I've been looking over my old admissions essay, as I am currently helping out old high school friends with theirs, and it's been a bit of a surprise to see how much I've changed. Perhaps it's the nature of the U of C to be soul-sucking, but I've noticed how much more optimistic I was back then when I was applying here. At the same time, it's been a source of strength, as it helps me remember why I am here and what I am doing. Sure, plans may change, but the fact that I remember having such strong feelings and burning passion allowed me to reaffirm my conviction to take part in the U of C Experience.
Topic 5: One Possible Variation, I think.
According to the literary critic Roland Barthes, the author of a work is dead. If that is so, then any intended meaning within any creation is obsolete, including the preceding sentence. If that is the case… what is left? Is there truly any meaning to anything? Or is existence itself the theatre of the absurd? Analyze and discuss… or ignore the prompt.
“Whither is God? I shall tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are murderers… God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him…”~Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
When the madman held his lantern and shouted in the market, he spoke of an era where there is no “God.” Of course, being a bit early, he smashed his lantern and babbled some more. However, that time he has predicted (or should I say, that state of reality) has come. Welcome… to the admissions essay of Daniel Choi.
Jungian psychology was always a fascinating subject and as I explored its contemporary branches, I came across the Myers-Briggs test. At first I scoffed, thinking that the depth of the subconscious would not allow for Aristotelian categorization. Yet, having a secret weakness for personality tests found in fashion magazines, I couldn’t resist the urge to find out what type I was.
I was surprised by the test’s amazing accuracy; it had pinpointed my “type” and I was deemed forever INTP (Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceptive… or as I like to refer to it: I Never Think Practically). Interestingly enough, the archetype associated with INTPs is the architect—analogous to the author of a text or the creator of a world. Because of this realization, I devoured books on various cosmologies of the universe and revered the axiom “everything happens for a reason.” Some may say I was Newtonian in the aspect that I believed for every phenomenon there was a cause, for every action there was an intention, for every being there was a justification, because to me, that was how the universe operated.
I rationalized away the injustices and the problem of evil as part of the “grand plan” and pointed to the Tree of Life as the explanation for strife (God’s energies oscillate between two pillars: the Pillar of Mercy and the Pillar of Severity to create phenomena in the Middle Pillar or the Pillar of Mildness). For every death that occurred around me, I pointed to the fact that death is the yin to the yang of life. Religion, philosophy, and scientific laws explained everything for me, which I now realize was a foolish grip on pedantry. As an architect, I realized I had one fatal flaw—I lacked originality. I was constantly taking ideas from dead hands and never formulating any of my own, and when the absurdity of life hit me, I was not at all prepared.
When my models were failing me and my explanations (or rather excuses) were coming up short, it coincided with my most severe bout of depression. Of course, all teenagers go through some sort of angst, but I wonder how others coped with their pathos without periodic episodes that left scars on their forearms and torso. For a while, self-injury became my source of power as everything around me fell apart—identity, confidence, achievements, etc. I became disillusioned with the Kabbalah and Golden Dawn Hermeticism along with the worth of works or achievements. In a sense, I’ve realized that everything in society was nothing but a hyperreality as described by Baudrillard: a set of symbols and institutions that are “more real” than reality. All that mattered to me was that I was able to slash open another wound on my wrists. Even though I thought everything was meaningless, I felt compelled to live everyday life with school and homework, but the empty feeling of nihilism replaced the awe and wonder I once experienced when learning about the world.
Amidst all of my moping and cutting, I was still drawn to reading, only now it was for a justification. I sifted through the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Shruti, the I-Ching, the Zend-Avesta, the Communist Manifesto, Dante’s Divine Comedy, and even through the Satanic Bible, A Course in Miracles, Mein Kempf, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead in order to find meaning in my life. I’ve prayed, chanted, and worshipped more gods than most have ever heard of in search for that Grand Design, the meaning of things. With each unanswered prayer, each unsuccessful summons, each ineffective ritual, I became convinced that there was no one listening. Again, I’ve tried to reason my way out, telling myself that “God is furious about your idolatry” or “God has a hidden plan,” but that did not liberate me from the mental prison I’d created for myself and it actually dug me deeper into this trench of despair.
It was during the first semester of my junior year I became obsessed with Nihilism because I felt that its message for destroying the fallacies were imperative in finding truth. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche became the topic of my conversations with everyone, which was quite unfortunate because many Utahns are not even able to pronounce their names. Pressure-cooked by a Mormon community and a Christian family, I felt as if I was boiled down to a bitter solution of rage and hurt. I attacked anything that seemed to promote happiness or other optimistic metanarratives and my tongue became a hypodermic needle injecting acrimony into my opponents. The fury I harnessed was slowly destroying me as I was isolating myself from my environment, feeling as if I was reliving the difficult four years I spent in Korea. At first I saw this wrath as power (after all, hatred is very powerful), but like an ulcer, it burned me inside out. I realized that I needed a hero. I needed someone to save me. I waited for that someone who would lead me from my solitude. That someone was a surprise. That someone was me.
Okay, okay! Technically it was a combination of Sartre and Kierkegaard that saved me, but nonetheless I realized through these authors that I was the one who had to save myself. The realization happened quite unexpectedly—during an episode of the TV series Angel. In Episode 2x16 “Epiphany,” our hero has an epiphany (hence the title): if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. Angel has been battling for centuries an endless battle for his redemption (he’s a vampire… with a soul… how cool is that?!) and during the past couple of episodes, he has been going through an existential crisis. As with all American television programming, it took carnage and bacchanalia to knock some sense into him. At the end of the episode, he learns that redemption starts with the forgiveness of the self, just as existence begins with the awareness of the self. Even though our existence is futile like the task of Sisyphus, it is all that we have; therefore, it is the only thing that has meaning.
After sharing Angel’s epiphany, I realized that the nihilism and the nonexistence of purpose no longer matters because it is our actions that justifies our existence. Nothing is true; everything is permitted. It is not what the author says that dictates the meaning of the book; it is what the readers interpret and do about it that creates the true meaning of the book.
Likewise, it should not matter if there is an absolute purpose in life or not. Life itself is meaning. Experience is meaning. Sure, the author may be dead. Sure, God may be dead. What really matters is what we do about it. Although we may cry when we are born because “we are come to this stage of fools,” that doesn’t mean that we can’t laugh about it—after all, what is absurdity but the most humorous and ridiculous of incredulity? Through laughter the audience of a work receives power and through power the audience creates meaning. We create our own meaning. That is why we are human beings.
Although this revelation of mine is not original either, I’ve also discovered that an architect needs not be truly original to be great (name one original idea by Shakespeare, the “inventor of man”). The architect instead must be dedicated to self-conviction and open to experiences, especially since the architect’s job is a process of synthesis and evolution. Besides, you generate more controversy by wearing both a crucifix and a pentagram than you would if you wore an “original” symbol.
Through this discourse between the different voices in my head, I have realized that I am under no obligation to fulfill any narratives other than my own. So what meaning have I chosen for myself, you ask? Well… I’ll let you know once you accept me.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
HIPS Response 2
This is my second response for my HIPS course. This time, it's regarding science and religion in ancient Greek philosophy. I didn't get any special recognition for my deconstruction last week, so I'm a bit miffed, but I understand, as the University of Chicago really likes its New Criticism paradigm.
Response 2: Separating Practices
The aphorisms of early Greek sages are without doubt eloquent—“Numbers constitute the whole universe” [1], “Just as our soul, being air, holds us together and controls us, so do breath and air surround the whole cosmos” [2], “Anaximander says that the stars are borne by the circles and spheres on which each one goes” [3]. Each of these ideas show seeds of the Western Thought, reaching out on natural, mystical, and philosophical motifs, but given the current divisions in science, religion, and philosophy, how exactly have these different areas diverged from a common source? Obviously, rigor, cosmological conviction, and speculation are all intricately intertwined in ancient Greek philosophy, so to explain science and religion independently is futile—science and religion can only be explained in relation to each other.
If we examine the Milesians and Pythagoreans, we see an elegant cosmology based on some sort of monism—be it Thales’s primordial water [4], Anaximene’s air [5], or Pythagoras’s numbers [1]. Although these are somewhat “natural” cosmologies as opposed to theistic origins (but this does not mean that there is not a place for a creator or creators), they are merely speculations that even Thales’s student Anaximander has labeled only as “stuff” [6]. These arguments are not “scientific” in a Popperian sense since they lack falsifiability, but they provide an important function to the early Greek philosophers: an origin of sorts, a design that allows individuals to find some sort of position in the vast universe. This was especially dear to the religious division of the Pythagoreans, the akousmatikoi—despite the fact that some of the teachings of Pythagoras, such as his white rooster superstition [7], are “unproved” [8].
The teleology of the universe is what drives religious speculation, but the Greeks also demanded justification, as per the rigor of the mathematikoi group of the Pythagoreans [9]. This justification provided was proto-scientific—for instance, Pythagoras experimented with mathematical proportions and wave vibrations and discovered the relation between harmony and number [10]. In fact, the term mathematikoi stems from mathema, meaning “study” or “learning,” and the mathematikoi applied the utmost rigor in their knowledge pursuits [9].
Once again, it must be stressed that these knowledge pursuits were religious in the end, as even the mathematikoi searched for further examples of their maxims regarding “the One” and “numbers consisting the universe” [11], but it is clear that there is a fundamental relationship between science and religion that cannot be severed to create separate disciplines in early Greek philosophy—religion provides a motivation for science, as science explains religion. Even though mixing these two disciplines in contemporary discourse is nothing short of controversial (cf. “Creation ‘Science’” and “Quantum Mysticism”), there is an eloquence in early Greek philosophy that stems from this combined pursuit of truth.
References
[1] Attributed to Pythagoras, quoted in Aristotle’s Metaphysics in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[2] Attributed to Anaximenes, quoted by Aetius in pg 12 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[3] Quoted by Aetius in pg 11 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[4] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 9
[5] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 12
[6] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 10
[7] Quoted by Aristotle in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[8] Quoted by Iamblichus in pg 17 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[9] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 15
[10] Quoted by Stobaeus in pg 20 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[11] Quoted by Aristotle in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
Text: Cohen, Curd, and Reeve (Eds). Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 2005.
Response 2: Separating Practices
The aphorisms of early Greek sages are without doubt eloquent—“Numbers constitute the whole universe” [1], “Just as our soul, being air, holds us together and controls us, so do breath and air surround the whole cosmos” [2], “Anaximander says that the stars are borne by the circles and spheres on which each one goes” [3]. Each of these ideas show seeds of the Western Thought, reaching out on natural, mystical, and philosophical motifs, but given the current divisions in science, religion, and philosophy, how exactly have these different areas diverged from a common source? Obviously, rigor, cosmological conviction, and speculation are all intricately intertwined in ancient Greek philosophy, so to explain science and religion independently is futile—science and religion can only be explained in relation to each other.
If we examine the Milesians and Pythagoreans, we see an elegant cosmology based on some sort of monism—be it Thales’s primordial water [4], Anaximene’s air [5], or Pythagoras’s numbers [1]. Although these are somewhat “natural” cosmologies as opposed to theistic origins (but this does not mean that there is not a place for a creator or creators), they are merely speculations that even Thales’s student Anaximander has labeled only as “stuff” [6]. These arguments are not “scientific” in a Popperian sense since they lack falsifiability, but they provide an important function to the early Greek philosophers: an origin of sorts, a design that allows individuals to find some sort of position in the vast universe. This was especially dear to the religious division of the Pythagoreans, the akousmatikoi—despite the fact that some of the teachings of Pythagoras, such as his white rooster superstition [7], are “unproved” [8].
The teleology of the universe is what drives religious speculation, but the Greeks also demanded justification, as per the rigor of the mathematikoi group of the Pythagoreans [9]. This justification provided was proto-scientific—for instance, Pythagoras experimented with mathematical proportions and wave vibrations and discovered the relation between harmony and number [10]. In fact, the term mathematikoi stems from mathema, meaning “study” or “learning,” and the mathematikoi applied the utmost rigor in their knowledge pursuits [9].
Once again, it must be stressed that these knowledge pursuits were religious in the end, as even the mathematikoi searched for further examples of their maxims regarding “the One” and “numbers consisting the universe” [11], but it is clear that there is a fundamental relationship between science and religion that cannot be severed to create separate disciplines in early Greek philosophy—religion provides a motivation for science, as science explains religion. Even though mixing these two disciplines in contemporary discourse is nothing short of controversial (cf. “Creation ‘Science’” and “Quantum Mysticism”), there is an eloquence in early Greek philosophy that stems from this combined pursuit of truth.
References
[1] Attributed to Pythagoras, quoted in Aristotle’s Metaphysics in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[2] Attributed to Anaximenes, quoted by Aetius in pg 12 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[3] Quoted by Aetius in pg 11 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[4] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 9
[5] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 12
[6] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 10
[7] Quoted by Aristotle in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[8] Quoted by Iamblichus in pg 17 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[9] Cohen et al. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, 15
[10] Quoted by Stobaeus in pg 20 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
[11] Quoted by Aristotle in pg 18 of Cohen’s Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
Text: Cohen, Curd, and Reeve (Eds). Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 2005.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Deconstructing Sappho
Okay, so for my HIPS (History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Science and Medicine) Civilization class, we must also write a weekly paper to turn in. My paper started out as a direct response to "characterize Sappho's representation of desire." Then it turned into a deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence in Sappho. So, without further ado, here is the paper of scariness:
Response 1: Desire and Presence
“The most beautiful thing,” according to Sappho, is “what you love” (Sappho, Sect 16). Throughout If Not, Winter, Sappho writes many verses on the experience of love and desire, two of the most basic experiences of the human condition. These fragments reveal a heart-breaking narrative of a lover who leaves Sappho anguished, yet Sappho beckons her lover to cherish the “beautiful times [they] had” (Sappho, Sect 94). Despite this sentimental tone, Sappho’s text reveals a rather glaring bias present in many Western works—the metaphysics of presence. The analysis of this metaphysics of presence in Sappho’s If Not, Winter shows that by advocating love, Sappho also advocates suffering.
