Gedankenexperiment

The Internationale (Machine)

2009-03-07T18:04:00.000-08:00

[Sung to Your Favorite Socialist Theme]

Arise, I-bankers from your slumber,
Arise, you dismal of the earth!
For Reason, we must all now plunder,
And all morals we shall pervert!
Away with all your superstitions,
Social welfare? All lies! All lies!
We’ll all march as greedy mathematicians
And we shall maximize our buys!
So come lads, come ladies
Decency we shall deface
The Internationale
Machine pwns every race!
MPC, GDP
Capital wins the case!
The Internationale
Machine we shall embrace!

No more declaring your deductions,
No more taxation in your sights!
Arm now the agents of production,
As their labor are your rights!
And if those leeches keep on trying,
To sap and feed their own hive,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We’ll shoot them by our drive!
So come lads, come ladies
Decency we shall deface
The Internationale
Machine pwns every race!
MPC, GDP
Capital wins the case!
The Internationale
Machine we shall embrace!

Sing now the wealth of all our nations!
Recall the ones who brought us here:
Smith, Franklin, Burke all taught us patience,
And showed us all damn fine careers!
Crunching numbers, optimizing models,
Making sure each cent is saved!
Our gold coins and silver we shall fondle,
As we all sing our tirade:
So come lads, come ladies
Decency we shall deface
The Internationale
Machine pwns every race!
MPC, GDP
Capital wins the case!
The Internationale
Machine we shall embrace!

Return to Innocence

2009-02-28T21:03:00.000-08:00

Good God, it's been a while since I've last posted something! The last thing I see was the Timothy Wu event from Autumn of 2007 and quite a bit has happened since then. Although I personally don't know who would be interested in reading such nonsense, for those of you who care, I shall summarize my development over the past year and a quarter.

First off, I shall have you know that I am no longer a silly chemistry major. Honestly, I find it a vile subject that reeks of B.O. and by B.O., I mean the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation. Here, I hold up a broken beaker and pose for the camera, with the captions reading out "Never Again."

I am now occupying my time as a physicist, hoping to dear God that I pass each course I'm taking. The pain of physics is quite different than the pain of chemistry: in chemistry, I hate my the subject with my life; in physics, I hate my life with the subject. Given my first year as a physics student (note that I have not ever taken a physics course before autumn of 2007), I have already found myself flirting with Condensed Matter Theory, particularly working in soft condensed matter, thermodynamics, and field theory. There's something satisfying about being able to describe how information flows through a system and at times I wonder if it actually borders on computer science. However, my good friend Birchwood (or i-Bird, or IB, however you prefer to refer to her), who is a most brilliant mathematician and computer scientist, assures me that I'm just being silly and should finish doing my analysis proofs instead. The joys of having brilliant friends.

In terms of plans, God knows that I have too many. I'm looking towards a doctorate in physics, hopefully at Stanford, and perhaps a Ph D minor in math. I've also looked at systems engineering, but I think I'm better off creating a strong foundation first in some technical skills. I still can't get Fortran to work (and I doubt I ever will), but even if Stanford's condensed matter program isn't as strong as that of U of I or UCSB, I feel quite strongly about the fact that they still have an excellent math department, especially in algebra and group theory. I'm also seriously considering MIT for physics, seeing as how their CM is really strong too (plus they have excellent maths), and Harvard is quite attractive too, but any of these schools would require me to be brilliant, and I have my doubts about that. I mean, I think I'm smart enough to get by in physics, but I just really wish I could have some sort of measure as to what they're looking for. If worse comes to worst, however, I do have the U of I to fall on. Thank God for legacy.

After the Ph D in physics, I'm probably headed towards law school, hopefully enrolling in a dual JD/Ph D program. The Ph D, however, is still in the air, as I have yet to decide between sociology and economics. I'm pretty sure I would have the math background necessary for econ in either case, and a JD/Ph D from Stanford would be pretty sweet, considering their tech-heavy client base and my interests in IP Law (specifically technology transfer and patents). I may also come back to the U of C for the JD/Ph D, but I think then the choice between econ and sociology would be even more difficult--do I choose the department that revitalized the free market or do I choose the first department of sociology in the United States? Stanford's program is also pretty strong in both cases, although they don't seem to have the hardline libertarian philosophy as the children of Friedman has, but I could be incredibly wrong.

In the middle of this, I also wanted to put in an M Sc. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge (a single year study), but as transcripts are pretty unfairly random here at the U of C, I doubt I can get in through the Churchill scholarship or other trust programs. Plus, given the fact that I'm doing so much already, I'll probably end up avoiding real life forever. In fact, why don't we make a quick calculation here:

Age 22: Finish BA in Physics.
+6 years for Ph D in Physics
Age 28: First Doctorate Completed
+1 year for 1L
Age 29: Ready to Begin Second Doctorate
+6 years for Second Doctorate
Age 35: Time to Finish JD
+2 year remaining
Age 37: Multiple Doctorates, but no job yet. Choices: 1) Law professorship (ha! good luck finding that!), 2) work off student loans as a 20K/30K post-doc forever (in econ/sociology--prolly too old to do physics), 3) give up, get an MBA, and become a businessman, 4) find a rich husband, 5) become a writer and live from paycheck to paycheck.

Oh wow... God help me...

Revisiting Timothy Wu

2007-10-30T20:45:00.000-07:00

So, thanks to a family crisis, I missed the wonderful Network Neutrality event that I planned and was not able to meet my quasi-obsession, Tim Wu.

However, scouring through the internet through hyperlinked Wikipedia articles instead of doing productive work like a good little U of C student (this is the part where we all snort into our pudding), I have discovered something quite interesting.

As I have mentioned before, I have law aspirations and was going through the Law School alumni at the University of Chicago Law School (where I hope to get in, provided my GPA doesn't go down on me--although it'll probably be the only thing that will go down on me for a while), and came to the profile of James Hormel, JD '58, and 1999 ambassador to Luxembourg. Read for yourself for the fun:

Hormel earned a B.A. in history (1955) from Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania and a law degree (1958) from the University of Chicago Law School where he later served as Dean. He was a member of the 1996 U.S. delegations to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the boards of directors of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He was appointed United States Ambassador to Luxembourg by President Bill Clinton in 1999. When he was appointed through a recess appointment, he became the first openly gay man to represent the United States as an ambassador. His partner, Timothy Wu, held the Bible on which he swore his oath of office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hormel

Although I assume no relation, I find this entry quite humorous nonetheless, given my previous rantings about law school, gay men, and the University of Chicago.

Admissions Essay

2007-10-30T20:01:00.000-07:00

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.

HIPS Response 2

2007-10-08T18:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Deconstructing Sappho

2007-10-01T21:58:00.001-07:00

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.

A Dialogue Concerning Absolutely Nothing At All

2007-09-27T12:40:00.000-07:00

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]

The Return to the University of the Cruciatus

2007-09-26T12:48:00.000-07:00

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).

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

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?

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.

A Letter from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Regarding Internet Radio

2007-09-24T11:33:00.001-07:00

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.

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

Who else thinks this is a cut-and-paste job?

R&R Update

2007-09-12T10:31:00.001-07:00

So, I have taken about a month's worth of rest now--no nitrile gloves, no C. elegans, and definitely no crazy Russians. I've returned to Salt Lake City as a retreat and I have come to discover that rest is a very wonderful thing.

