independent variables of A. At this point, we can apply the Law of Composition as derived by the logical premise that states while A is the result of both B and C, the properties of each of the three variables are, for the most part, separate from one another. In other words, while A may have properties similar to properties that exist in both B and C, the totality of said properties in each are not equal. As pointed out by Madeleine L'Engle in her famous book, A Wrinkle In Time, "Like and Equal are not the same thing."
Q1: Ok, so how can we use this in everyday life? After all, I'm not a painter.
A1: Let's pretend your boss comes to you and says "Finish your work. You're spending too much time fraternizing and playing on the internet." For now, we'll assume that there are only two apparent variables that yield a result. Your boss assumes that a lack of production, A, is due to fraternizing, B and Internet usage, C.
First we infer that your internet usage is intrinsically independent of your fraternizing, or B has a value that would exist whether or not C was present, and vice versa. If your boss observed a decline in your production, he or she could also infer that if you removed B or C from A, then the value of production, A, would increase. This is easily stated as A-B=C. But to this point, we've only proved that B and C are independent. Surely, if you cut out talking to your co-workers the time you spend unsing the internet will not equal the time that you spend working, right? Wrong.
Q2: But this contradicts what you just said. How can this be?
A2: When we start talking about things relative to a time frame, then we have to include another variable because time itself is only relative among the variable themselves. This is the dependent variable. Our equation has evolved at this point. Time was previously irrelevant to blue and yellow paint, but it is a key component, the crux of the argument by your boss, if you will. In order to instigate an change in A, it must be offset by a change in time, x. Let's take a look at our new equation:
Ax=(B+C)(-x)
As time is relevant to both cause and result, it exists on both sides of the equation. In order for A to increase with the reduction of the equation by B (or C, depending upon which value you use), then some varaible, x, (time in this case) has to become dependent upon one of the other variables. Here, we can say that when A is reduced by B, the value of x is decreased by a factor of C. But how can this be? Because the relationship between varaibles B and C to that of time, x, is inversely proportional.This also means that as x gets smaller on one side of the equation, it gets larger on the other side. Thus we get:
Ax=(B)(-x)+(C)(-x)
In conclusion, if we spend less time (-x) doing B and C, then we will spend more time (+x) doing A. This brings us to two equations:
The relationship of a sum to its elements:
1. A=B+C
The relationship of a sum to its elements when time is introduced:
2. Ax=[(B)(-x)] + [(C)(-x)]
See? This is what happens when I drink energy drinks and watch National Geographic. I told you this stuff was happening. I've got to get this sort of thing OUT OF MY HEAD. Math isn't my strong suit, and I freely admit that. In fact, if t wasn't for my buddy, TD, then I'd be stuck like a broken record at the very end of things. So, what I'm trying to say is don't beat me up if there's some mathematical problem there. I don't take too much responsibility for it i it exists.
Invino Veritas
7/1/11
EOF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)