Jacques Derrida presents the argument of the “metaphysics of presence” in his Of Grammatology as a system of metaphysics motivated by an “irrepressible desire” for a “transcendental signified,” that is, a signified (thing or idea being referred to) that any signifier (the object used to refer to the signified—words, symbols, etc.) cannot capture wholly, but is inherent in meaning regardless of signifier (Derrida, 49). This will require that the signified have a permanent presence external of any subjective experience in the form of an immutable essence. In Sappho’s text, the metaphysics of presence is obviously driven by the transcendental presence of love—Sappho establishes the omnipresence of her love by stating that there was no “holy place from which we were absent” (Sappho, sect 94) and the fact that Sappho attempts to comfort her lover by asking her to “Remember […] how we cherished you” (ibid.) clearly indicates that Sappho believes love to be a presence that is beyond the limits of time and space. In the absence of the physical presence of love, Sappho supplants the absence with memory and desire as the access to the transcendental experience of love.
Buddhist metaphysics, on the other hand, is extremely critical of both the metaphysics of presence and holding on to desire. In the “Turning the Wheel of Dharma” sermon (Dhammacakkappavattana-Sutta), Buddha introduces the Samudaya: the cause of suffering in existence is craving or desire (attributed to Buddha, see Reference 1). The very love that Sappho holds onto continues Dukkha, or suffering, as desire leads to disappointment, obsession, and overall unhappiness, especially over something that is transitory and fickle as human form (attributed to Buddha, pp 163). This continuing clinging to desire only prolongs Samsara, or the cycle of existence, which prolongs the suffering. Therefore, according to the Buddha, Sappho’s love and desire for her lover will in the end lead to renewed existence, renewed suffering, renewed presence. The Western Tradition of the metaphysics of presence, then, is one of affirming suffering and by affirming the transcendental presence of love, Sappho further intensifies pain and suffering.
Although Sappho attempts to comfort her lover by reiterating the transcendental nature of love, Sappho ironically only reiterates the suffering associated with desire and the perpetual rebirth of pain through the affirmation of presence. This shows that the Western Tradition of privileging presence is not limited to abstract philosophical treatises and ontological musings; it applies to the most emotional and irrational of human experiences as well. The juxtaposition that occurs when deconstructing the metaphysics of presence in Sappho’s text is extremely incredulous, but it illustrates the fundamental importance of primary values in any metaphysics.
References
1. Attributed to the Buddha. Dhammacakkappavattana-Sutta. Found online, Accessed 1 Oct, 2007.
2. Attributed to the Buddha. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Trans. Yamamoto, Rev. Page. London: Nirvana Publications, 1999-2000.
3. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
4. Sappho. If Not, Winter. Trans. Carson. New York: Knopf, 2002.
Response 1: Desire and Presence
“The most beautiful thing,” according to Sappho, is “what you love” (Sappho, Sect 16). Throughout If Not, Winter, Sappho writes many verses on the experience of love and desire, two of the most basic experiences of the human condition. These fragments reveal a heart-breaking narrative of a lover who leaves Sappho anguished, yet Sappho beckons her lover to cherish the “beautiful times [they] had” (Sappho, Sect 94). Despite this sentimental tone, Sappho’s text reveals a rather glaring bias present in many Western works—the metaphysics of presence. The analysis of this metaphysics of presence in Sappho’s If Not, Winter shows that by advocating love, Sappho also advocates suffering.
Jacques Derrida presents the argument of the “metaphysics of presence” in his Of Grammatology as a system of metaphysics motivated by an “irrepressible desire” for a “transcendental signified,” that is, a signified (thing or idea being referred to) that any signifier (the object used to refer to the signified—words, symbols, etc.) cannot capture wholly, but is inherent in meaning regardless of signifier (Derrida, 49). This will require that the signified have a permanent presence external of any subjective experience in the form of an immutable essence. In Sappho’s text, the metaphysics of presence is obviously driven by the transcendental presence of love—Sappho establishes the omnipresence of her love by stating that there was no “holy place from which we were absent” (Sappho, sect 94) and the fact that Sappho attempts to comfort her lover by asking her to “Remember […] how we cherished you” (ibid.) clearly indicates that Sappho believes love to be a presence that is beyond the limits of time and space. In the absence of the physical presence of love, Sappho supplants the absence with memory and desire as the access to the transcendental experience of love.
Buddhist metaphysics, on the other hand, is extremely critical of both the metaphysics of presence and holding on to desire. In the “Turning the Wheel of Dharma” sermon (Dhammacakkappavattana-Sutta), Buddha introduces the Samudaya: the cause of suffering in existence is craving or desire (attributed to Buddha, see Reference 1). The very love that Sappho holds onto continues Dukkha, or suffering, as desire leads to disappointment, obsession, and overall unhappiness, especially over something that is transitory and fickle as human form (attributed to Buddha, pp 163). This continuing clinging to desire only prolongs Samsara, or the cycle of existence, which prolongs the suffering. Therefore, according to the Buddha, Sappho’s love and desire for her lover will in the end lead to renewed existence, renewed suffering, renewed presence. The Western Tradition of the metaphysics of presence, then, is one of affirming suffering and by affirming the transcendental presence of love, Sappho further intensifies pain and suffering.
Although Sappho attempts to comfort her lover by reiterating the transcendental nature of love, Sappho ironically only reiterates the suffering associated with desire and the perpetual rebirth of pain through the affirmation of presence. This shows that the Western Tradition of privileging presence is not limited to abstract philosophical treatises and ontological musings; it applies to the most emotional and irrational of human experiences as well. The juxtaposition that occurs when deconstructing the metaphysics of presence in Sappho’s text is extremely incredulous, but it illustrates the fundamental importance of primary values in any metaphysics.
References
1. Attributed to the Buddha. Dhammacakkappavattana-Sutta. Found online
2. Attributed to the Buddha. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Trans. Yamamoto, Rev. Page. London: Nirvana Publications, 1999-2000.
3. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
4. Sappho. If Not, Winter. Trans. Carson. New York: Knopf, 2002.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
A Dialogue Concerning Absolutely Nothing At All
me:
Hey there
Parijata:
hey you!
how's it going?
me:
I think I pissed off at least half of my HIPS class
Parijata:
oh? how did you manage that?
me:
I stated that any scientific claim has to be supported by a controlled experiment
and when my prof asked about things like Geophysics or Astronomy
I said that they are not really sciences
Parijata:
hahahahaha
ouch
what would you call them?
me:
well, a better question is why do we need to call them "scientists"?
I mean, "science" doesn't have any stake in truth, IMHO
especially considering the impossibility of knowledge a la Hume
but if I were to give them a name
"Natural Investigators"
Parijata:
well, hume is kind of full of shit, i wont go into it now, but im sure we will, a la popper
me:
hey, I like Hume
>:-I
Parijata:
i think science is the only thing with a stake in truth; what would you say has a stake in truth, then?
me:
I don't believe in truth
Parijata:
haha, okay
me:
kinda like Nietzsche
Parijata:
define truth
me:
that's the problem
what defines truth?
Parijata:
IMHO, correspondence to reality
me:
hmm...
assuming that there is an external reality, yes?
Parijata:
not necessarily, although i tend to
me:
so correspondence to reality would be like what?
synchronization of propositions to some criterion?
Parijata:
something like that, although predictive power is probably at best an indicator that we are probably on the right track
me:
hmm...
well, I think it seems you are defining truth as "consistency"
is that correct?
Parijata:
consistency... well, that is certainly a way to know that you have at least a vague idea of whats going on
me:
you are arguing that there is some sort of "essence" in truth beyond consistency?
Parijata:
what exactly do you mean by consistency?
me:
you are talking about "correspondence to reality"
Parijata:
i mean, i grant no metaphysical property to truth, if thats what you mean
me:
which implies that there are at least two sets
Parijata:
it's just what is
yeah i know
Parijata:
the set of what is, and the set of what we think there is... the former, which may or may not exist, is "truth"... the latter, which exists at least in some form in my head, is the correspondence i hope to attain... with no clue how real it actually is. again, if it's all an illusion, that is truth.
me:
I see
so... truth must be independent of the observer?
Parijata:
um, well, the truth is at a very minimum inclusive of the observer. i'm very reluctant to grant much to truth, but i do employ the scientific method of hypothesizing an external reality, and setting out to disprove that hypothesis
me:
hmm... so it seems more like a compromise... hmm
lol
I agree that science is possibly one of the more well-formulated investigations for "truths"
although these "truths" tend to be rather descriptive statements of causality...
in a natural world, that is
although, if we argue about social sciences, we can...
well
then our definition of science becomes a problem
Ah, I see
this is how social "sciences" can possibly be called science
because they are employing controlled empirical tests
Parijata:
hahahaha
yes
good times with social sci
me:
I mean, mathematical science works
sort of
mathematics is... empirical?
hold on
lemme think about this one
do you think mathematics is experiential?
I mean, it's external
but I don't know if it is necessarily experiential
I dunno
I still really really like Hume
but mathematics is a really weird area
because... the experience it provides is somewhat... inaccessible to human perception?
Parijata:
sure, hume is cool, but popper seems to defeat him
i think
the jury's still out in my mind, but when i dig that book out of storage, i'll let you know
me:
alrighty
but this issue of mathematics is really confusing
Parijata:
well, math is lies, but go ahead
me:
how exactly would we experience?
lol
Parijata:
what do you mean?
me:
how do you experience mathematical ideas?
of course, there are different schools
realists like Godel think that mathematics exist externally
intuitionists tend to think that mathematics is a human tool
Parijata:
well, godel believed in god
me:
I guess mathematics really tends to go out there...
Parijata:
minus 50 life points
me:
lol
so did most mathematicians
Parijata:
yeah, and math is lies
find me a perfect circle, anywhere
me:
I guess math is Platonic then
Parijata:
yep
therefore, lies. QED/
me:
Oh God
lol
that's too funny
but math is also empirical
somewhat
if you consider reductio ad absurdum a form of experiment
although...
don't you think it a little funny how we use math and logic, both rather "Platonic" tools, in determining and formulating empirical claims?
Parijata:
yep. it annoys the hell out of me.
i'm working on alternatives
this is why i should just be a corporate sellout. so i dont have to care
me:
wurd.
to hell with intellectualism
Parijata:
ramen
i mean, yay money
[end transcript]
Hey there
Parijata:
hey you!
how's it going?
me:
I think I pissed off at least half of my HIPS class
Parijata:
oh? how did you manage that?
me:
I stated that any scientific claim has to be supported by a controlled experiment
and when my prof asked about things like Geophysics or Astronomy
I said that they are not really sciences
Parijata:
hahahahaha
ouch
what would you call them?
me:
well, a better question is why do we need to call them "scientists"?
I mean, "science" doesn't have any stake in truth, IMHO
especially considering the impossibility of knowledge a la Hume
but if I were to give them a name
"Natural Investigators"
Parijata:
well, hume is kind of full of shit, i wont go into it now, but im sure we will, a la popper
me:
hey, I like Hume
>:-I
Parijata:
i think science is the only thing with a stake in truth; what would you say has a stake in truth, then?
me:
I don't believe in truth
Parijata:
haha, okay
me:
kinda like Nietzsche
Parijata:
define truth
me:
that's the problem
what defines truth?
Parijata:
IMHO, correspondence to reality
me:
hmm...
assuming that there is an external reality, yes?
Parijata:
not necessarily, although i tend to
me:
so correspondence to reality would be like what?
synchronization of propositions to some criterion?
Parijata:
something like that, although predictive power is probably at best an indicator that we are probably on the right track
me:
hmm...
well, I think it seems you are defining truth as "consistency"
is that correct?
Parijata:
consistency... well, that is certainly a way to know that you have at least a vague idea of whats going on
me:
you are arguing that there is some sort of "essence" in truth beyond consistency?
Parijata:
what exactly do you mean by consistency?
me:
you are talking about "correspondence to reality"
Parijata:
i mean, i grant no metaphysical property to truth, if thats what you mean
me:
which implies that there are at least two sets
Parijata:
it's just what is
yeah i know
Parijata:
the set of what is, and the set of what we think there is... the former, which may or may not exist, is "truth"... the latter, which exists at least in some form in my head, is the correspondence i hope to attain... with no clue how real it actually is. again, if it's all an illusion, that is truth.
me:
I see
so... truth must be independent of the observer?
Parijata:
um, well, the truth is at a very minimum inclusive of the observer. i'm very reluctant to grant much to truth, but i do employ the scientific method of hypothesizing an external reality, and setting out to disprove that hypothesis
me:
hmm... so it seems more like a compromise... hmm
lol
I agree that science is possibly one of the more well-formulated investigations for "truths"
although these "truths" tend to be rather descriptive statements of causality...
in a natural world, that is
although, if we argue about social sciences, we can...
well
then our definition of science becomes a problem
Ah, I see
this is how social "sciences" can possibly be called science
because they are employing controlled empirical tests
Parijata:
hahahaha
yes
good times with social sci
me:
I mean, mathematical science works
sort of
mathematics is... empirical?
hold on
lemme think about this one
do you think mathematics is experiential?
I mean, it's external
but I don't know if it is necessarily experiential
I dunno
I still really really like Hume
but mathematics is a really weird area
because... the experience it provides is somewhat... inaccessible to human perception?
Parijata:
sure, hume is cool, but popper seems to defeat him
i think
the jury's still out in my mind, but when i dig that book out of storage, i'll let you know
me:
alrighty
but this issue of mathematics is really confusing
Parijata:
well, math is lies, but go ahead
me:
how exactly would we experience?
lol
Parijata:
what do you mean?
me:
how do you experience mathematical ideas?
of course, there are different schools
realists like Godel think that mathematics exist externally
intuitionists tend to think that mathematics is a human tool
Parijata:
well, godel believed in god
me:
I guess mathematics really tends to go out there...