For the past three weeks, I have done nothing but veg around at home, watching pirated episodes of wonderful television series like Monk, Weeds, and Psych, and it has relaxed me to the point of apathy towards the outside world. However, being the little neurotic as I am, my work and the upcoming school year has been nagging at the back of my head and I dread what is waiting for me back in Hyde Park. I have to go back to the meat-grinder, taking courses and crying because of my stupidity, and I also have to look for a new lab job (since the old one did not bode so well). Of course, I'm also worried about crazy Russian since he is to be teaching my organic chemistry course for two quarters, so talk about awkward... especially if he finds out I moved to another lab. In fact, I've actually had some dreams and nightmares about said Russian, one involving me knocking on his door and finding a lion in his seat, me throwing a hamburger at it, and then running away as I read the sign: "Please don't feed the lion. Love, Your Crazy Russian" (seriously--he wrote out "Your Crazy Russian").

Speaking of love, I've been reconsidering my position here in Utah. I've been on the U of U campus for several days and I realized that the men on campus here are much better-looking than the men on the U of C campus. In fact, I think most campuses have better-looking men than our campus. It's a sad plight, really, especially considering the fact that college is supposedly this nonstop orgy. However, I have noticed one thing about the men on these other campuses (yes, I can make this judgment because I've actually visited other campuses as well): generally, good-looking men tend to be good-looking in a naive and rather stupid way (judging by my listening in to their conversations about the difficulties of trigonometry, something I assumed was mastered in junior high school), and those men that are good-looking and smart tend to be assholes (our school is pretty much littered with those, assuming you can find these illusive good-looking men). It's a bleak prospect for me: I tend to like good-looking men, but I also tend to like them smart, yet how can I find one that is remotely tolerable and not full of unbearable pomp? In the off-hand chance I find a guy who is smart, good-looking, and genuine wholesome good-guy, what are the chances he'd be attracted in me? Oh well, you can't win them all.

Of course, many say my problem is that I tend to have extremely tight ideals that do not reflect men in reality. I perhaps lust after academic, political, and humanitarian celebrities, along with the occasional actor or director in the mix (I still have to get over my fixation on Gerard Butler). What's interesting is that these celebrities tend to be Caucasian men, especially those of Jewish or of Irish descent. I do not have any particular attraction towards Asian men, but today, I have found an exception to my non-Asian rule. Tim Wu, Professor of Law at Columbia University, is a major hottie, focusing on telecommuncations law, international trade law, and is probably most well-known for his advocacy of network neutrality. This scores especially high with me, considering I'm one of those people who advocate an uninhibited marketplace of ideas, which would best follow a freemarket scheme. Of course, I'm judging only by his looks and his work; I have no idea how personable he is, but hey, a hot Asian. Something new. Granted, he is mixed--Taiwanese father and English mother, but much more attractive than that Daniel Henney character. However, despite my praise for Wu's work, I have to admit that politically he and I may disagree--judging by his political contributions, he seems to lean liberal left, but nothing that makes him a dealbreaker. Of course, this is assuming that he is interested in a crazy Asian U of C chemist-in-training and hopefull IP attorney (yes, I have decided to apply to law school after I receive a Ph. D in chemistry, hopefully even an LL. M), and if he is, he knows where to find me.

Little Boxes (Weeds Theme Song)

2007-09-03T23:18:00.000-07:00

"Little Boxes"
Malvina Reynolds
Theme Song to Showtime's Weeds

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes, little boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All go to the university,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
And there's doctors and there's lawyers
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf-course,
And drink their Martini dry,
And they all have pretty children,
And the children go to school.
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
And they all get put in boxes
And they all come out the same.

And the boys go into business,
And marry, and raise a family,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

happy clappy birthday

2007-09-03T23:15:00.000-07:00

"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!

Some More Kline Extracts

2007-08-15T14:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Punishing the Pride of Kantians and Mathematicians

2007-08-13T09:44:00.000-07:00

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.

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...

An Odd Curtain Call

2007-08-10T13:49:00.001-07:00

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!

"Practical" Metaphysics for the Young Aspiring Transhumanist

2007-08-03T08:21:00.000-07:00

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.

Hypocrite. I am a Hypocrite.

2007-07-31T11:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Ray Kurzweil! Posthuman THIS!!

2007-07-28T21:39:00.000-07:00

"Ray Kurzweil! Posthuman THIS!!" So screamed Bill Dvorak, the self-described so-called "freedom fighter" and "ex-egoist," at Raymond Kurzweil on Thursday evening, the 26th of July. As Dvorak scrambled to run outside of the Simpson theatre in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the crowd laughed at him and cheered for Ray's awkward response of, "Well, I hope that I could possibly become post-biological..."

The past week was one of the most amazing weeks I've gone through, and probably the best of the summer. And not just because I wasn't in lab. TransVision 2007 was held this year in Chicago from July 24th to July 26th, ending up with a gala awards dinner that involved an embarrasing moment that I have decided to withold from the general public. I was volunteering for it, just as a member of the Democratic Transhumanists at the U of C, being mildly interested in the issues it presents, such as life extension, artificial intelligence, and other "future" technologies. However, this conference has changed me from merely a passive observer to an activist ready to mobilize for the cause of preparing for the singularity that is about to occur sooner than later. I am ready to face the future.

I first encountered Transhumanism when I was surfing the web last summer and finding myself on Wikipedia. The feature article that day was on Transhumanism, which was something that I had never heard of before, and I was intrigued, thinking that it was some sort of new age movement. After reading the article, I was somewhat disgusted by the notions of it, thinking that it is a new religious movement that is focused around using science as a basis for their mysticism. I didn't think much of it while I finished up my summer courses at Salt Lake Community College and I went to Korea to see my father before I began school at the Univ. of Chicago. Being separated for more than six years, we obviously had an awkward time trying to reconnect personally, so instead we talked about politics, economics, and technology--topics that provide stimulating talk but not requiring us to get any closer to each other than comfortable. Before he went on sick leave for his colon cancer, my father worked for the emerging sciences Science Advisory Board of Samsung, and was therefore extremely well-versed in different upcoming technologies. He was really excited about combining biotechnology and information technology and tried to explain "cognitronics," which he interpreted as enhancing psychic ability (something I have never found much online about, but judging by the name, it seems to refer more towards connecting the human brain to non-biological objects, such as a robotic arm that is separate from the body--this is why I believe that anyone dealing in the science industry should be expertly trained in the sciences, even if they are more administrators than developers). With these new ideas buzzing around in my head, I entered the Univ. of Chicago 2010, ready to embrace the changing world through interdisciplinary research.

After joining facebook, I have made a friend who had an interest in Transhumanism. I was fascinated by her, seeing that she had so much on her profile that deemed her to be cool, so I messaged her and friended her, excited that I had fun friends at the U of C. I started classes, yet I never saw her on campus, which discouraged me from further looking into Transhumanism. Meanwhile, I had a really cool molecular biology lab TA who was in awesome clothes and had a really chill, yet amazingly professional demeanor. I bonded with her instantly, but then halfway through the quarter I realized... wow, she's the Transhumanist on facebook! The next time I went to biolab, I jumped on her and started jibbering like a school girl, "I KNOW YOU! I KNOW YOU!!!" We've been the best of friends ever since.