Parijata:
minus 50 life points
me:
lol
so did most mathematicians
Parijata:
yeah, and math is lies
find me a perfect circle, anywhere
me:
I guess math is Platonic then
Parijata:
yep
therefore, lies. QED/
me:
Oh God
lol
that's too funny
but math is also empirical
somewhat
if you consider reductio ad absurdum a form of experiment
although...
don't you think it a little funny how we use math and logic, both rather "Platonic" tools, in determining and formulating empirical claims?
Parijata:
yep. it annoys the hell out of me.
i'm working on alternatives
this is why i should just be a corporate sellout. so i dont have to care
me:
wurd.
to hell with intellectualism
Parijata:
ramen
i mean, yay money
[end transcript]
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Return to the University of the Cruciatus
I have moved back in to the dorms and now I face the growing doom of second-year. I've been back for three days of classes and I already feel as if I am behind. For one thing, I have a shitload of management things to do, especially for Tai Chi Tao (of which I am the president of... because I was the only undergraduate not graduating in the past spring) and I've done things for The Triple Helix and auditioned for the a capella group Rhythm & Jews, without any idea whether or not I've gotten in (I swear that I have issues with singing, although I was surprised that my range is actually closer to counter-tenor than the baritone I thought I was... but at the same time, I wonder if my range is any good at all...)
My courses are quite burdensome this year, as I am finishing the Common Core and getting organic chemistry and general physics out of the way. If you read my previous post (about two posts ago), you will remember that my crazy Russian ex-boss is my O-Chem instructor. What's worse is that he calls me by name during class. I don't know if he hates me or not. To be very honest, it feels extremely awkward around him, because it's as if we were in a stormy relationship and I dumped him, only to find that he holds so much power over me. No, I did not date him, but watching him lecture and glancing at me the way he did made me feel as if we broke up under trying circumstances.
I've applied to a different lab that focuses instead on more theoretical science (systems biology, statistical mechanics, and network theory) rather than a more self-serving engineering discipline (microfluidics--although I would like to say that "self-serving" is not meant to be pejorative; perhaps "self-propagating" is a better term). The P. I. is a pretty cool dude (foreign again, this time French), and he was excited at the fact that I was excited at what he is excited by (unfortunately, for me, it is not men). He looked over my research interests and told me "you obviously have good taste," but since what I'm interested in is pretty much "final year graduate mathematics material," we are on hiatus as to where to fit me in the lab. However, he did tell me to reconsider going back to Russian's lab. I guess if I go back with my tail covering my genitals, it wouldn't be too horrid--I could work perhaps on a different project this time. But that's what's going on in the O-Chem front.
On the physics front, I'm having a lot of fun in my course. Although French prof will be teaching next quarter, this quarter (mechanics) is being taught by an awesome high-energy physicist. He's taking a really unconventional method in teaching us mechanics by beginning with special relativity. He claims that it is best to teach the "correct state" (special relativity) before "approximations" (Newtonian mechanics), which is quite an interesting statement. I'm of the persuasion (as a philosopher) that any scientific theory is an approximate description of a physical phenomena (a la Galileo and Laplace), but we will never be able to determine anything for sure (a la Hume). Still, it's a very interesting approach, especially since I have never learned special relativity before (what can I say? My mother was a quantum physicist and I'm technically a chemist). I'm starting to understand this now, seeing that relativity is built on playing around with reference frames. There is no such thing as absolute time or space. Of course, special relativity deals with inertial reference frames, whereas general relativity allows non-inertial reference frames, but with such a big shock to Newtonian determinism, I wonder why the scientists are vehemently opposed to relativism. It seems to me that relativity essentially captures pure empiricism and thereby invalidating any absolute measure. It seems to further support the absence, or at least the inaccessibility to "absolute truth" by value changes, such as the Lorentz time contraction factor. Of course, one could argue that this is purely an issue of perception, but at the moment, I will not divulge any further, since I obviously have to learn more to form a more sophisticated argument.
I do not have much to say about my civilizations class, which is "Science, Culture, and Society in Western Civilizaton," as it's being taken by humanities and social "science" majors as well, who do not have any notion as to what science actually is (perhaps I am at a disadvantage because I've already established a definition of science via Popper), and as I've explained in my Mansfield post, I have nothing but disdain for such people.
My social sciences class, "Self, Culture, and Society" is really awesome, as we go into political economy the first quarter (reading Smith, Marx, Weber, and Grieder), sociology and anthropology the second (Levi-Strauss, among others), and psychology the third (Freud, de Beauvoir, etc.) I have to turn in weekly critical responses, so now I will be writing out my thoughts for this week's reading in Smith (I may or may not continue to use my blog as an idea generator).
It is fair to say that in manufacturing, Smith's model can hold true, but Smith extends the division of labor to the creation of ideas (Smith 14). Although his assertion regarding a "class of thinkers" rings true to ancient and contemporary society (e.g. the intelligentsia), he claims that further specialization will somehow benefit the whole of science. In many cases, this is true--there is too much information out there for an expert virologist to also be a brilliant cosmologist, while publishing copious amounts of publications regarding Baudrillard's "non-Euclidean semiotic space of war" (although, one may argue that the last achievement is not too difficult, given the Sokal Affair and the "Postmodern Essay Generator"), but there are many examples of progress without the division of labor. Smith seems to ignore the idea of a "Renaissance Man," such as Sir Issac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and, of course, Leonardo Da Vinci. These examples are admittedly extreme, but nonetheless present the profound effect a single individual can have on broad reaches of disciplines, whereas the names of hyper-specialized experts are not even registered.
Furthermore, continuous division of labor will also result in catastrophe, which is also demonstratable through physics and mathematics: division of labor L by any number n and also with recursive divisions by any numbers n or otherwise (m) will lead to an extremely large number D (D=n x m x l x k x j x...). This means that there are D degrees of freedom, with D becoming larger with more divisions. Thermodynamically speaking, the efficiency of a system decreases with increasing degrees of freedom due to entropy (it is useful to use Shannon's definition of information entropy: the amount of information lost in transmission). A simple example is the difference between listening to a conversation in an empty coffee shop versus listening to a conversation at the New York Stock Exchange during trading hours--self-described "intellectuals" revel in the calm ambience of a coffee shop in which they can engage in profound philosophical discussions, whereas stockbrokers on the floor will shout at each other, gesture, and only end up frustrated and tear their hair out. Similarly, with complex organizations like the United States Federal Government, efficiency is further limited by the large amount of projects it oversees and limited budgets will in the end restrict the overall progress of the organization. Of course, Smith provides a solution in Book IV Chapter III (competition), but the basis of his oevre is on the division of labor and since his foundation is shaky, his entire theory may be subject to criticism.
To conclude, Smith's model of division of labor applies only to the examples he has described in manufacturing. However, his attempts to extend this to other spheres, such as the technological or the intellectual arena, is easily rebutted. Perhaps Smith's description of the importance of the division of labor is incomplete--maybe there is a "golden mean" to the division of labor, but in any case this issue points to a flaw in Smith's model.
My courses are quite burdensome this year, as I am finishing the Common Core and getting organic chemistry and general physics out of the way. If you read my previous post (about two posts ago), you will remember that my crazy Russian ex-boss is my O-Chem instructor. What's worse is that he calls me by name during class. I don't know if he hates me or not. To be very honest, it feels extremely awkward around him, because it's as if we were in a stormy relationship and I dumped him, only to find that he holds so much power over me. No, I did not date him, but watching him lecture and glancing at me the way he did made me feel as if we broke up under trying circumstances.
I've applied to a different lab that focuses instead on more theoretical science (systems biology, statistical mechanics, and network theory) rather than a more self-serving engineering discipline (microfluidics--although I would like to say that "self-serving" is not meant to be pejorative; perhaps "self-propagating" is a better term). The P. I. is a pretty cool dude (foreign again, this time French), and he was excited at the fact that I was excited at what he is excited by (unfortunately, for me, it is not men). He looked over my research interests and told me "you obviously have good taste," but since what I'm interested in is pretty much "final year graduate mathematics material," we are on hiatus as to where to fit me in the lab. However, he did tell me to reconsider going back to Russian's lab. I guess if I go back with my tail covering my genitals, it wouldn't be too horrid--I could work perhaps on a different project this time. But that's what's going on in the O-Chem front.
On the physics front, I'm having a lot of fun in my course. Although French prof will be teaching next quarter, this quarter (mechanics) is being taught by an awesome high-energy physicist. He's taking a really unconventional method in teaching us mechanics by beginning with special relativity. He claims that it is best to teach the "correct state" (special relativity) before "approximations" (Newtonian mechanics), which is quite an interesting statement. I'm of the persuasion (as a philosopher) that any scientific theory is an approximate description of a physical phenomena (a la Galileo and Laplace), but we will never be able to determine anything for sure (a la Hume). Still, it's a very interesting approach, especially since I have never learned special relativity before (what can I say? My mother was a quantum physicist and I'm technically a chemist). I'm starting to understand this now, seeing that relativity is built on playing around with reference frames. There is no such thing as absolute time or space. Of course, special relativity deals with inertial reference frames, whereas general relativity allows non-inertial reference frames, but with such a big shock to Newtonian determinism, I wonder why the scientists are vehemently opposed to relativism. It seems to me that relativity essentially captures pure empiricism and thereby invalidating any absolute measure. It seems to further support the absence, or at least the inaccessibility to "absolute truth" by value changes, such as the Lorentz time contraction factor. Of course, one could argue that this is purely an issue of perception, but at the moment, I will not divulge any further, since I obviously have to learn more to form a more sophisticated argument.
I do not have much to say about my civilizations class, which is "Science, Culture, and Society in Western Civilizaton," as it's being taken by humanities and social "science" majors as well, who do not have any notion as to what science actually is (perhaps I am at a disadvantage because I've already established a definition of science via Popper), and as I've explained in my Mansfield post, I have nothing but disdain for such people.
My social sciences class, "Self, Culture, and Society" is really awesome, as we go into political economy the first quarter (reading Smith, Marx, Weber, and Grieder), sociology and anthropology the second (Levi-Strauss, among others), and psychology the third (Freud, de Beauvoir, etc.) I have to turn in weekly critical responses, so now I will be writing out my thoughts for this week's reading in Smith (I may or may not continue to use my blog as an idea generator).
In the first chapter of Book I, Smith argues that the division of labor is what causes greater productivity and "greater power of labor." He presents pin creation as an example of the efficiency caused by the division of labor, stating that a group of individuals assigned a different task in the creation of each pin working together will create twelve pounds of pins a day (a pound having upwards of 4000 pins), whereas an individual alone might scarcely make even one a day (Smith 8). He then extends this analogy to "every other art and manufacture" (Smith 9). Although he does not provide any empiricial evidence for his assertion, his argument does make sense mathematically and thermodynamically speaking: given a limited amount of resources R (which would include time and effort) for each individual, an individual working alone would have to create the whole product (we will denote the amount of work to create the whole as W), while division of labor will reduce the output to a partial product (work to create the partial as P). Since W>P, (R-W)<(R-P), meaning that the individual who creates partial products will have more resources left, allowing for the creation of more partial products than the individual creating whole products. Empirical issues aside, this model that Smith presents makes sense, but only on a limited scale. The major assumption that Smith makes is the reducibility or divisibility of labor--what about irreducibility and/or complexity?In the progress of society, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other
employment, the pincipal or sole trade and occupation of a particular class of
citizens [...] Each individual becomes more expert in his own peculiar branch,
more work is done upon by the whole, and the quantity of science is considerably
increased by it.-Adam Smith, The Wealth of the Nations. Book I, Chapter 1, pp 14
It is fair to say that in manufacturing, Smith's model can hold true, but Smith extends the division of labor to the creation of ideas (Smith 14). Although his assertion regarding a "class of thinkers" rings true to ancient and contemporary society (e.g. the intelligentsia), he claims that further specialization will somehow benefit the whole of science. In many cases, this is true--there is too much information out there for an expert virologist to also be a brilliant cosmologist, while publishing copious amounts of publications regarding Baudrillard's "non-Euclidean semiotic space of war" (although, one may argue that the last achievement is not too difficult, given the Sokal Affair and the "Postmodern Essay Generator"), but there are many examples of progress without the division of labor. Smith seems to ignore the idea of a "Renaissance Man," such as Sir Issac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and, of course, Leonardo Da Vinci. These examples are admittedly extreme, but nonetheless present the profound effect a single individual can have on broad reaches of disciplines, whereas the names of hyper-specialized experts are not even registered.
Furthermore, continuous division of labor will also result in catastrophe, which is also demonstratable through physics and mathematics: division of labor L by any number n and also with recursive divisions by any numbers n or otherwise (m) will lead to an extremely large number D (D=n x m x l x k x j x...). This means that there are D degrees of freedom, with D becoming larger with more divisions. Thermodynamically speaking, the efficiency of a system decreases with increasing degrees of freedom due to entropy (it is useful to use Shannon's definition of information entropy: the amount of information lost in transmission). A simple example is the difference between listening to a conversation in an empty coffee shop versus listening to a conversation at the New York Stock Exchange during trading hours--self-described "intellectuals" revel in the calm ambience of a coffee shop in which they can engage in profound philosophical discussions, whereas stockbrokers on the floor will shout at each other, gesture, and only end up frustrated and tear their hair out. Similarly, with complex organizations like the United States Federal Government, efficiency is further limited by the large amount of projects it oversees and limited budgets will in the end restrict the overall progress of the organization. Of course, Smith provides a solution in Book IV Chapter III (competition), but the basis of his oevre is on the division of labor and since his foundation is shaky, his entire theory may be subject to criticism.
To conclude, Smith's model of division of labor applies only to the examples he has described in manufacturing. However, his attempts to extend this to other spheres, such as the technological or the intellectual arena, is easily rebutted. Perhaps Smith's description of the importance of the division of labor is incomplete--maybe there is a "golden mean" to the division of labor, but in any case this issue points to a flaw in Smith's model.
Monday, September 24, 2007
A Letter from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Regarding Internet Radio
Earlier in the summer, I sent Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) a petition letter based on the one provided by SaveNetRadio.org and the following was his response. I am not sure what his response means, but I hope he really does understand that implications of restricting the marketplace of ideas.
Who else thinks this is a cut-and-paste job?September 24, 2007
Dear Mr. Choi:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the increase in royalty rates for webcasters. I appreciate hearing from you.
In 2002, Congress passed the Small Webcasters Settlement Act (SWSA), which allowed small webcasters to pay royalties based on a percentage of revenue rather than on a per-song, per-listener basis. The royalty rates established in this legislation, however, were only effective through 2005.
Shortly after the expiration of SWSA, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) announced new royalty rates, effective until December 31, 2010, that required small webcasters to again pay on a per-song, per-listener basis. Despite opposition from the Digital Media Association, National Public Radio, and others, these rates went into effect on July 15, 2007.During the last several months, the CRB has been negotiating with webcasters in an attempt to reconcile their differences and establish royalty rates that are both fair and legal.
In addition, the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007 (S. 1353) was introduced on May 10, 2007. This measure would nullify the new royalty rates and also would change the standards for determining "reasonable" rates and terms for royalties. Supporters of this bill believe it would protect the viability of small webcasters, who often see their programming as a public service broadcasting and who expand the diversity of music available on the web. Opponents claim that the CRB ruling was fair and took into consideration the best interests of all parties involved.
This legislation has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the committee considers this issue.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to keep in
touch.Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
Monday, September 3, 2007
happy clappy birthday
"happy clappy birthday"
Gwendolyn
(featured on Showtime's Weeds)
happy, happy birthday, clappy
join us as we celebrate
clap your hands and dance around
have a laugh and eat some cake
happy birthday, happy birthday
happy birthday
you’re so great
have a drink on us tonight
drink too much, get in a fight
dance around on tabletops
get pulled over by the cops
it’s your birthday, it’s your birthday
it’s your birthday, hey, why not?
because we’re all gonna die one day
might as well have a good time
hooray!
Gwendolyn
(featured on Showtime's Weeds)
happy, happy birthday, clappy
join us as we celebrate
clap your hands and dance around
have a laugh and eat some cake
happy birthday, happy birthday
happy birthday
you’re so great
have a drink on us tonight
drink too much, get in a fight
dance around on tabletops
get pulled over by the cops
it’s your birthday, it’s your birthday
it’s your birthday, hey, why not?
because we’re all gonna die one day
might as well have a good time
hooray!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Some More Kline Extracts
This confidence that truths would be discovered in all fields was shattered by the recognition that there is no truth in mathematics. The hope and perhaps event the belief that truths can be obtained in politics, ethics, religion, economics, and many other fields may still persist in human mids, but the best support for the hope has been lost. Mathematics offered to the world proof that man can acquire truths and then destroyed the proof. It was non-Euclidean geometry and puaternions, both triumphs of reason, that paved the way for this intellectual disaster.
--Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. pp 99.
One curious feature of the arguments used by 18th-century thinkers was their recourse to the term metaphysics. It was used to imply that there was a body of truths lying outside the domain of mathematics proper which could, if necessary. be called upon to justify their work, though just what these truths were was not clear. The appeal to metaphysics was meant to give credence to arguments that reason failed to support. Thus, Leibniz asserted that metaphysics is of more use in mathematics than we realize. His argument for taking 1/2 to be the sum of the series 1 - 1 + 1 - ... and his principle of continuity, neither of which had more to recommend it than Leibniz's own assertion, were "justified" as metaphysical as though this "justification" placed them beyond dispute. Euler, too, appealed to metaphysics and argued that we must acquiesce to it in analysis. When they could provide no better argument for an assertion, the 17th- and 18th-century mathematicians were wont to say the reason was metaphysical.
--ibid, pp 152
The sequence of events is noteworth. Instead of starting with the whole numbers and fractions, then taking up the irrational numbers, the complex numbers, algebra, and the calculus, the mathematicians attacked these subjects in reverse order. They acted as though they were reluctant to tackle what could well be left alone as clearly understood and only when the need to logicize a subject was imperative did they undertake to do so. At any rate, by about 1890, only six thousand years after the Egyptians and Babylonians began to work with whole numbers, fractions, and irrational numbers, the mathematicians could finally prove that 2 + 2 = 4. It would appear that even the great mathematicians must be forced to consider rigor.
--ibid, pp 179-180.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Punishing the Pride of Kantians and Mathematicians
I've been reading a very fascinating text by Morris Kline, the late Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematics called Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. It essentially outlines the history of mathematical epistemology and the many crises that have splintered mathematics to the "mess" it is today (according to Kline, at least).
Here is an excerpt that I found exceptionally entertaining regarding the development of non-Euclidean geometry.
Here is an excerpt that I found exceptionally entertaining regarding the development of non-Euclidean geometry.
Indifference to and even dismissal of God as the law-maker of the universe, as well as the Kantian view that the laws were inherent in the structure of the human mind, brought forth a reaction from the Divine Architect. God decided that He would punish the Kantians and especially those egotistic, proud, and overconfident mathematicians. And He proceeded to encourage non-Eucleidian geometry, a creation that devastated the achievemens of man's presumably self-sufficient, all-powerful reason.
-Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, pp 77-78
Poor Kant; he's been receiving so much abuse by the authors I mention...
Friday, August 10, 2007
An Odd Curtain Call
On Wednesday, I had finally mustered up enough courage to write up a resignation notice from the lab. It was sheer exhaustion and a questioning of whether or not I want to continue in the realm of chemistry that led me to this little crisis. So I wrote a draft of my notice in pen, although it turned out more like a letter than anything else. I typed up a copy, getting ready to send it to my P. I., when I was called to do something in the lab. I left the paper draft in my notebook, in case of prying eyes, and when I finished my duties, I came back into the office and my P. I. was waiting for me, smirking as always. "Vell? Have you decided vat you vould like to do viss your life?" Apparently he had read the letter, seeing as it was in his hand and not in my notebook. It is also unedited and included my many scribbles and frustrated attempts to form words that were not offensive. Well, it's interesting how things turned out that way.
He was surprisingly cool with my asking for a break. He was strangely nice about it, which is something that I found rather alarming, as I expected a very cross Russian. At the end of my banter, which included some sighs and tears, he asked me if I had considered talking to professionals. Yes, my friends; my boss had given me unsolicited mental health advice. How cute. And rather disarming. I was looking for further excuses, including making my GPA lower than it is to show him how exhausted I was... but I am leaving, thankfully, and I am ready for a true break, the first break I've had since the summer of 2002 (there were summer courses every summer, and don't forget about college apps, taking care of the house while mommy's gone to Korea to nurse daddy during chemo, and every moment of sexual frustration, which still carries on to right now).
But, here's where the story is even more interesting. The undergraduate O-Chem lab director was scheduled to teach the honors section of O-Chem this coming fall quarter, but seeing as she had quite a bad experience teaching this summer, guess who gets to teach? That's right, Mr. Scary Russian Bossman. God, can I ever catch a break?
Things are quite funny around here, as they normally are, but with the advent of the upcoming school year, I am having yet another U-of-C meltdown. Hail Eris!
He was surprisingly cool with my asking for a break. He was strangely nice about it, which is something that I found rather alarming, as I expected a very cross Russian. At the end of my banter, which included some sighs and tears, he asked me if I had considered talking to professionals. Yes, my friends; my boss had given me unsolicited mental health advice. How cute. And rather disarming. I was looking for further excuses, including making my GPA lower than it is to show him how exhausted I was... but I am leaving, thankfully, and I am ready for a true break, the first break I've had since the summer of 2002 (there were summer courses every summer, and don't forget about college apps, taking care of the house while mommy's gone to Korea to nurse daddy during chemo, and every moment of sexual frustration, which still carries on to right now).
But, here's where the story is even more interesting. The undergraduate O-Chem lab director was scheduled to teach the honors section of O-Chem this coming fall quarter, but seeing as she had quite a bad experience teaching this summer, guess who gets to teach? That's right, Mr. Scary Russian Bossman. God, can I ever catch a break?
Things are quite funny around here, as they normally are, but with the advent of the upcoming school year, I am having yet another U-of-C meltdown. Hail Eris!
Friday, August 3, 2007
"Practical" Metaphysics for the Young Aspiring Transhumanist
With talks of AGI, destructive technology, and universal transparency during TransVision 2007, I have been seriously re-evaluating the Libertarian approach to things. The benefits of a free market (the most competetive and therefore, hypothetically, the strongest ideas) can only be ensured when there is free discourse running between different agents, diversity will be needed as diverse contributions will lead to greater degrees of input and quality control. In order to maintain diversity of opinions, freedom (in the Liberatarian sense) must be given. However, this freedom will allow also for destructive ideas to occur, which I am all for in the usual case, but with the power of self-assembling nanobots and AGIs strong enough to engineer cosmic projects, is such freedom wise?
During TV07, the presenter from the Lifeboat Foundation has noted this danger and suggested the creation of a universal surveillance network. If such a system is activated, then privacy is lost, something that is fundamental to a Libertarian such as myself. Of course, the loss of privacy on my part only affects me if my power or influence is based on confidential information (i.e. passwords, PIN numbers, etc.) and if sanctimony exists (not to mention the entire Gattaca deal with insurance companies, but that's another story). Benjamin Franklin declared that "those who sacrifice essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." But what if the little bit of security was your planet's stake or even the universe's? Even beyond this, a question was asked during discussions after the conference: "if we had reached a 'perfect' state, how do we maintain it? How do we achieve Utopia?" At first I scoffed at the question, given that Utopias are based on absolutes and Platonic ideals, but I pondered about the modality of Utopia. Feeling like a Zen student, I answered in manner of a koan: "the only way to establish Utopia is to establish Dystopia. In order for us to maintain a stable state, we must have full control of a system, which would require full surrender of our individual freedoms to a benevolent AGI much greater in intelligence than ours." I was horrified by this notion, and I hope my reasoning is flawed somewhere or my premises are somewhat faulty, but I am currently evaluating this idea and developing a vision of the future with "Borg" mentality. Despite the antagonism the creators of Star Trek, however, is the Borg mentality such a horrible thing?
I hope my readers forgive me; I usually never do this, but I feel that this issue can be tackled using light metaphysics, specifically from Taoist and Dharmic ontologies. Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine suggested (in a joking, yet rather grave manner) during his presentation that perhaps the Borg state of existence is that of a Buddhist saint's. I can see where he makes the connections--Dharmic religions generally correlate salvation as freedom from pain and suffering and not necessarily as a transition to a state of perpetual happiness. Happiness cannot exist without sadness, so it is therefore better to escape the cycle of joy and pain through transcendence. My Star Trek knowledge is limited, I must admit, but Bailey listed several traits that Borgs share with Buddhas, which include a form of asceticism. Except for the forced assimilation part, I think Bailey's argument is quite convincing, as Borgs are detached from the shackles of suffering. Of course, this whole deal with assimilation is problematic to liberal theories as it is the theft of individuality. However, what exactly is the nature of this individuality? Is there something essential within it? Assuming there is an essential "me" and an essential "you," what makes it so sacred anyway?
This is where I introduce Taoist metaphysics, which argues a form of anti-essentialism (although at the very core, the Tao itself seems to be an essential idea... paradoxes, paradoxes). According to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu (the latter of which I am finishing reading), no ideas have permanence and their relative stabilities in a period of time and a boundary of space is due to the harmonies of universal forces which act according to "its own way" (the Tao). Like Heraclitus' river, all things change, compose then decompose, including identities. Of course, when we bring "Te" and essentialist functionalism into consideration, Taoism becomes an extremely H+ unfriendly philosophy (especially since it appeals to naturalism), but the non-interventionism of Taoism can be considered an ethic code that can be excluded from metaphysical consideration. But the key issue is mutability and transformation, which would therefore include identities. The archetypal "Eastern Mystic" who claims that "everything is an illusion," is half-correct; everything as its permanence and fixed form (i.e. Platonic ideal) is illusory, including individuality. Therefore, this individuality that we try to protect against assimilation is fleeting in the first place. Resistance is futile because you will be assimilated--if not into the Hive Mind, then back into the universe where your body decomposes and your consciousness to who-knows-what (we'll not go into Kantian distinctions, considering it would be almost too ambitious of a project to work on in this small amount of space). This sort of pantheism, curiously similar to many of Spinoza's ideas (which is a comparison also supported by the late Sino-Philosophy Professor Fung Yu-Lan of Beijing/Peking University), seems to be what many of H+ cosmological theories are headed towards (cf. James Gardner's "biocosm" and Stephen Wolfram's "digital physics"). In fact, the information paradigm prevalent in modern systems thought seems to correlate this information to "Tao" or "Te," depending on whose lexicon you accept regarding Taoist hermeneutics. Of course, this is pure speculation and none of the ideas that I'm providing is actually rigorously provided (bad Analytic! No British tea for you!), but it's an issue that I think is worth exploring.
Now, to address the compatibility between Hive Mind, Taoism, and evolution. When looking at the loss of individuality in the Borg model, competition ceases within the system and therefore there is no directed mechanism for evolution (of course, this is not accounting for internal change). Assuming that the components within the Hive do not themselves change, which can be accomodated through maintenance networks, evolution will then cease within the system. This meets the Hardy-Weinberg conditions: absence of competition will elimate selection, maintenance will blanket all forms of population change, and various mechanisms can address stochasticity, especially given the powerful abilities and cognitive capabilities of the supermind. However, taking a constructivist view of things, this Hive Mind system is still a subset of objects in the universe and will therefore have to adapt to its surroundings. This argument reintroduces natural selection, but care must be taken to identify the Hive Mind as an actor itself instead of the individual elements that make up the system. Similar to the rise of multi-cellular organisms, I see the Hive Mind as a multi-organismal "organism," akin to Gaia and Deep Ecology theories. James Gardner furthers this argument to the universe, thus coming up with the notion of the "biocosm": the universe itself as an organism. However, without going into anything beyond the Hive Mind, it is crucial to evaluate whether this Hive Mind will be subject to the same laws of guided evolution that we are accustomed to, not because it is a supermind, but because of the capabilities of a supermind that will allow for radical self-engineering. Another question to ask is if this Hive Mind is unique, or if it will have competition with other Hive Minds. This is probably a non-issue, given the transcience of identity that I have alluded to before, but it is nevertheless a question that is important for the "near" far-future (an argument against multiple guiding AGIs is war between these "gods"). What will the "natural" way such a situation will proceed, if such a question is necessary to ask?