Gradually, working with her and another Transhumanist friend who graduated from Northwestern in 2005, I took more of Transhumanism and slowly digested it. I was still skeptical, of course, because it seemed to me that the movement took too much on faith. First of all, I argued, any long-term predictions regarding the future are extremely imprecise, usually inaccurate, and always a long shot. Second of all, Transhumanism seemed to have this utopian dream of paradise brought on by diverging technological development. Of course paradigm shifts can always change the outlook, but that in itself defies prediction, which would discount any Transhumanist theory in the first place. I kept this attitude well into this summer and considered Transhumanism somewhat of a crazy-people movement, which I was quite interested in, but never fully devoted myself to. Even to the first meeting, I wondered if there was any value in volunteering for the TransVision conference, which was conveniently held in Chicago this year. I decided that I was attending out of convenience and convinced myself to commit since it was a nice break from work. However, starting from the very first meeting, I noticed that something very radical was about to begin.

I was met by a group of diverse opinions who have read texts in neuroscience, philosophy, and evolutionary biology far beyond anything I've encountered, and they were ready to tear my misconceptions about Transhumanists apart. Philosophers, artists, biologists, mathematicians, and sociologists all came to debate the future of evolutionary trends, and this was just the group of volunteers! As the event went on, speakers gave their talks while attendees and volenteers had intense conversations that resonated something inside my core; I felt that even though these were non-U of C peoples (although there were several people affiliated with the U of C), we were all reaching for that same level of intellectualism that leaves most people behind, paddling along on driftwood. Admittedly, it was quite different from the general brilliance of the U of C (there were many mystics there with their new agey nonsense), but despite the self-taught individuals (some of whom, like Eliezer Yudkowsky, are more than brilliant), there was something here that is very lacking in pure U of C conversation--passionate conviction. Of course I like to quote Nietzsche: "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truths than lies," but the imminence of radical change and the acceptance of needing to take action for not just betterment, but for self-preservation, really materializes the relevance of these discourses. I am now also an active Transhumanist.

It's a bit of a gamble, I admit, to associate myself with a fringe group of thinkers. Although you have mainstream people like William Shatner or Ray Kurzweil (although some might argue against my standards of mainstream), Transhumanism really is an extreme paradigm that will undoubtedly shock the general public. However, regardless of whether or not Transhumanists' specific predictiions come true, it is inevitable that great changes due to social, technological, and biological evolution are always in front of us. Therefore, I too have jumped the bandwagon. These issues are real. These issues are relevant. These issues will decide whether or not we as intelligent life will survive. I think it is time to take action. As Ray Kurzweil wrote in my copy of The Singularity is Near, Welcome to the Singularity.

Update

2007-07-19T14:05:00.001-07:00

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)

2007-07-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

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...

Hatred: A Conversation with Friend Regarding Contempt for Summer, Hyde Park, and PI (And I Ain't Talking About Pastries...)

2007-07-17T17:32:00.000-07:00

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

Corrigendum--Internet Radio

2007-07-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

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)

Internet Radio

2007-07-11T11:29:00.000-07:00

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

Conspiracy Theory—Need I Even Respond?

2007-07-10T17:53:00.000-07:00

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:

“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.

Re: Singleton with "Inner Poise"‎

2007-07-06T08:44:00.000-07:00

Dear Sir,

It was with pleasure that I read your account of your life and times in Hyde Park.In an effort to doff my hat to your screed, I've placed a glossary of craigslist terms that I hope will help demystify the advertisements therein. I would like to note that while I am not offering myself as a candidate for your boyfriend—I am 4.25 years too old—I am trying to encourage literary and amusing posts that do not rely on anatomical details that are trivialized by both experience and darkness.

I am, sir, very sincerely yours,

-[Name Censored]

3-day load toys with others and self on the internet (also 4-day, 5-day, etc.)
420 marijuana
420 cool usually stoned
69 mutual fellating
6x6 Length and circumference of penis
7x6 6x5
8x6 6x5
9x6 6.1x5.1
A Asian
adventurous does not always use a condom
affectionate horny
anonymous sex not followed by a meal (see friendship)
athletic wears many changes of gym clothes and usually fetishizes teenagers; occasionally, goes to gym
average shape introspective
B Blackbb or barebacking HIV+
BDSM Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism
BDSM expert lots and lots of disposable income
bear exceedingly hairy, usually, exceedingly large as well
bi usually, had one girlfriend in high school or college
bj blow job: oral sex
bl blue (eyes, very rarely hair)
bottom the insertee in an anal encounter; usually, pretends not to be in control, but is (see top)
boy man
br brown (hair or eyes)
bro homophobic
bubble butt white-collar job
buddhist Christian (usually Catholic)
butch wears tanned hides of dead animals
c (as in 47c) chest size (in inches--usually over 40)
47c 42c
c (as in 6c) circumcised,
with penis length in inches (usually, an integer)
10c 6c
cbt Cock-and-Ball Torture, or BDSM (see elsewhere) focussed on the genitals
chill we have to pretend to be straight for at least five minutes (later, while copulating, TV blasts ESPN)
clean-cut (usually) my parents are Republican, but I voted Democrat
chub or chubby heavy, heavy, heavyweightc
hubby chaser a man who pursues chubbies for sex
cum one, cum all I'm a picture collector: no sex
dd-free drug and disease free
discreet closet case
discrete not very edumakated: see above
duty free wrong craiglist
femme uninterested in sport
sff fist-fucking: usually, the hand is shaped like a duck and not fisted
flake someone who uses an unscheduled absence to make you masturbate
friendship sex followed by a meal (see anonymous)
furry hairy
G Gay
(no) gag no gag reflex: can touch the tip of your penis to the back of his throat
gl good-looking: usually, normal-looking
golden enema sex plus pissing
golden shower pissing, not necessarily with sex
gr green (as in eyes)
HIV- sexually active
HIV+ brave and honest
hot medium-hot
hung or very well-hung has a penis
hwp height-weight proportionate: no six-pack, sorry
iso in search of
jo jack-off: manual masturbation
jock subscribes to Men's Health
kick back must be willing to pretend to be straight for up to five minutes (see chill)
L Latin
Let's do this NOW!!! deeply closeted
looking for workout partner looking for gym scenes
ltr long-term relationship, i.e. more than one hour of foreplay
masculine wears jeans and flannel shirts
must travel roommate, parent, boyfriend, wife, or very sensitive dog is home
no bs must have sex his way, or not at all
no strings has a boyfriend
naturally smooth been around enough to tell when someone's been depilated and waxed; no back bristles
party (boy) E-tard or cocaine, speed, K, or GBH use(r)
PNP party (a)n(d) play: meth/amphetamine use followed by sex
poppers erection difficulties
rt rough trade: sex with a straight man with flamboyantly displayed homophobia: see straight, see thug
sensitive horny
sincere horny
smooth refers to hairlessness, not sexual technique
spiritual (possibly) priest or someone who uses his ltr relationship with a higher power to justify his actions
stats a description, in 4 or 5 round numbers, of a body
std sexually transmitted disease
straight or str8 closeted
therapeutic massage passive-aggressive game-playing call boy
tight ass dislikes foreplay
thug someone widda lotta attitude, makin believe he ain't inna no dude
top the insertor in an anal encounter; usually, thinks he's in control, but isn't (see bottom)
ts transsexual
tt tittie torture a.k.a. nipple play
tv transvestite
twink Twinkie: blond, pale, creamy boy, easily squished
u/c uncircumcised: often, Catholic
versatile/bottom bottom
versatile/top bottom
VGL I think I should be a model but strangely I am not
W White
w (as in 32w) waist size, in inches
32w 34w, holding breath
wiry strung-out

------------------------------------------------------------------
this message was remailed to you via: pers-367224277@craigslist.org
------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaaaaand, we're back!