This leads back to Taoism and brings up the issue: should we as Transhumanists consider it as a purely descriptive philosophy, or should we take some of its ethical imperatives? Should we let alone and let nature run its course, given the many dangers of tampering with powers we do not understand? Here, I hope to attack the interpretation of naturalism that seems to pervade modern Taoism (uh oh! an exegis! flee, my rational comrades! flee!!) The argument against development and modernization that comes from modern day Taoists seems stem from a false dichotomy between human and nature: anything synthetic is "unnatural" and will mess with the natural harmonies that are governed by the Tao. Modern medicine should be abandoned because it merely upsets the flow of material energy ("ch'i") using "energetically subversive" materials like chemicals (obviously water is not a chemical because it's "natural"). The internal inconsistency between naturalism and anti-essentialism in Taoism is quite clear--is the Tao itself subjected to the laws of Tao? If Tao doesn't change, then it's a Platonic ideal that is fixed, and it becomes describable, something that Lao Tzu vehemently denies. If Tao changes, it must change according to the Tao, which is formally a self-referential paradox. One might bring in "real time" arguments, such as Tao changes according Tao at that point. However, what happens when the Tao that changes Tao is such that Tao is not to follow Tao? This critique of Taoism might be crippling my advocacy of it, but I would like to emphasize its description: change. If this change exists and nothing is fixed, then there is no distinction between humans and nature, which totally destroys the naturalism touted by Chinese herbalists and New Age babblers. However, if the mode of Tao and Te still apply, then human beings should be let to do what they naturally do: create. Synthesis is therefore natural because that is what humans do. Adopting the ethics of Taoism, human beings have an imperative to create, which is an imperative to progress towards the many technologies described so eloquently by our futurists.
With this entry, I present a revised Taoist metaphysics for H+s. I hope that more is developed on this subject, although not as sloppily as I have done. I must be ill if I am suggesting this rather primitive form of pantheism as a paradigm to adopt (given my penchant for epistemology and strong dislike for metaphysics), but I nonetheless offer a system in which scientific naturalism and ethical imperatives of progress intersect. Perhaps it'll bring clarity to the H+ movement. If not, it'll at least provide interesting bits of texts to laugh at.
During TV07, the presenter from the Lifeboat Foundation has noted this danger and suggested the creation of a universal surveillance network. If such a system is activated, then privacy is lost, something that is fundamental to a Libertarian such as myself. Of course, the loss of privacy on my part only affects me if my power or influence is based on confidential information (i.e. passwords, PIN numbers, etc.) and if sanctimony exists (not to mention the entire Gattaca deal with insurance companies, but that's another story). Benjamin Franklin declared that "those who sacrifice essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." But what if the little bit of security was your planet's stake or even the universe's? Even beyond this, a question was asked during discussions after the conference: "if we had reached a 'perfect' state, how do we maintain it? How do we achieve Utopia?" At first I scoffed at the question, given that Utopias are based on absolutes and Platonic ideals, but I pondered about the modality of Utopia. Feeling like a Zen student, I answered in manner of a koan: "the only way to establish Utopia is to establish Dystopia. In order for us to maintain a stable state, we must have full control of a system, which would require full surrender of our individual freedoms to a benevolent AGI much greater in intelligence than ours." I was horrified by this notion, and I hope my reasoning is flawed somewhere or my premises are somewhat faulty, but I am currently evaluating this idea and developing a vision of the future with "Borg" mentality. Despite the antagonism the creators of Star Trek, however, is the Borg mentality such a horrible thing?
I hope my readers forgive me; I usually never do this, but I feel that this issue can be tackled using light metaphysics, specifically from Taoist and Dharmic ontologies. Ron Bailey of Reason Magazine suggested (in a joking, yet rather grave manner) during his presentation that perhaps the Borg state of existence is that of a Buddhist saint's. I can see where he makes the connections--Dharmic religions generally correlate salvation as freedom from pain and suffering and not necessarily as a transition to a state of perpetual happiness. Happiness cannot exist without sadness, so it is therefore better to escape the cycle of joy and pain through transcendence. My Star Trek knowledge is limited, I must admit, but Bailey listed several traits that Borgs share with Buddhas, which include a form of asceticism. Except for the forced assimilation part, I think Bailey's argument is quite convincing, as Borgs are detached from the shackles of suffering. Of course, this whole deal with assimilation is problematic to liberal theories as it is the theft of individuality. However, what exactly is the nature of this individuality? Is there something essential within it? Assuming there is an essential "me" and an essential "you," what makes it so sacred anyway?
This is where I introduce Taoist metaphysics, which argues a form of anti-essentialism (although at the very core, the Tao itself seems to be an essential idea... paradoxes, paradoxes). According to the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu (the latter of which I am finishing reading), no ideas have permanence and their relative stabilities in a period of time and a boundary of space is due to the harmonies of universal forces which act according to "its own way" (the Tao). Like Heraclitus' river, all things change, compose then decompose, including identities. Of course, when we bring "Te" and essentialist functionalism into consideration, Taoism becomes an extremely H+ unfriendly philosophy (especially since it appeals to naturalism), but the non-interventionism of Taoism can be considered an ethic code that can be excluded from metaphysical consideration. But the key issue is mutability and transformation, which would therefore include identities. The archetypal "Eastern Mystic" who claims that "everything is an illusion," is half-correct; everything as its permanence and fixed form (i.e. Platonic ideal) is illusory, including individuality. Therefore, this individuality that we try to protect against assimilation is fleeting in the first place. Resistance is futile because you will be assimilated--if not into the Hive Mind, then back into the universe where your body decomposes and your consciousness to who-knows-what (we'll not go into Kantian distinctions, considering it would be almost too ambitious of a project to work on in this small amount of space). This sort of pantheism, curiously similar to many of Spinoza's ideas (which is a comparison also supported by the late Sino-Philosophy Professor Fung Yu-Lan of Beijing/Peking University), seems to be what many of H+ cosmological theories are headed towards (cf. James Gardner's "biocosm" and Stephen Wolfram's "digital physics"). In fact, the information paradigm prevalent in modern systems thought seems to correlate this information to "Tao" or "Te," depending on whose lexicon you accept regarding Taoist hermeneutics. Of course, this is pure speculation and none of the ideas that I'm providing is actually rigorously provided (bad Analytic! No British tea for you!), but it's an issue that I think is worth exploring.
Now, to address the compatibility between Hive Mind, Taoism, and evolution. When looking at the loss of individuality in the Borg model, competition ceases within the system and therefore there is no directed mechanism for evolution (of course, this is not accounting for internal change). Assuming that the components within the Hive do not themselves change, which can be accomodated through maintenance networks, evolution will then cease within the system. This meets the Hardy-Weinberg conditions: absence of competition will elimate selection, maintenance will blanket all forms of population change, and various mechanisms can address stochasticity, especially given the powerful abilities and cognitive capabilities of the supermind. However, taking a constructivist view of things, this Hive Mind system is still a subset of objects in the universe and will therefore have to adapt to its surroundings. This argument reintroduces natural selection, but care must be taken to identify the Hive Mind as an actor itself instead of the individual elements that make up the system. Similar to the rise of multi-cellular organisms, I see the Hive Mind as a multi-organismal "organism," akin to Gaia and Deep Ecology theories. James Gardner furthers this argument to the universe, thus coming up with the notion of the "biocosm": the universe itself as an organism. However, without going into anything beyond the Hive Mind, it is crucial to evaluate whether this Hive Mind will be subject to the same laws of guided evolution that we are accustomed to, not because it is a supermind, but because of the capabilities of a supermind that will allow for radical self-engineering. Another question to ask is if this Hive Mind is unique, or if it will have competition with other Hive Minds. This is probably a non-issue, given the transcience of identity that I have alluded to before, but it is nevertheless a question that is important for the "near" far-future (an argument against multiple guiding AGIs is war between these "gods"). What will the "natural" way such a situation will proceed, if such a question is necessary to ask?
This leads back to Taoism and brings up the issue: should we as Transhumanists consider it as a purely descriptive philosophy, or should we take some of its ethical imperatives? Should we let alone and let nature run its course, given the many dangers of tampering with powers we do not understand? Here, I hope to attack the interpretation of naturalism that seems to pervade modern Taoism (uh oh! an exegis! flee, my rational comrades! flee!!) The argument against development and modernization that comes from modern day Taoists seems stem from a false dichotomy between human and nature: anything synthetic is "unnatural" and will mess with the natural harmonies that are governed by the Tao. Modern medicine should be abandoned because it merely upsets the flow of material energy ("ch'i") using "energetically subversive" materials like chemicals (obviously water is not a chemical because it's "natural"). The internal inconsistency between naturalism and anti-essentialism in Taoism is quite clear--is the Tao itself subjected to the laws of Tao? If Tao doesn't change, then it's a Platonic ideal that is fixed, and it becomes describable, something that Lao Tzu vehemently denies. If Tao changes, it must change according to the Tao, which is formally a self-referential paradox. One might bring in "real time" arguments, such as Tao changes according Tao at that point. However, what happens when the Tao that changes Tao is such that Tao is not to follow Tao? This critique of Taoism might be crippling my advocacy of it, but I would like to emphasize its description: change. If this change exists and nothing is fixed, then there is no distinction between humans and nature, which totally destroys the naturalism touted by Chinese herbalists and New Age babblers. However, if the mode of Tao and Te still apply, then human beings should be let to do what they naturally do: create. Synthesis is therefore natural because that is what humans do. Adopting the ethics of Taoism, human beings have an imperative to create, which is an imperative to progress towards the many technologies described so eloquently by our futurists.
With this entry, I present a revised Taoist metaphysics for H+s. I hope that more is developed on this subject, although not as sloppily as I have done. I must be ill if I am suggesting this rather primitive form of pantheism as a paradigm to adopt (given my penchant for epistemology and strong dislike for metaphysics), but I nonetheless offer a system in which scientific naturalism and ethical imperatives of progress intersect. Perhaps it'll bring clarity to the H+ movement. If not, it'll at least provide interesting bits of texts to laugh at.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Hypocrite. I am a Hypocrite.
I've made quite a situation for myself last night. Celebrating a friend's birthday, I got a little tipsy and I had my phone with me. Not a good idea.
So I drunk-dialed several people, including one person who I've kind of fancied (only in the slightest and silliest of ways), and I've realized that 1) he does not have my number, which means he would not realize that it is me who is calling, and 2) he is a hard worker who will require lots of sleep, therefore calling him in the middle of the night would be kind of rude. Then, because of the effect alcohol has on my judgmental capacities, I decided to call the guy that I'm seeing and tell him all about my drunk-dialing adventures. As expected, he was not pleased. He has told me before that he has a temper, but a long fuse, which meant that any time he would stop talking would mean that I should be taking cover. I am taking cover right now, but there's so much guilt in this that I don't know if I should be hiding or allowing him to rip me to shreads as I deserve.
Here's the worst part of the situation: I've told him repeatedly that I hate players, mind games, and emotional fuckwittage. Infidelity to me is irresponsibility and a failure to honor one's self-worth and integrity. Similarly, mind games and emotional fuckwittage is something that is extremely time-consuming and wasteful, but apparently I've killed all three birds with one quick assassin call. I'm a hypocrite, the worst sinner there is.
I know my actions were immature, especially when I knew very well when I chose to drink that I would be out of control. What's horrible is that he gave me that trust of maturity when he extended his hand to me. I should've fought to kept his trust and maintain my end of the deal (although many would object to the way I just described our relationship). I should've reciprocated the same emotional support and maturity he had given me. Perhaps this shows that I am not mature enough to be in a relationship, especially not with such a wonderful person like him. I can only worry about whether or not he can find someone who truly deserves him, unlike myself. Of course, many would cry out "self pity!" when I say things like this, but I am serious when I say that he is a wonderful person who could offer much to the world.
At the same time, I hope that this is more of a small squirmish than anything else. I'm sure he'll understand and perhaps even forgive my foolishness. But at the same time, I realize that despite my rather stoic and Capricorn image, I'm very childish, and that is what bothers me the most about this experience--that I have the capacity to become my own nightmare, even though I claim austerity. I am a hypocrite. I only hope that I've become *truly* sober.
So I drunk-dialed several people, including one person who I've kind of fancied (only in the slightest and silliest of ways), and I've realized that 1) he does not have my number, which means he would not realize that it is me who is calling, and 2) he is a hard worker who will require lots of sleep, therefore calling him in the middle of the night would be kind of rude. Then, because of the effect alcohol has on my judgmental capacities, I decided to call the guy that I'm seeing and tell him all about my drunk-dialing adventures. As expected, he was not pleased. He has told me before that he has a temper, but a long fuse, which meant that any time he would stop talking would mean that I should be taking cover. I am taking cover right now, but there's so much guilt in this that I don't know if I should be hiding or allowing him to rip me to shreads as I deserve.
Here's the worst part of the situation: I've told him repeatedly that I hate players, mind games, and emotional fuckwittage. Infidelity to me is irresponsibility and a failure to honor one's self-worth and integrity. Similarly, mind games and emotional fuckwittage is something that is extremely time-consuming and wasteful, but apparently I've killed all three birds with one quick assassin call. I'm a hypocrite, the worst sinner there is.
I know my actions were immature, especially when I knew very well when I chose to drink that I would be out of control. What's horrible is that he gave me that trust of maturity when he extended his hand to me. I should've fought to kept his trust and maintain my end of the deal (although many would object to the way I just described our relationship). I should've reciprocated the same emotional support and maturity he had given me. Perhaps this shows that I am not mature enough to be in a relationship, especially not with such a wonderful person like him. I can only worry about whether or not he can find someone who truly deserves him, unlike myself. Of course, many would cry out "self pity!" when I say things like this, but I am serious when I say that he is a wonderful person who could offer much to the world.
At the same time, I hope that this is more of a small squirmish than anything else. I'm sure he'll understand and perhaps even forgive my foolishness. But at the same time, I realize that despite my rather stoic and Capricorn image, I'm very childish, and that is what bothers me the most about this experience--that I have the capacity to become my own nightmare, even though I claim austerity. I am a hypocrite. I only hope that I've become *truly* sober.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Update
So... I went out to the stairwell to call mom. After I said bye, I collapsed onto the windowsill with a loud smack, much to the surprise of a rather good-looking lab guy who was obviously going home for the day. After realizing that the entire building might think me crazy now, I banged my head against the wall, only to hear a loud speakerphone that sounded like it was dialing a call. Oops! I've bumped into the emergency directline to the University of Chicago Police (which is ironic since I've just added them to my speed-dial list earlier today), and an officer was asking if everything was alright. After I explained in a panic that I pressed the button by accident (but judging by my panicked voice, the officer asked again if everything was alright, which made me realize that the UCPD thinks me crazy now), I tumbled into the lab where I couldn't cause any trouble (ha ha ha. right.) What a day...
The Idle Intellectual (i.e. Me)
What should I be doing right now?
Well, there are several things that I "should" be doing--I should be doing some literature research on various subjects regarding C. elegans research and techniques without any focus on a particular topic, or, I should be practicing with the worms by putting them into microfluidic channels in preparation for an experiment that will take place sometime near never, or, I could be arguing with the CVS server regarding a set of hyperlinked documents for a boss who is very cranky and bossy, especially of late. Ah, the wonders of working in a cutting-edge laboratory with a multidisciplinary crew of multicultural wonders. In fact, our boss is so progressive that he's a Russian. It doesn't get any more progressive(=totalitarian) than that.
Some might tell me that I'm not being grateful. Well, I am very grateful--I get to work on microfluidics research, which truly is a rare opportunity as only labs with the highest amount of grants could ever pull off. I'm very grateful for the fact that I get to attend an elite academic institution that could sponsor such a lab. I'm very grateful for the fact that there is air conditioning in this lab in the dreadful Chicago heat. However, I find myself wandering because of a general discontent of things, despite all of the things that I'm grateful for.
My P. I. is the biggest source of stress; he's a real PI-in in the ass. He doesn't seem to have highly developed interpersonal skills and his hawkish nature has given him quite the reputation in the department. At first, I thought it was because he just tends to be overly ambitious and that some grad students just don't appreciate hard work. I mean, he's been bringing in a lot of cool postdocs. However, I learned soon enough that the reason why he was hiring so many postdocs was because he hasn't had any grad students enter his lab for two years. Two years. Wow, that reputation must be pretty foul.
So, where do I come in? Well, normally I crack under pressure, so I wonder how I've survived the past year, but I have to remind myself that I was an administrative assistant before and therefore invisible. Now that I'm actually working in the lab, I've seen his true face, and lemme tell ya, it ain't pretty. I've been dodging him for the past few weeks, jumping at the site of any male with brownish hair, staying on elevators for several rides up and down the building to avoid him, crying in the stairwells on the phone to mom. Maybe I'm just too lazy to be working in his lab. Maybe I'm just way too burnt out from the school year. Whatever the case, I've lost all my interest in working here and I can't believe I'm ready for summer to be over.
To combat this chronic boredom, I've been devoting myself to reading various texts on mathematics, systems theory, and (yes, I admit it) other lab group sites. I'm actually interested in switching labs, because 1) my P. I. is a jackass, and 2) I've gotten really bored with microfluidics. I've expounded on Point 1 until now. I'll now continue on Point 2.
One of the labs I'm seriously considering is actually doing some really cool stuff with systems biology. Interestingly enough, it's located in the Physics Department, which pretty much makes it a biophysics lab. I'm personally interested in evolutionary networks and the mathematical descriptions of complex biosystems (their paper is really cool with Boolean logic, but I will refrain from identifying this group for the sake of anonymity). I'm hoping to hear back from the group soon, but while I'm cowering over my screen as to avoid any contact with P. I. (Pain Immortal), I'm starting to wonder why my mind wanders like this and whether or not that means I'm in good shape.
It is the third time I am revising this very paragraph, in which I describe the mundane repetetiveness of occupations since the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, I can only wonder if life before mechanization was any more varied. You can probably hear the arrival of my favorite existential term, "ennui," but here, I will develop more into the freeflowing river of intellectual inspiration... once I'm no longer bored with what I am writing out right now...
Well, there are several things that I "should" be doing--I should be doing some literature research on various subjects regarding C. elegans research and techniques without any focus on a particular topic, or, I should be practicing with the worms by putting them into microfluidic channels in preparation for an experiment that will take place sometime near never, or, I could be arguing with the CVS server regarding a set of hyperlinked documents for a boss who is very cranky and bossy, especially of late. Ah, the wonders of working in a cutting-edge laboratory with a multidisciplinary crew of multicultural wonders. In fact, our boss is so progressive that he's a Russian. It doesn't get any more progressive(=totalitarian) than that.
Some might tell me that I'm not being grateful. Well, I am very grateful--I get to work on microfluidics research, which truly is a rare opportunity as only labs with the highest amount of grants could ever pull off. I'm very grateful for the fact that I get to attend an elite academic institution that could sponsor such a lab. I'm very grateful for the fact that there is air conditioning in this lab in the dreadful Chicago heat. However, I find myself wandering because of a general discontent of things, despite all of the things that I'm grateful for.
My P. I. is the biggest source of stress; he's a real PI-in in the ass. He doesn't seem to have highly developed interpersonal skills and his hawkish nature has given him quite the reputation in the department. At first, I thought it was because he just tends to be overly ambitious and that some grad students just don't appreciate hard work. I mean, he's been bringing in a lot of cool postdocs. However, I learned soon enough that the reason why he was hiring so many postdocs was because he hasn't had any grad students enter his lab for two years. Two years. Wow, that reputation must be pretty foul.
So, where do I come in? Well, normally I crack under pressure, so I wonder how I've survived the past year, but I have to remind myself that I was an administrative assistant before and therefore invisible. Now that I'm actually working in the lab, I've seen his true face, and lemme tell ya, it ain't pretty. I've been dodging him for the past few weeks, jumping at the site of any male with brownish hair, staying on elevators for several rides up and down the building to avoid him, crying in the stairwells on the phone to mom. Maybe I'm just too lazy to be working in his lab. Maybe I'm just way too burnt out from the school year. Whatever the case, I've lost all my interest in working here and I can't believe I'm ready for summer to be over.
To combat this chronic boredom, I've been devoting myself to reading various texts on mathematics, systems theory, and (yes, I admit it) other lab group sites. I'm actually interested in switching labs, because 1) my P. I. is a jackass, and 2) I've gotten really bored with microfluidics. I've expounded on Point 1 until now. I'll now continue on Point 2.
One of the labs I'm seriously considering is actually doing some really cool stuff with systems biology. Interestingly enough, it's located in the Physics Department, which pretty much makes it a biophysics lab. I'm personally interested in evolutionary networks and the mathematical descriptions of complex biosystems (their paper is really cool with Boolean logic, but I will refrain from identifying this group for the sake of anonymity). I'm hoping to hear back from the group soon, but while I'm cowering over my screen as to avoid any contact with P. I. (Pain Immortal), I'm starting to wonder why my mind wanders like this and whether or not that means I'm in good shape.
It is the third time I am revising this very paragraph, in which I describe the mundane repetetiveness of occupations since the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, I can only wonder if life before mechanization was any more varied. You can probably hear the arrival of my favorite existential term, "ennui," but here, I will develop more into the freeflowing river of intellectual inspiration... once I'm no longer bored with what I am writing out right now...
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Hatred: A Conversation with Friend Regarding Contempt for Summer, Hyde Park, and PI (And I Ain't Talking About Pastries...)
The following is a conversation that took place between myself and a friend on MSN. I've cut and copied it from the IM window because I was too lazy to type out another rant. "dead webcasters pay no royalties" is me.
[Script:]
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
hey
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
hey
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
what's going on?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I hate my PI
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm thinking of leaving the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
how about yourself?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
why?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i'm doing well...i really like my pi here
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
research is good
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
friends are good here too
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
my PI is such a jackass
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he likes nipping at people
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and ambushing them
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
just so he can bitch at them
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
how do you mean?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
last week
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was to have a project meeting with him
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he called me up in the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and asked me to come over to his office because he has a question regarding hyperlinked documents
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
since I was working on the grant proposal with the others
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I thought, okay sure, and I came in
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
as soon as I entered
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he started interrogating me about what I've come up for the project meeting
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he was demanding a "preview of the preview"
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so to speak
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is obnoxious
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and then
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the past two days
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's been totally bitching about the hyperlinked documents
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
what is so special about these hyperlinked documents?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
when I apologized for working on the project outline
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the hyperlinks seem to get messed up when the documents are uploaded unto a server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and the server we're using isn't a real server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
but it takes forever to navigate and no one knows how to use it
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
not to mention, only one person can access it from a single computer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so it's not like I can log on to someone's computer and ask to use the server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I need all of their login info and shit like that
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's just a major pain in the ass
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm really fed up with the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
more my PI than the lab
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
yeah....so i still dont understand why you would appologize for working on the outline?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
were you supposed to be doing something else?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I didn't solve the hyperlinked thing
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I thought the project outline was of higher priority
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
gah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is always the higher priority
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is what he told me
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
but
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
gah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's really obnoxious
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
dirty russians.....
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
you're telling me
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and because he was bitching me out
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I missed autoclaving time
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so I have to stay here for another hour
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
we have some at und that are so rediculous its hilarous
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i see that you are spending it well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
bah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I have nothing to do for another hour
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh, you have to WAIT for it too?!
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
yeah
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
that really sucks
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
this is my life
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
are you just his bitch basically?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's becoming worse than the school year
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the entire lab is his bitch
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he hasn't had grad students come in for two years into his lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because of his reputation
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so now he's hiring postdocs like mad
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
that's really funny
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
does he pay well?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he cut down my funding for the summer
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and if he had such a shitty reputation, why did you go in?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
at which point in the summer?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I thought his research was cool
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
pretty much when it began
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I get paid less than grant students are being paid
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which, I guess, makes sense
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
although he pretty much bumped me off the grant program because he volunteered to fund me on his own
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
big success that was
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
*rolls eyes*
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
yeah....what are you getting paid?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was supposed to get $3000 for the entire summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
probably even more
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I got the grant
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
of course without room and board
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's not a fellowship
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
wow...that sucks
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i get 4k plus room, board and travel expenses covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and my "mentor" (NSF's fancy terminology for PI) is awesome
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was too adamant on working here over the summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I thought it'd be cool
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
now I know it's only cruel
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I preferred being invisible
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
like I was during the school year
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
now that I'm on a project
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
at least you get to be in chicago for the summer, no?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if there is a benefit to being in Chicago for the summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's hot
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
sticky
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
but isnt it a pretty cool place?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
my subletters were rushed so they didn't have the time to set up internet
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it would be
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I weren't working twelve hours a day
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and besides
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh..shitty
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
most clubs and shit is 21+
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
other than that
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
too bad
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
there's not much
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
oh well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I asked for it
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
apparently
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
do you like it better that slc though?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
not knowing how shitty it is
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm not too sure
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I were in SLC
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I probably would've been able to have an informal program with a mathematician there who works with modeling fluid networks
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's one of the collaborators with the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and he's at the U of U
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
wow, I haven't used that term in a while
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
lol
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
either that
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
or I could've worked in my mom's lab on editing articles and grant proposals and whatnot
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and you would have had a better time doing that you think?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
why not apply for a fellowship somewhere?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
well...obviously not now
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
lol
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
at least I'd be at home
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and not wasting money on food
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh....i get that covered
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and rent
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and utilities
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
also covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i would look at those for next year
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
just me though.....
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
also have to worry aboubt not getting mugged
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
also covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
jk
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
is that a worry in chicago?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
especially here in shitty Hyde Park
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh yeah....i forgot thats where you are
[Script:]
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
hey
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
hey
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
what's going on?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I hate my PI
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm thinking of leaving the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
how about yourself?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
why?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i'm doing well...i really like my pi here
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
research is good
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
friends are good here too
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
my PI is such a jackass
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he likes nipping at people
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and ambushing them
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
just so he can bitch at them
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
how do you mean?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
last week
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was to have a project meeting with him
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he called me up in the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and asked me to come over to his office because he has a question regarding hyperlinked documents
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
since I was working on the grant proposal with the others
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I thought, okay sure, and I came in
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
as soon as I entered
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he started interrogating me about what I've come up for the project meeting
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he was demanding a "preview of the preview"
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so to speak
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is obnoxious
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and then
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the past two days
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's been totally bitching about the hyperlinked documents
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
what is so special about these hyperlinked documents?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
when I apologized for working on the project outline
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the hyperlinks seem to get messed up when the documents are uploaded unto a server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and the server we're using isn't a real server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
but it takes forever to navigate and no one knows how to use it
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
not to mention, only one person can access it from a single computer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so it's not like I can log on to someone's computer and ask to use the server
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I need all of their login info and shit like that
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's just a major pain in the ass
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm really fed up with the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
more my PI than the lab
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
yeah....so i still dont understand why you would appologize for working on the outline?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
were you supposed to be doing something else?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I didn't solve the hyperlinked thing
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I thought the project outline was of higher priority
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
gah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is always the higher priority
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which is what he told me
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
but
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
gah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's really obnoxious
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
dirty russians.....