2007-06-28T11:43:00.000-07:00

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.

The patent threat to designer biology

2007-06-23T09:19:00.000-07:00

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."

Thanateros, Thou Double-Headed God-Figure

2007-06-14T13:54:00.000-07:00

Death and sex. Sex and death. I have invoked these two deities and since then, I have yet to free myself from their torment. They have plagued my every day thoughts and they creep up on me, taunting me at my inability to attain any distance on either of them. I am denied sex, so I wish to die. Death refuses me, so I am forced to seek comfort through sex. Lovely.

I'll admit, it's not as melodramatic as I put it. I'm probably writing this only because I am currently sitting at Hallowed Grounds and an extremely attractive guy in a red shirt is sitting right next to me (he can't read it what I am typing and even if he could, he's too busy discussing black metal with my friend). As usual, I'm sulking in the background, pretending to be invisible, or failing to play the role of the demure temptress. Finding men is an extremely difficult task for me, considering the percentage of men attracted to males is not anywhere near a fifth of the population of men, and those that are seek some youthful Apollo, not this gorgon with an extremely foul attitude (don't forget, the flaaaabs of fat). I have attempted to go through the entire "accept yourself for who you are" facade promoted by pop psychology and the self-help industry. I've even done away with any standards, because then I'd be "too selective" and weed out "potential great guys." Riiiight. First of all, I might have high standards, but men who are attracted to men tend to have outrageous standards, or at least standards that I cannot meet.

Let us break this down into the choices that will generate the extremely low probability of my finding an attractive man who is also attracted to me (or just any man attracted to me at all).

-Condition 1: Men who are attracted to men. Self-explanatory.

-Condition 2: Men who are attracted to Asian males. An extremely daunting parameter, seeing as how the construction of homosexuality is extremely European.

-Condition 3: Men who are attracted to non-anorexic Asian males. Let's face it, Asians are, in general, pretty slim. Besides, I'm probably fatter than the average American as it is.

-Condition 4: Men who are attracted to men and do not attack non-Socialists. The "gay" identity is constructed on progressivism and a radical sense of egalitarianism to the point of forcing collectivism. The position of the so-called "gay" community is pretty left-leaning, so libertarians like me wouldn't really be welcome (or, rather, their rabid socialism wouldn't really be welcome to playful discourse, considering how they get all huffy and puffy at the slightest hint of otherificationization or whatever those PoMosexuals love to say nowadays).

These first four conditions will undoubtedly slim down the selection pool by quite a bit. In fact, choosing a significance parameter of 0.05 (I know that this is abusing statistical theory, but you get my point), these four conditions alone make it impossible to find men who gave even the slightest bit of probability to be attracted to me, and this statistic is based on the most superficial of things--I thought it would've been too depressing to see what the probability would be if I added "tolerant to my talking" to the conditions.
__________________________________________________________

It is officially two weeks since I first started this post (I started the post on 31 May, 2007--during which time, I have learned that the person I was gawking at was actually awkwardly trying to flirt with my friend and they ended up on an awkward date with an awkward ending that allows for me to make fun of my friend and bring up the whole awkwardness of the situation over and over and over again), and I still have much to complain about. I add here my complaints regarding the foibles of online dating. eHarmony is geared towards evangelical Christians and God knows I cannot afford the monthly premiums of personals and dating services online, so I have turned to Craigslist. Unfortunately, there are more ass and dick pictures littered across than face pictures, and the typical post reads:

Me: [Insert Height Here], [Insert Weight Here], [Insert Waist Size Here], GWM, VGL, athletic, hung, [Insert Inflated Cock Size Here], horny as hell, d/d free (u be to.)
You: Hot, inshape, no fats, no femmes

Um... right. I guess I have no right to complain; obviously some people regard physical stature as more important than intelligence. I have to admit, if I didn't say that looks were important, I'd be a hypocrite. But this entire deal is making me want to tear my hair out. I know what the solution is--go to the gym, drop 50 pounds, look fabulous, and get a tan (and who says that skin cancer runs in my family?) Yet, why do I have the feeling that this is not the only thing I have to work on?

Maybe it is the whole physical body thing. I've hated my weak constitution for as long as I can remember. I'm not morbidly obese, but I can't really say that I'm the gymnast I used to be. Truth be told, I enjoy this sedentary lifestyle because there is something soothing about hating the way you look and doing more to make sure that you become even more miserable. What makes it worse is the fact that I'm not that bad of an athlete--I love to hike, bike, run, and kick some ass. However, that perfectionist bit of my inner dialogue starts telling me that I'm not cut out for it and that I should just quit because I know that I won't be able to perform at the level that I'm supposed to (whatever the hell that level is). This self-hatred is something that I feel extremely confused about--I don't know if it makes me attractive or more repugnant. I guess a lot of it has to stem from the fact that I'm used to seeing romantic leads with low self-esteem and a somewhat cynical worldview and somehow in the movies it works out into some elaborate Cinderella story, in which I finally open my eyes and run after the man that was chasing after me, after a buildup of sexual tension ever since his stormy entrance which was indulged in during a night of revelry, followed by awkward silence, then a melodramatic confrontation. Yep, I know what kind of a relationship I want--it comes from watching too many Sandra Bullock movies.

I don't know why I'm even publishing this, considering it's not really that much of an academic ranting than it is a personal bloc of bitch, but I guess I'm continuing with it because somehow it helps me organize my thoughts. Hopefully I can find that half-Jew, half-Irish raised Catholic anthropology doctorate who joined the police force somewhere... But I really doubt things turn out the way you envision them. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Maybe.

FREEEEDOOOOMMMM!!!!!

2007-06-08T19:14:00.000-07:00

Well, for about a week. Then I return to Hyde Park to work over the summer--then I'll probably know whether or not I will continue in chemistry.

Finals are over (sort of--my biophysics professor still needs to send me back comments on second drafts of the final papers) and I'm all moved out. I woke up at seven AM and got done at nine PM. No time for breaks. I haven't even eaten yet, so food sounds exciting. I will write more when I'm less emotionally turbulent.

Fuck me...

2007-05-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

What the fuck am I doing?

Bugger me...

2007-05-28T12:39:00.000-07:00

So, since when was "philosophizing" synonymous with "speculating?" Obviously, there are traits the two actions share, but it seems quite a bit unfair (notice the rhyme) to lump those two together. Still, I can't help but think that these two actions, philosophizing and speculating, are pretty much what makes up the foundation of my being. Or, at least my current obsession.

Truth is, I haven't noticed how I've narrated my life until quite recently. Well, it's more like, I've watched television shows that are narrated by a protagonist, which would obviously mean that the protagonist should be the highlight of the show, yet there is a sense of omniscience the viewer is given, something that is not necessarily common with a first-person account in writing. Perhaps it's due to the different media, but I find myself doing the same--narrating events that are beyond my presence. But maybe I'm not narrating them myself--obviously I read events or hear about them from secondary sources like periodicals, but I find myself distancing myself from my body in order to narrate them. But to whom? Do I narrate this just because some day, it might make a great read and a sustainable source of income for whatever drug habit I've developed? Do I narrate this, hoping to structure it in such a way that I follow the narrative features of a novel or story (televised or not) in hopes that I too can become a hero or heroine? Perhaps I dictate this to myself, a distanced, detached self, who is in need of reawakening?

Anyway, I've realized that I have a wonderful gift of disappearing into the realms of self-narration and watching television shows. To be honest, it's not necessarily like I do it on my own. In fact, a friend of mine has introduced me to Scrubs and Dead Like Me, two of the more talkative shows in terms of narration, but I don't know if I myself narrate like that. Perhaps I do and I'm just not aware. Perhaps I find it attractive and force myself to follow such a style. In either case, I've found myself becoming more prone to rambling, incomplete thoughts, and loose semiotic associations--whereas, before, I would polish... oh, what the hell am I saying? I've always had a sense of aloofness when discussing ideas. It's as if I believed that merely invoking the name of a concept or a thinker would somehow evoke some sort of magical powers that will make my argumentation much more powerful by the presence of the holiest of holies--dead intellectuals. It's amazing how I do this speculating and still manage to stay in school. But I've really come to a point where I've lost my ability to concentrate on anything practical or immediately important. All of my attention has turned upwards, towards the ideals of Plato, if only in the case of me attacking them. I admit, I turn to metaphysics much too often for my own good, which probably makes me a hypocrite. However, there's something extremely alluring about Platonic mysticism that has drawn me to seek it and explore it. It's truly different--explaining a phenomenon and actually experiencing it. Perhaps I'm going through some sort of spiritual enlightenment. I can only hope.

It seems interesting to me that Bertrand Russell gives us two major camps in Classical Greek philosophy that I can pretty much attribute to the entirety of philosophical discourse: on the one hand, you have the Dionysians with bacchanalia and all sorts of emotional ecstasy. On the other hand, you have the polytheists, using cool logic and reason to explain phenomena. I admit that my interpretation could be extremely off, especially since it has been far too long since I've last touched Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. I have, myself (although not claiming this categorization to be original at all), deduced two camps--metaphysicians and materialists. However, it becomes even more difficult, as the methods used by the metaphysicians include both reason and mysticism. However, reason seems to be most closely tied to materialism, as the criterion of physical reality seems to be the most immediate (I can already hear the postmodernists claiming my "privileging" physical reality over other necessary realities). As I have explained in one of my previous posts, it seems to me that I categorize modes of thought in two ways--reason and mysticism (mysticism being the set of thought such that it is the complement set to reason in the universal set of thought; or, less pretentiously, anything that is not reason). But now that I look at it, why do I make such distinctions in the first place?

Recently, I've been very drawn to Judaism. My friends will probably blame it on my Semitophilia (I can't help it; I happen to think that Jewish men are extremely attractive), but there is a certain rigor to Judaism. All of the commentaries, all of Jewish thought, is argued with extremely comprehensive evidence and tidy logic. Of course, this doesn't help the fact that the basis of all of this reason is a set of texts that was "revealed" (i.e. not reasoned out, but inspired mystically), but maybe there is something to Judaism that reveals a fundamental truth within reality. Then again, we can say the same thing about any religion, especially given the tendency for Eastern mystics to show their compatability with some interpretations of modern physics. Maybe it's this value of truth that I must finally abandon before I become fully committed to my nihilism. Whatever it is, I have to resolve it or ignore it so I can get back to work. Now that, my friends, is an extremely sad revelation.

Case for Faith? Case for Anything at All?

2007-05-27T20:12:00.000-07:00

I have been bothered by this issue for quite some time: the need for a metanarrative that explains the human experience by contextualizing it (usually) in a metaphysical scheme. Thus enter religion, the Enlightenment, capitalism, socialism, etc.--all attempting to make sense of the confusing labyrinth that we as individuals and as groups/communities wander through, going mad at every turn and losing direction with every step forward.

I have turned to a sense of radical skepticism, pure Cartesian doubt, that has put me in quite a precarious situation. I am without truth or direction, but I find myself needing it. I look for signs. I seek visions--religious, philosophical, reductionistic, or holistic epiphanies, but I find myself lacking in any confirmation of any absolute value. Yet, unlike someone who is true to one's beliefs, I am unable to abandon the very values that I deconstruct, only to find myself withering because of my inability to stick to the meta-conviction of ridding myself of convictions, only to trap myself in quite a rut.

By reading the realist perspective on epistemic relativism (Sokal and Bricmont's book, Fashionable Nonsense), I was convinced by the fact that we can make arguments of "objective reality," even without establishing absolute proof of its existence. Sokal and Bricmont agree that radical skepticism and solipsism cannot be refuted, but it is impractical to continue with such silliness when you can play in the system called "nature." A friend of mine who has graduated from Northwestern University's epistemology program has also given me this same argumentation: it is impossible to establish absolute knowledge, but when we suspend that belief and create a rigorous self-consistent system, its beauty will be such that we forget the pettiness of nihilism and absorb ourselves into the beauty of phenomenological experience. Similarly, science attempts to establish the natural world as the criterion for examining various claims, although it is very careful to make sure that its boundaries are not crossed (although many have, Cf. abortion and "personhood"). However, does this itself not sound like a form of mysticism? Science establishes faith in an outside world that is supposedly independent of subjective experience, but categorizes everything else under this undefined region called "subjective experience." Similarly, mysticism and other forms of metaphysics dismiss the physical world as a source of delusion and, in many cases, evil (for example, Gnosticism, the Dharmic religions, and esoteric Christianity hold strongly to this anti-materialism). It seems to me that truth does not necessarily exist, as the realists try to define it, and it is based on choice. Of course, this is the viewpoint that I have always established as the beginning of all my ontological and epistemological discourse, but I have never felt such a strong conviction of such a thing. By this road, any form that can be fitted into the experience--any interpretation or explanation--is valid as long as it fits the system. I have had a similar experience with reading about formal systems and the interpretations of algorithms made by Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach, but I have not established its implications to this extent--what if the system itself is an interpretation? That would mean that there is no beginning or end, something can be created out of nothing, yet that something is nothing and that nothing is something. Of course, to Analytics and other forms of rigorous philosophy, this entire rant is pure bullshit. There is nothing "meaningful" in my sentences or my analysis. But regardless of the somethingness or nothingness in this post, there is something that compells the sharing of this story--my humanity. Although my friends may disagree with my assessment, I believe that Jodie Foster's performance in the adaptation of Carl Sagan's Contact truly holds some undefined essence of humanity--belief, awe, and humanity. Of course, sharing it, continues to be nothing but a wish, but that experience, that awe and inspiration... perhaps that is what is a spiritual experience. If I were somewhat sober in the sense of being a reductionist, I would argue that the claim I am making attempts to establish aesthetics over truth, but maybe there is something in the aesthetic that I can play with. Perhaps it is through the aesthetic, I can rediscover faith and spirituality. However, I do not know where I stand, for I cannot maintain the existence of anything at all--physical, metaphysical, ante-physical. Perhaps all I can say is I'm looking for something. It doesn't matter if it exists or if it doesn't. It's just a search. It's just being human.