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
you're telling me
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and because he was bitching me out
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I missed autoclaving time
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so I have to stay here for another hour
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
we have some at und that are so rediculous its hilarous
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i see that you are spending it well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
bah
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I have nothing to do for another hour
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh, you have to WAIT for it too?!
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
yeah
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
that really sucks
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
this is my life
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
are you just his bitch basically?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's becoming worse than the school year
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
the entire lab is his bitch
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he hasn't had grad students come in for two years into his lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because of his reputation
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
so now he's hiring postdocs like mad
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
that's really funny
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
does he pay well?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he cut down my funding for the summer
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and if he had such a shitty reputation, why did you go in?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
at which point in the summer?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
because I thought his research was cool
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
pretty much when it began
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I get paid less than grant students are being paid
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
which, I guess, makes sense
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
although he pretty much bumped me off the grant program because he volunteered to fund me on his own
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
big success that was
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
*rolls eyes*
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
yeah....what are you getting paid?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was supposed to get $3000 for the entire summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
probably even more
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I got the grant
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
of course without room and board
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's not a fellowship
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
wow...that sucks
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i get 4k plus room, board and travel expenses covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and my "mentor" (NSF's fancy terminology for PI) is awesome
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I was too adamant on working here over the summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I thought it'd be cool
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
now I know it's only cruel
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I preferred being invisible
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
like I was during the school year
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
now that I'm on a project
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
at least you get to be in chicago for the summer, no?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if there is a benefit to being in Chicago for the summer
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it's hot
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
sticky
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
but isnt it a pretty cool place?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
my subletters were rushed so they didn't have the time to set up internet
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
it would be
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I weren't working twelve hours a day
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and besides
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh..shitty
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
most clubs and shit is 21+
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
other than that
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
too bad
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
there's not much
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
oh well
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I asked for it
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
apparently
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
do you like it better that slc though?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
not knowing how shitty it is
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I'm not too sure
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
if I were in SLC
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
I probably would've been able to have an informal program with a mathematician there who works with modeling fluid networks
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
he's one of the collaborators with the lab
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and he's at the U of U
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
wow, I haven't used that term in a while
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
lol
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
either that
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
or I could've worked in my mom's lab on editing articles and grant proposals and whatnot
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
and you would have had a better time doing that you think?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
why not apply for a fellowship somewhere?
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
well...obviously not now
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
lol
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
at least I'd be at home
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and not wasting money on food
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh....i get that covered
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and rent
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
and utilities
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
also covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
i would look at those for next year
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
just me though.....
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
also have to worry aboubt not getting mugged
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
also covered
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
jk
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
is that a worry in chicago?
dead webcasters pay no royalties says:
especially here in shitty Hyde Park
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows. says:
oh yeah....i forgot thats where you are
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Corrigendum--Internet Radio
I apologize for the faulty stastics that I have posted in the previous item. As to not be silly, I shall post the statistics directly from savenetradio.org, the source of my statistics on internet radio.
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) decision increases the royalties that Internet webcasters pay to play music by nearly 300% for the biggest webcasters and up to 1200% for small webcasters.
The CRB rates are retroactive to January 1, 2006 and payable on July 15, 2007. This decision could bankrupt many Internet radio services immediately on that date, even if it is effective for only one day.
Past due royalties alone will be enough to bankrupt virtually all small and mid-sized webcasters, many of whom are the hallmarks of programming diversity.
The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) reports that less than 10% of terrestrial radio performances are independent music but more than 37% of non-terrestrial radio is independent music.
According to Arbitron and Bridge Ratings, between 50 and 70 million Americans listen to internet radio a month.
Bridge Ratings & Research estimates that the Internet radio audience will double by 2010 and grow to nearly 200 million monthly listeners by 2020.
Internet radio listeners are 20% more likely to have purchased downloadable music than the average American. (Arbitron)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Internet Radio
From SaveNetRadio.org__________________________________________________________
The future of Internet radio is in immediate danger. Royalty rates for webcasters have been drastically increased by a recent ruling and are due to go into effect on July 15 (retroactive to Jan 1, 2006!). Webcasters across the country participated in a national Day of Silence this week to increase awareness about this looming threat and gather support for the SaveNetRadio collation and our campaign to preserve music diversity on-line. The Internet Radio Equality Act is currently being considered by both the House and the Senate. This bill will set royalty rates for Internet radio equal to the royalty rate paid by satellite radio, and has gained over 120 cosponsors in the House.
If Congress is truly bent on preserving the Free Market, it should also preserve the Marketplace of Ideas. I am an adamant supporter of competition and by establishing these ridiculous royalty rates (from 300 per cent to 1200 per cent), Congress is stifling competition by creating a de facto subsidy to broadcast and satellite radio, which are commercial arms of the RIAA. Not all of our ideas come from the RIAA and our music should not be from merely one source--we are sick of listening to the same crap that is blared by RIAA-affiliated stations. We want a variety. We want diversity. We must stop Congress from establishing the RIAA as the only source of music and let music commerce resume as usual. Senators, PLEASE co-sponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act! Please support internet radio! Please support the Free Market!
__________________________________________________________
From the Chicago Tribune__________________________________________________________
New rates signal day Web-radio music dies
By Kenneth Rainey, a member of Tangleweed, an acoustic Americana band from Chicago
July 9, 2007
Every band dreams of the lucky night it'll be discovered by a music promoter or favorite record label. Overnight you've got a hot record, radio stations everywhere playing your songs and your band becomes a household name. It's the classic musician's fairy tale.
But it is a fairy tale and, for every new artist who is discovered by a major record label, there are thousands who aren't. For the rest of us, pursuing a career in music is hard. Now, proposed new royalty rates for Internet radio threaten to make it harder.
You see, our Americana band Tangleweed was "discovered" -- just not in a nightclub by an industry executive. We were discovered on Pandora.com by bookers for a huge music festival. After two years of playing small clubs in Chicago, our invitation to the Wakarusa Music & Camping Festival in Lawrence, Kan., was a big break for us.
While listening to similar music on a custom Internet radio station on Pandora.com, a festival organizer heard a Tangleweed track. He liked it so much that he tracked us down and offered us the chance to perform at the festival. With more than 7 million Internet radio listeners every day, Internet radio offers exposure for groups like ours that just isn't possible on mainstream radio stations.
But now we're at risk of losing it.
The Copyright Royalty Board recently issued catastrophic royalty rate hikes -- increases from 300 to 1,200 percent -- which are set to take effect July 15. And some of the increases will be retroactive to January of last year.
While music artists certainly benefit from royalties, this kind of royalty rate hike will mean bankruptcy for almost every Webcaster. Music is a labor of love for many Webcasters, as it is for so many musicians. A significant number of small Internet radio stations already operate at a loss; they carry on because of their commitment to the music they play. A dramatic rate hike is more than most can bear.
Right now, independent artists make up less than 10 percent of what's played on broadcast radio, but on Internet radio, we make up about 37 percent.
The reality is if our representatives in Congress allow these new royalty rates to go into effect -- and it's within Congress' power to decide -- it'll make it far harder for independent artists like us to make it. Worse for those of us who are also music fans, online radio will start to sound a whole lot more like broadcast radio. Millions of people whose musical tastes aren't served by broadcast radio will be left without an alternative.
While we've become believers in Internet radio for selfish reasons -- as both artists and listeners -- the principle of creating a marketplace encouraging artistic entrepreneurs stands on its own. It should be no surprise that the Internet, which has been the source of innovation in so many different industries, has been the home of and outlet for innovation in the music industry.
From our perspective, killing Internet radio means that thousands of great bands will go undiscovered -- and that's nothing but bad news for artists.
Killing Internet radio will not only stifle the great technology we have now, it will also stifle the innovation of even better, newer and more exciting ways to enjoy music -- and that's nothing but bad news for all of us.
From the Baltimore Sun
Independent artists fear the demise of Internet radio
By SONiA
July 4, 2007
I've spent my entire career making music that transcends fear. In fact, the Baltimore-based band I started with my sister in 1994 is called disappear fear.
It might come as a surprise, then, that I'm writing now about something a lot of independent artists are scared about these days: the impending death of Internet radio.
Indie artists don't often have the luxury of being the "next big thing," endorsed and promoted by the record industry. For a lot of us, broadcast radio is mostly uncharted territory. We've come to rely on the Internet to get the word out, namely Internet radio, through which a lot of us have been able to find a modest fan base.
Because we aren't regularly appearing on MTV, and American Idol's Ryan Seacrest probably doesn't know our names, Internet radio is one of our few real opportunities for exposure to large audiences. With more than 7 million Internet radio listeners every day - most of whom are tired of the redundancy they find on broadcast radio - the opportunities abound for the artists who before had very few. What's more, over each of the last few years, Internet radio's audience has grown steadily.
Now we're at risk of losing it.
In May, the Copyright Royalty Board issued catastrophic royalty rate increases - ranging from 300 percent to 1,200 percent - that Internet radio companies would have to pay for the music they stream. The rates are set to take effect July 15, with the increases retroactive to January of last year.
As you might expect, these rate increases would drastically outweigh the revenues of many Internet radio broadcasters, most of whom have small staffs and budgets and are struggling to make online radio a sustainable business. Many of these Webcasters would have no choice but to shut down in the face of these new rates.
While the royalty rate increases would mean certain bankruptcy for almost every Webcaster, the effect on indie artists would also be disastrous. Losing Internet radio would mean the loss of our biggest promotional resource.
This becomes obvious when you look at the market. Right now, independent artists make up less than 10 percent of what's played on broadcast radio. On Internet radio, we make up about 37 percent.
And as much I appreciate royalties as an artist, a bump in royalties means little to indie singer-songwriters if it also means the death of our biggest source of exposure. If Internet radio dies, there won't be any royalties to pay.
The reality is, if our leaders in Congress allow these new royalty rates to go into effect - and it's within Congress' power to decide - it will make it much harder for independent artists like me to get off the ground to find their audience. What's worse for music lovers is that with such high fees, online radio will start to look a whole lot more like broadcast radio: a limited number of artists, a limited number of genres and a lot of bored music fans.
I've become a believer in Internet radio for selfish reasons - as both an artist and a listener - but the principle of creating a marketplace encouraging artistic entrepreneurs stands on its own. It should be no surprise that the Internet, the source of innovation in so many different industries, has been the home of and outlet for innovation in the music industry.
Killing Internet radio would stifle this innovation just as it would stifle the indie labels and bands fighting to be heard, the Webcasters fighting to stay alive and the listeners just trying to find something new.
I'm not worried about me. As a solo artist and in our band, I have had a great career, crisscrossing the country and traveling the world. I have been fortunate to have had broadcast radio support. But I'm concerned about the artists just now getting their start.
For us, Internet radio has become essential. A world without it can only be described as scary.
SONiA is a Baltimore-based musician. Her e-mail is sonia@disappearfear.com.
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Conspiracy Theory—Need I Even Respond?
Recently I have posted a video on YouTube describing my interest in joining Freemasonry. My interest is purely intellectual, especially given my penchant for free markets and free inquiry. However, some took offense to my interests and commented on it. Instead of refusing to recognize his position, I challenged him and boy did I get a lot of lip from him. The video is here and you can read the comments for yourself.
Now, onto the main topic—conspiracy theories. Normally scientific colleagues would dismiss this topic altogether, claiming that responding to their argument in itself is a validation (at least in the view of those who believe in conspiracy theories), disturbingly similar to proponents of intelligent design. I admit that conspiracy is a very real and very probable phenomenon that should incite fear. However, when grand claims are made, such as the Freemasons are in league with the Catholics and the Jews to control the global economy (ignoring the historical tension between the three), brows must be raised. Of course, any a priori knowledge is dangerous, so dismissing these claims without proper evaluation is scientifically naïve (although one would ask if it’s even worth the time to consider, unlike the more existential subject of intelligent design), but I’d like to point to the fact that conspiracy theories tend to be a priori claims in themselves, so they must first produce evidence.
The root of conspiracy theories is actually something that I admire—a skepticism of the “official accounts” given by those in power (e.g. the Church, the state, the media, etc.). However, then the theories tend to branch out into ridiculous claims, usually involving Satanic cults, world order, and homosexuality. Really, check out The Order of Death by Alex Jones (a film that has shoddy scholarship at best, intentional deception at worst), which piles up claims similar to the ones made by the Roman Catholic Church and the King of France against the Knights Templar. Instead of Baphomet, however, Jones has posited that they deity they worship is Moloch, seen by some as a mistake in transliterating Hebrew (Moloch=mlk=melech=”king”), thereby changing the idea of idol worship to state worship, as was the case in Egypt.
What’s worse, however, is the fact that Satanism and Devil Worship (i.e. alternative religion) becomes the qualifying character. The following extract is from the film by Alex Jones:
The use of fear here pleads to an emotional argument without any basis. Of course, this in itself does not invalidate their claim (although we have to look at the fact that they’re blanketing all evils into “Satanism,” which argues from a Christian standpoint, which therefore shows an agenda that conflicts with objectivity), but if it’s the only thing they present without solid evidence, then their claims go straight out the window.
Alex Jones, however, presents evidence, in form of video tape, photographs, documents, and “personal account” of an anonymous contributor. The video clip that he presents of a ritual going on in some Bohemian Grove has really bad quality and cannot establish the identity of any “world leader” participating in a so-called “mock human sacrifice” (I can’t even tell if they’re even in the woods or on a stage). Another video includes him trying to approach a fireman about secret rituals, when the fireman “says” “turn off the camera, buddy” (paraphrased). However, this seemed to be coming from a person off-camera as he looked to the side, and the disembodied voice actually seems to be on a different soundtrack (although one could argue that the disembodied voice was actually coming from right next to the cameraman). Regardless of the actual situation, this shows how easily video clips can be edited and touched with. The documents he presents also can be fabricated quite easily, although if they are genuine, one might ask how such secret documents were allowed to be obtained, especially by a “world order?” And this anonymous contributor? How are we to verify his existence in the first place?