Have you ever transcended space and time?

2007-05-27T17:30:00.000-07:00

"Yes. No. Uh, time, not space. No, I don't know what you're talking about....."--Jason Schwartzman, I Heart Huckabees.

Cruelty, manipulation, and meaninglessness. Caterine Vauban presents these three concepts as the constants of the universe in her seminal work If Not Now... True to her school of existential nihilism, Vauban's "method" (Vauban's method of existential therapy as opposed to the Jaffes' method) teaches us to deconstruct our minds to the blackness, accept the reality as it is--a manifestation of pure evil and human toil. Armed with such a powerful weapon, one is therefore able to dismantle the fundamental glue of experience, shredding apart the so-called "blanket of reality" that represents all the matter and energy in the universe. Essentially, there's dust and particles over there, us over here, and good and bad luck in between. That's chaos. That's our being.

Aside from such light metaphysical quandry introduced to us in I Heart Huckabees, there's probably a greater lesson in such a blunt jab at modern existentialism. Truly, there is nothing to demonstrate a higher purpose or any higher meaning. Bernard and Vivian Jaffe argue that there is an interconnectedness that binds all things together, thus creating a meaning in the experience of existence. Caterine Vauban, on the other hand, teaches that such existential quandries are the result of human drama and once the human being realizes that there is nothing beyond the manure, the return to drama begins. Either way, there is no room for anything divine or anything supernatural; assuming that there is a connection, a design in it all, it's nothing too special to begin with. So why do we continue our futile search? Why do we continue to play the role of Sisyphus?

To be very honest, I'm a radical skeptic, in fact even a solipsist, at heart. There's no way that I can be sure that there is any phenomenological discourse taking place. However, playing the role of the agnostic theist, I have to speculate on why I continue to seek some sort of higher purpose behind all of our meandering. I'd say that it's an extremely human thing to do. Now, I can already hear the cries of "hypocrisy!" and "contradiction!" when linked with my previous arguments against perennialists and neoclassicists. Some might argue that I'm proposing some sort of metaphysics within the human experience... which, to be honest, is kind of true. Human experience is not a purely biological experience, considering that our experience does not base themselves on a biologically-conscious level. Well, perhaps it is. After all, we must ask ourselves if our thoughts are some sort of activity that occurs in an abstract dimension that is beyond the reach of physical measurement, or if they are merely a coherent pattern of neural firing and self-conscious information embedded within some sort of probability field that defines the field of the universe (although the latest of the proposed mechanisms is probably something that is even more fundamental than biology itself). But what the fuck am I talking about?

In the end, there's no need to say anything other than "WE'RE FUCKED!! HOLY SHIT WE'RE FUCKED!!!!" As depressing as it sounds (not to mention terrifying), there's a certain comedy in it. I mean, it's really hilarious if you think about it. I don't know why I'm laughing. Perhaps it's because the other option would be crying. But if it's so depressing and so hopeless that you can't cry about it, doesn't that mean we have no other choice but to laugh?

Presentations

2007-05-17T20:29:00.000-07:00

I am the world's most godawful presenter. My last three weeks at group meetings have been nothing short of extremely awkward.

Two weeks ago, a lab colleague was presenting a paper on a genomics finding that indicates something called "reducible complexity" as opposed to irreducible complexity that the creationists tout as proof for an intelligent designer. As an ardent anti-IDist, I could not contain myself and started making snide comments. Clearly feeling a bit awkward by my jeering, my colleague said, "so, anyway, this key-and-lock theory," to which I replied "or 'Talking Serpent Theory'," which was not the smartest idea, considering the fact that 60% of my lab is Catholic.

Last week, I presented a review paper on genetic accomodation versus genetic acclimation, and barely thirty seconds into my paper, my boss interrupts me, and starts picking me apart. For thirty minutes, I try to respond to his barrage of questions and save face while he just shreds me into little pieces. I'm extremely lucky that I'm taking a journal seminar with Steve Kron, because otherwise I would've just fallen apart and cried right there.

This week, I decided to put myself at a strategic advantage by selecting a primary paper on molecular chaperones and their effects on mutation (underlying theory: genomically damaged proteins in some prokaryotes are still functional, which indicates that there is some sort of extra-genomic control of protein function--molecular chaperones are proteins that stablize protein folding in post-translational processes, although the direct mechanism is unknown). This time, the presentation of the paper itself went quite smoothly... until I decided to be all Steve Kron and tear the paper apart. I couldn't help myself! Their alternative hypothesis to chaperones directly affecting misshapen proteins was downright stupid: the chaperones probably affect other proteins that interact with functional stability. Uh... in other words, the protein that they claim is their molecular chaperone wasn't, in fact, a molecular chaperone. And this is without considering their measurement criterion of stability: growth. I mean, yes, growth is a phenotype, but there is so much more to growth than Zuo1!! Of course, I went on and on and I got weird looks. Let's face it. I suck at science presentations.

Here's something that pisses me off though. I claim that I hate molecular biology. I really do. I'm very open about my hatred for molecular biology. Unfortunately, it seems to be the only subject area I can actually read papers in! Steve Kron has definitely turned me into a molecular biologist, and what's bad about this is the fact that I'm a horrible molecular biologist! I don't know. I really don't know what to say about myself. So many inconsistencies. So many revelations of my own stupidity. I'm not saying this out of low self-esteem. I'm just being extremely matter-of-fact. I have no idea what the fuck I'm doing. And, you know I am going to say this, but, neither do you. Of course, I'm not saying this because I know you. I say it because it's a somewhat poetic way to end a rant. But I believe its purpose has been lost. IAO XAOS!

Addendum II

2007-05-16T16:30:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I was too rash in including all the disciplines of social studies in my rant. I have to admit, those in anthropology and sociology have a better grasp of the scientific method than most physicists, chemists, and biologists do (probably because they have always had to defend their area of study against people like me.) Nevertheless, the integration, as can be seen in sociobiology, seems to indicate that these areas are more willing to discard metaphysical values. Manny, on the other hand, is not.

Addendum

2007-05-16T15:54:00.000-07:00

Apparently this Mansfield guy is pretty big in political science. I feel that I have stumped him in regards to the existential foundation of his entire inquiry and I feel very saddened that a silly little undergrad, who is failing his Core classes, can totally thwart this big powerful bogeyman. On this, I have much to be silent about.

Mansfield Lecture: Of θυμος and Other Social Ideas

2007-05-16T14:56:00.000-07:00

Social "Science"... such a term is one of the most offensive of ideas, and usually I am one for offensive ideas, but... puh-lease!

Sitting here in SSR 122, listening to one Harvey C. Mansfield hold a lecture on the idea of θυμος, a Greek (obviously) term denoting "spiritedness," or a human desire to be reckoned. Mansfield's lecture on political science and identity politics claims that the basis of power is recognition. Obviously, considering that he's a Straussian, he tends to ignore any postmodern counterdefinitions of power (though I do not necessarily say that their definition is any better). He mourns the fact that "science" (one can only assume he speaks of natural sciences) attempts to remove the human element of things.

Drawing on classical Greek texts (as can be expected from any perennialist), Mansfield attempts to assert this θυμος as the basis of all political exchange (and, of course, he would object the term "exchange"). He puts on this "human face" and "soul" as the drive of any political action... and yet he attacks science?

I love it when social studies attempt to assert themselves as "science." It's so cute at times, but when I meet perennialists, there's some part of me that starts to gag. It seems to me that the social "sciences" draws too much on the blindness of the humanities, that which we call "spirit." The terms "good," "evil," "humanity," and "self" pollute any honest discourse that attempts to look at an objective reality (let us play the role of agnostic realist--solipsism at heart, but realism just for practical purposes). Whatever arguments the social "sciences" bring out, they depend on what Nietzsche attacks in his Beyond Good and Evil--the Metaphysical World. This second world, based on the folly of Plato and other classicists (not to mention also the Vedic scriptures), is the exact speculative idealism that science challenges. Science does not necessarily discount the existence of a "metaphysical world", but it tests the ideas of those who subscribe this idealism to (1) self-consistency, and (2) objective reality. I know many can argue that this objective reality in itself is something that can be attacked, but does that not make the metaphysical world even more so susceptible to challenge?

I will not go into Mansfield's power formula of science (science= man over nonman), but his continued attack on science is really starting to piss me off. He claims that there are two different types of biologies, for instance--modern biology and the "biology of Aristotle and Plato." I do not believe that the former requires any explanation, but the latter... whooo boy. He claims that the "biology of Aristotle and Plato" is a biology that addresses both the physical body and the spiritual. Obviously, he has never heard of the Scientific Method that separates science from natural philosophy. Philosophy. Such a subject is one I tend to enjoy, even as a scientist because of its acceptance of its own limits (and, of course, the overwelcoming acceptance of the limits of others). However, modern philosophy (modern Analytic philosophy, at least), does not claim any absolutes either. According to Mansfield: "modern biology saves lives, ancient biology helps us understand them better." Ancient biology? You mean zoology? This claim of "meaning" is the problem with the classicists, especially Straussians--the metaphysical values of the Enlightenment are called into question of validity due to their subjectivity and the mere fact that it is based on an interpretation of stochastic data.

Perhaps I am too critical. My approach is somewhat clumsy as it is one that deals with the physical world as opposed to the delightful flowery language of the social/metaphysical world. I have asked Dr. Mansfield whether or not θυμος is a metaphysical property, and he believes it to be physical as it is observable. Of course, there is a wonderful little maxim I love to spout "correlation does not imply causation," but his explanation degenerated into a very confusing and muddling monologue of classical authors and random scientific terms. Perhaps there is more to Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense--although it should be more focused on attacking classicism than postmodernism. Perhaps there is no true academic discipline that is truly honest, save mathematics. At least with mathematics, we have a self-contained system. But the existence of natural numbers and their tendency to break from defined laws...? We are truly lost in our position and we are doomed to be lost in unknowability. Maya maya maya maya...

A Missed Connection: Your Name

2007-05-14T00:13:00.000-07:00

I forgot it, your name
But I remember who you were
You were the one who smiled at me
When no one else could see me
I saw you crossing Michigan Ave
When I nearly fell off the bridge
You were the one who held on to me
When I almost fell into the tracks
You were always there for me
When I was close to ending it all
But now I never see you again.

I miss it, your glowing smile
Your strong grip
Your warm strength
Those arms that held onto me
Never letting me stray
Quieting me, consoling me
When I was left for dead

But now again, I am lying on the streets
Wondering when you'll show up again
See me, Help me, Save me

Several months passed by and not a single sign I wished you'd appear
Strong jaw, kind face, and that smile
But now that I remember your name I realize that I will never see you again
Because your name is Hope
Something I have lost in waiting.

2007-05-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

So, I'm a total fuckup. Today, I presented a paper at group meeting about genetic accomodation and bidirectionality of information, and Rustem, my boss and P(ain)I(n the ass) totally ripped me apart for twenty minutes straight. However, I do deserve it for thinking that I can present something or do something in the sciences. God, what am I thinking? I have no sense of direction whatsoever. I hold onto this labjob because I believe that it's the ticket to success, but how will I be able to continue down this road when I feel exhausted with it already? Yes, there are arguments that rebuke my childishness--after all, I'm only a first year in the College, but attending the University of Chicago makes me realize that I'm not at all smart, and, even worse, neither is anybody who claims to be.

Truth is, Steve Kron, my bio seminar teacher (who is awesome yet extremely blood-thirsty), has shown me the utter incompetence of the authors of the many papers being published, and Staci with an "i", my loving TA, revealed to me the disgusting politics and sheer stupidity that pollutes scientific discourse. Maybe I'm approaching this from a totally off angle, but shouldn't honesty and rigor be the basis of science, not bullshit? I was asking this question to one of my classmates last night (or early this morning, if we want to be very technical), and instead of continuing what could've been an interesting conversation, he began to berate me on insignificant things, while steering the conversation off topic (case in point--Me: "Well, this is what I was referring to, Bayes' Formula, so-" Him: "I don't want to look at it." Me: "Oh... kay... I just wanted to show my argument in mathematical form since I'm obviously not explaining it well." Him: "I don't want to be looking at it and fill my brain with it when I'm trying to fill my brain with biochem." Me: "But you asked me to explain--" Him "Which you couldn't, so you don't know what you're talking about.") I don't mind "eccentricity," but if he defines being a total ass as being "eccentric," then I think I would feel much better if I put him down with thorazine and chained him against a wall, only when he wakes up, I'll be administering electroshock that paralyzes... I trust you get the point. Of course, there is one other classmate who is in my mathematics course that I get annoyed with (but for a different smugness that I perceive as hostile and extremely sassy--this is my personal way of describing him, so if you think of him differently, so be it, but he's really a bitch--a fucking cunt, if you fesbian leminists would forgive me for such language), yet without going too much futher into my contempt with specific people, I just want to say that I'm surrounded by jerkwads in all directions. Perhaps they'll read this and snicker at my "vulgar" speech, but to you who are so squeamish, to you who are pedantic, to you who are smarter than me yet act as if you're much more immature than me (and I can get pretty immature), FUCK YOU. I have no trouble in admitting that I don't have all the answers. I don't resent the fact that you're smarter than me (well, I do, but I can at least acknowledge that without being a total ass about it). But, FUCK YOU. If you're reading this and having yourself a good laugh, go on, laugh ahead. I don't believe in karma. I don't believe in retribution. And to tell you the truth, you may be much better than me and achieve much greater things than I will ever do with my existence. But know, for what it's worth, that I was honest and had the decency to acknowledge my limits without being a pompous ass. Who knows? Maybe the next person you piss off will not be as restrained or as weak as I am. I can live with that hope that there is such a thing as balance in the universe, despite my solipsism, and if not now...

This rant has been brought to you by The Life of the Mind at The Univ. of Chicago.

Death, Death, Death All Around

2007-05-06T23:41:00.000-07:00

"God is dead." Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Humanity is dead." Status quo.
"Reality is dead." Grobacher et al.
"Truth is dead." Extension from above.
"Fun is dead." The University of Chicago.