Now, this is not to say that there isn’t a possibility that such things are true, especially given the fact that our administration seems very keen on expanding our influence. However, one must remember that the affirmative holds the burden of proof. Good evidence is indisputable (well, if it is disputable, then even more good arguments must be made to support the validity of the evidence). If the conspiracy theorist wishes to prove that I am not part of the “New World Order,” then he (most probably it’s a he with a geeky demeanor and social awkwardness) must establish how I did not just oversee a transaction between Microsoft and Apple in order to (secretly) monopolize the information industry’s hardware centers. Fnord.
Now, onto the main topic—conspiracy theories. Normally scientific colleagues would dismiss this topic altogether, claiming that responding to their argument in itself is a validation (at least in the view of those who believe in conspiracy theories), disturbingly similar to proponents of intelligent design. I admit that conspiracy is a very real and very probable phenomenon that should incite fear. However, when grand claims are made, such as the Freemasons are in league with the Catholics and the Jews to control the global economy (ignoring the historical tension between the three), brows must be raised. Of course, any a priori knowledge is dangerous, so dismissing these claims without proper evaluation is scientifically naïve (although one would ask if it’s even worth the time to consider, unlike the more existential subject of intelligent design), but I’d like to point to the fact that conspiracy theories tend to be a priori claims in themselves, so they must first produce evidence.
The root of conspiracy theories is actually something that I admire—a skepticism of the “official accounts” given by those in power (e.g. the Church, the state, the media, etc.). However, then the theories tend to branch out into ridiculous claims, usually involving Satanic cults, world order, and homosexuality. Really, check out The Order of Death by Alex Jones (a film that has shoddy scholarship at best, intentional deception at worst), which piles up claims similar to the ones made by the Roman Catholic Church and the King of France against the Knights Templar. Instead of Baphomet, however, Jones has posited that they deity they worship is Moloch, seen by some as a mistake in transliterating Hebrew (Moloch=mlk=melech=”king”), thereby changing the idea of idol worship to state worship, as was the case in Egypt.
What’s worse, however, is the fact that Satanism and Devil Worship (i.e. alternative religion) becomes the qualifying character. The following extract is from the film by Alex Jones:
“If your neighbor worshipped Moloch, the demon worshipped all over the Mediterranean and the Middle East, would you let your neighbor walk your dog or house sit or babysit your children?”
The use of fear here pleads to an emotional argument without any basis. Of course, this in itself does not invalidate their claim (although we have to look at the fact that they’re blanketing all evils into “Satanism,” which argues from a Christian standpoint, which therefore shows an agenda that conflicts with objectivity), but if it’s the only thing they present without solid evidence, then their claims go straight out the window.
Alex Jones, however, presents evidence, in form of video tape, photographs, documents, and “personal account” of an anonymous contributor. The video clip that he presents of a ritual going on in some Bohemian Grove has really bad quality and cannot establish the identity of any “world leader” participating in a so-called “mock human sacrifice” (I can’t even tell if they’re even in the woods or on a stage). Another video includes him trying to approach a fireman about secret rituals, when the fireman “says” “turn off the camera, buddy” (paraphrased). However, this seemed to be coming from a person off-camera as he looked to the side, and the disembodied voice actually seems to be on a different soundtrack (although one could argue that the disembodied voice was actually coming from right next to the cameraman). Regardless of the actual situation, this shows how easily video clips can be edited and touched with. The documents he presents also can be fabricated quite easily, although if they are genuine, one might ask how such secret documents were allowed to be obtained, especially by a “world order?” And this anonymous contributor? How are we to verify his existence in the first place?
Now, this is not to say that there isn’t a possibility that such things are true, especially given the fact that our administration seems very keen on expanding our influence. However, one must remember that the affirmative holds the burden of proof. Good evidence is indisputable (well, if it is disputable, then even more good arguments must be made to support the validity of the evidence). If the conspiracy theorist wishes to prove that I am not part of the “New World Order,” then he (most probably it’s a he with a geeky demeanor and social awkwardness) must establish how I did not just oversee a transaction between Microsoft and Apple in order to (secretly) monopolize the information industry’s hardware centers. Fnord.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Aaaaaand, we're back!
Forgive us for the hiatus as we do not have internet access in our summer apartment. We also don't have air-conditioning. We don't have television, washing machines, or even a properly working shower. All-in-all, we're having quite a wonderful time...
Second week working in the lab and already I'm exhausted. I have no new ideas and I feel incompetent. Hours just drag away and there's still no internet at home. So, to where shall I turn?
I guess I don't have much to write at the moment, especially since I don't have any thoughts going through my head that I can grab and keep down for more than three seconds...
May all of your dreams come true.
Second week working in the lab and already I'm exhausted. I have no new ideas and I feel incompetent. Hours just drag away and there's still no internet at home. So, to where shall I turn?
I guess I don't have much to write at the moment, especially since I don't have any thoughts going through my head that I can grab and keep down for more than three seconds...
May all of your dreams come true.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The patent threat to designer biology
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070618/pf/070618-17_pf.html
muse@nature.com: The patent threat to designer biology:
Behind scare stories of building synthetic life lies the issue of who owns the biological parts.
Philip Ball
"For the first time, God has competition", claimed the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) two weeks ago. With this catchy headline, it aimed to raise the alarm about a patent on "the world's first-ever human-made species", a bacterium allegedly created "with synthetic DNA" in the laboratories of the Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland.ETC had discovered a US patent application filed last October by scientists from the Venter Institute for what the scientists claim are the 381 essential genes needed to make an organism. The genes are found in Mycoplasma genitalium, a naturally slimmed-down microbe that has just 485 genes that encode proteins.The action group seemed to be confused about whether the synthetic bacterium, which they dubbed 'Synthia', had actually been made. It hasn't — yet. But beyond the seemingly scary notion that a man-made bug is lurking in a lab somewhere, ETC was concerned that someone might be able to patent it.If the patent were granted, anyone wanting to design an organism from these genes would need to apply for a license. "These monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to synthesize and privatize synthetic life forms," claimed ETC's Jim Thomas. "Will Venter's company become the 'Microbesoft' of synthetic biology?"Now, that's a better question (if posed rather hyperbolically). I'm told by scientists in the field that the patent application has little chance of success, but it does raise an important issue. Patenting of genes has been a controversial matter for many years, but the advent of synthetic biology takes the debate to a new level.Living devicesIt is arguably a distortion of the idea of 'invention' to patent genes that exist in nature, even if the patenter has worked out how to use it for a particular application. But if you can start to make new 'devices' by arranging these genes in new ways, doesn't that qualify? And if so, how small and rudimentary a 'part' becomes patentable?Scientists gathered in Greenland last week at a meeting called "The merging of bio and nano — towards cyborg cells" were well placed to address such questions. At that conference, supported by the Kavli Foundation in Oxnard, California, Drew Endy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge admitted that the intellectual-property framework for synthetic biology remains unresolved. Endy and his colleagues are creating a 'Registry of Standard Biological Parts' to be used as the elements of genetic circuitry just like the transistors, capacitors and so forth in electronics catalogues. This registry places the parts in the public domain, which can provide some protection against attempts to patent them.
A bacterial camera: Could advances like these soon be blocked by patenting?Researchers have already organized 'cassettes' of natural genes into modules that can be inserted into microbial genomes to give the organisms new types of behaviour — such as making them flash on and off with light1, or acting like photographic film2. Such efforts would be impossibly expensive and slow, Endy says, if the intellectual-property rights on all the components had to be cleared first. It would be as if, he says, you had to apply for a license to use every command instruction in a piece of computer code.In synthetic biology, that sort of patenting seems disturbingly easy right now. "You can take any device from the Texas instruments TTL catalogue, put 'genetically coded' in front of it without actually demonstrating it in practice, and you have a good chance of getting a patent," says Endy.Help not hinderPatenting has been a brake on the useful applications of biotechnology, according to bioengineer Jay Keasling of the University of California, Berkeley, who was also at the Greenland meeting. Keasling has been working for several years to engineer microbes to synthesize a compound called artemisinin — one of the best available drugs for fighting malaria3.When the ETC Group dismisses efforts to use synthetic biology to address global problems as one of their marketing strategies, I think they are grossly misjudging the researchers and their motives. Keasling wants to use it to save malaria victims. And One of Venter's goals is to use his microbes to provide cheap biofuels as a replacement for oil.But ETC may be right that patenting is a bad idea in this field. "If you want to have a community sharing useful and good parts, 20 years of patent protection is obviously not helpful," says Sven Panke of the ETH in Zürich, Switzerland, one of the organizers of the third Synthetic Biology conference being held there next week. "It would be very helpful if we could find a good way to reward but not impede."Legal experts too agree that something needs be done. "Synthetic biology presents a particularly revealing example of a difficulty that the law has frequently faced over the past 30 years — the assimilation of a new technology into... existing intellectual-property rights," wrote Arti Rai and James Boyle, from Duke University in North Carolina, in a recent paper4. "The way that US law has handled software on the one hand and biotechnology on the other could come together in a 'perfect storm' that would impede the potential of the technology."Copyright might provide an alternative way to reward innovative scientists. Or some form of novel legal framework. But no one is sure what will work best. Intellectual property is prominently on the agenda at the upcoming Swiss conference. "We are going to take a look at the issue," Panke says. "But we will not solve it. In Europe we are just starting to appreciate the problem."
muse@nature.com: The patent threat to designer biology:
Behind scare stories of building synthetic life lies the issue of who owns the biological parts.
Philip Ball
"For the first time, God has competition", claimed the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) two weeks ago. With this catchy headline, it aimed to raise the alarm about a patent on "the world's first-ever human-made species", a bacterium allegedly created "with synthetic DNA" in the laboratories of the Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland.ETC had discovered a US patent application filed last October by scientists from the Venter Institute for what the scientists claim are the 381 essential genes needed to make an organism. The genes are found in Mycoplasma genitalium, a naturally slimmed-down microbe that has just 485 genes that encode proteins.The action group seemed to be confused about whether the synthetic bacterium, which they dubbed 'Synthia', had actually been made. It hasn't — yet. But beyond the seemingly scary notion that a man-made bug is lurking in a lab somewhere, ETC was concerned that someone might be able to patent it.If the patent were granted, anyone wanting to design an organism from these genes would need to apply for a license. "These monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to synthesize and privatize synthetic life forms," claimed ETC's Jim Thomas. "Will Venter's company become the 'Microbesoft' of synthetic biology?"Now, that's a better question (if posed rather hyperbolically). I'm told by scientists in the field that the patent application has little chance of success, but it does raise an important issue. Patenting of genes has been a controversial matter for many years, but the advent of synthetic biology takes the debate to a new level.Living devicesIt is arguably a distortion of the idea of 'invention' to patent genes that exist in nature, even if the patenter has worked out how to use it for a particular application. But if you can start to make new 'devices' by arranging these genes in new ways, doesn't that qualify? And if so, how small and rudimentary a 'part' becomes patentable?Scientists gathered in Greenland last week at a meeting called "The merging of bio and nano — towards cyborg cells" were well placed to address such questions. At that conference, supported by the Kavli Foundation in Oxnard, California, Drew Endy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge admitted that the intellectual-property framework for synthetic biology remains unresolved. Endy and his colleagues are creating a 'Registry of Standard Biological Parts' to be used as the elements of genetic circuitry just like the transistors, capacitors and so forth in electronics catalogues. This registry places the parts in the public domain, which can provide some protection against attempts to patent them.
A bacterial camera: Could advances like these soon be blocked by patenting?Researchers have already organized 'cassettes' of natural genes into modules that can be inserted into microbial genomes to give the organisms new types of behaviour — such as making them flash on and off with light1, or acting like photographic film2. Such efforts would be impossibly expensive and slow, Endy says, if the intellectual-property rights on all the components had to be cleared first. It would be as if, he says, you had to apply for a license to use every command instruction in a piece of computer code.In synthetic biology, that sort of patenting seems disturbingly easy right now. "You can take any device from the Texas instruments TTL catalogue, put 'genetically coded' in front of it without actually demonstrating it in practice, and you have a good chance of getting a patent," says Endy.Help not hinderPatenting has been a brake on the useful applications of biotechnology, according to bioengineer Jay Keasling of the University of California, Berkeley, who was also at the Greenland meeting. Keasling has been working for several years to engineer microbes to synthesize a compound called artemisinin — one of the best available drugs for fighting malaria3.When the ETC Group dismisses efforts to use synthetic biology to address global problems as one of their marketing strategies, I think they are grossly misjudging the researchers and their motives. Keasling wants to use it to save malaria victims. And One of Venter's goals is to use his microbes to provide cheap biofuels as a replacement for oil.But ETC may be right that patenting is a bad idea in this field. "If you want to have a community sharing useful and good parts, 20 years of patent protection is obviously not helpful," says Sven Panke of the ETH in Zürich, Switzerland, one of the organizers of the third Synthetic Biology conference being held there next week. "It would be very helpful if we could find a good way to reward but not impede."Legal experts too agree that something needs be done. "Synthetic biology presents a particularly revealing example of a difficulty that the law has frequently faced over the past 30 years — the assimilation of a new technology into... existing intellectual-property rights," wrote Arti Rai and James Boyle, from Duke University in North Carolina, in a recent paper4. "The way that US law has handled software on the one hand and biotechnology on the other could come together in a 'perfect storm' that would impede the potential of the technology."Copyright might provide an alternative way to reward innovative scientists. Or some form of novel legal framework. But no one is sure what will work best. Intellectual property is prominently on the agenda at the upcoming Swiss conference. "We are going to take a look at the issue," Panke says. "But we will not solve it. In Europe we are just starting to appreciate the problem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