A Personal Rant of Which There Holds No Significance Other than Catharsis of an Imperfect Human Being

2007-05-02T21:12:00.000-07:00

There is a wonderful thing called "synchronocity" that I used to cherish. I once believed that the various coincidences and the seemingly profound realizations I've received from random experiences are proof that there is some sort of order to all of this, some sort of meaning, some sort of purpose. That was, of course, before I met a wonderful man named Arthur Schopenhaur and an even more delightful gentleman who calls himself Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.

The so-called "meaning" that I've pretended to reject has not truly been ejected from my system, as I still hold on to the hope that somehow there will be a grand arch to all of this. True, there are those who argue that the grand arch is all in perspective and therefore establishing any forms of absolutes is futile (including the preceding absolute), but I must say that I have not been honest in my search. Apparently I've been looking for some sort of narrative structure within my own life that has bits and pieces of a slave mentality and liberation stories--I am a downtrodden Cinderella who can only dream of Prince Charming until I have a most beautiful experience with the fairy godmother. Well, I've met lots of fairies. I don't have a godmother. And the magicky stuff that I once thought was all super-cool and meaningful is an exercise in hopelessness as I am still, despite all of my many spells and charms, dreadfully single and alone. Once again, we can refer to the possibility of supernatural influences (although I choose not to believe in such sorts... most of the time) that seem to love my misery more than I do. Of this I have much silence. I will say, however, that one of those old powerful hoodoo spells have shown me an extremely grim prediction, indicating that I will be having troubles with whatever lovelife I somehow stumble into (assuming one exists at all).

There will be those who argue "what the hell do you need a love life for?" To them I answer: to battle the cold emptiness. From what I hear, relationships tend to be enough of a distraction from chronic ennui, but perhaps I am too quick in my judgment. Most likely it is due to how I have idealized relationships so much that if I do not experience what I've contextualized, I'll go crazier than I already am. Well, consider the situation in which I am disappointed by love--I will know that enough, the pain, and perhaps that will keep me from straying into this subject matter. However, this essentially contradicts my escapism, so I'm left with no argument.

Fine then. Destroy me. Cut me open. Hack me into little pieces and see what is going on determinisitically in my body. I tell you this--I don't know. I don't know if I ever will know. All I know is that I need to catch up on sleep and hopefully... just hopefully, I won't have to wake up in the morning.

Nonsense as Salvation

2007-05-02T06:15:00.000-07:00

The human race will begin solving its problems on the day it ceases taking itself so seriously.

To that end, POEE proposes teh countergame of NONSENSE AS SALVATION. Salvation from an ugly and barbarous existence that is the result of taking order so seriously and so seriously fearing contrary orders and disorder, that GAMES are taken as more importan than LIFE; rather than taking LIFE AS THE ART OF PLAYING GAMES.

To this end, we propose that man develop his innate love for disorder, and play with the Goddess Eris. And know that it is a joyful play, and that thereby CAN BE REVOKED THE CURSE OF GREYFACE.

If you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man becomes free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therfore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

And when men becomes free then mankind wil be free.
May you be free of The Curse of Greyface.
May the Goddess put twinkles in your eyes.
May you have the knowledge of a sage,
and the wisdom of a child.
Hail Eris.

A Quote from Hicks' Book

2007-04-30T15:00:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've kinda trashed on him. But his description of the postmodern critique on science is something I wish to share:

Whether science and technology are good for all, extending our knowledge of the universe and making the world healthier, cleaner, and more productive – or whether science betrays its elitism, sexism, and destructiveness by making the speed of light the fastest phenomenon, thereby unfairly privileging it over other speeds – by having chosen the phallic symbol i to represent the square root of negative one – by asserting its desire to "conquer" nature and "penetrate" her secrets – and, having done so, by having its technology consummate the rape by building bigger and longer missiles to blow things up.
--Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism. Pg 19.

Fashionable Nonsense and Intellectual Imposters

2007-04-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

It has come to my attention the works of one Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, who has generously provided a sample of his text online (http://www.explainingpostmodernism.com/PostMod.pdf), attempts to attack postmodernism as a threat to liberal democracy.

This... is true. Somewhat. I have no arguments against the socialism that is rampant in the academic left and I am very clear about the fact that I enjoy (note: enjoy, not endorse) reading about academic socialism. And yes, there are many threats to liberal democracy that socialism can bring, such as political correctness and forced egalitarianism. HOWEVER, the issue I have with Hicks' text is the ad hominem attack he makes on postmodern epistemology, when it is clearly not (directly) related to the politics behind postmodernism (well... at least on a linear value level... but this is to be explained as well).

Hicks claims that the reason why relativism and anti-realism arose in the academic left was the failure of the socialist experiment and since academics relied so much on socialism, they were faced with two options--re-evaluate their political ideology or reject reality. Apparently, they chose the latter, crying out "reality is like sooo subjective anyway, so it's like totally not fair to talk about the USSR because it's like selective reality, you know?" Well, the problem with this notion is that Hicks traces the roots of postmodernism to many continental philosophers who do not share socialist or even egalitarian values. What he [Hicks] implies by doing this is that Nietzsche is a hippie and that Heidegger is a pinko commie (because the Nazis were sooo USSR, you know?) Furthermore, he attacks Kant as one of the fathers of PoMo Lit Crit Shit, which is just... wow, poor Kant.

Now, I agree with Hicks that there is a disparity between postmodern epistemology and the political ideology expressed by many in the postmodern movement. But, for crying out loud, what about me?! I mean, I'm a nihilistic solipsistic postmodernist, yet I still love capitalism and am considered a heartless libertarian!! I'd say, if anything, postmodernism fits more on a consequentialist libertarian paradigm (you know, the Friedmans, not the Enlightenment-values crowd) and a free-market allows for the creation and destruction of any power structure. Of course, the whole thing is that capitalism as it currently is is not a true descriptor of ideal capitalism (look at the structure created by big corporations and farm subsidies, for example). However, there is nothing more nihilistic than the free-market. But I digress.

What's kinda more abusive in his argument is the fact that he puts "objectivism" as the description of modernist metaphysics. It sounds kinda sketchy if you ask me; I'd consider empiricism more accurate than "objectivism" and it is well-known that Hicks consults Rand quite a bit...

The main problem is that most critiques of postmodernism end up as critiques of socialism and the critiques of dense language. I agree that clarity is not an important issue, but the ideas that postmodernism introduces--semi-solipsistic anti-realism (I say "semi" because there is at least some dependence on a social constructive view, which would imply more than one person) and extreme skepticism are not necessarily negligible arguments. If the attackers would actually address postmodern arguments instead of whining about socialism and linguistic obscurity, then I'd probably be more interested in what they have to say.

Sturgeon's Law

2007-04-27T00:23:00.000-07:00

Sturgeon's Law:

Ninety-percent of everything is crud.

Gödel's Law:

As is the preceding sentence.

Fyord?

an untitled rambling on a definition of magic

2007-04-26T01:23:00.000-07:00

To quote one Aleister Crowley, "Magic(k) is the Science and Art of causing Change in Conformity with Will." Now, we begin by examining the premises of my diatribe--why the hell magic in the first place?

It will be obvious to anyone that I'm particularly obsessed with magic and the occult. I try to package myself as someone who is beyond the whole New Age "woo-woo" and the whole long-haired black-wearing Tolkien-reading schtook. I will address these one by one: I despise New Agers for their lack of rigor, I am a male who enjoys short to shaggy hair on men--any male that resembles a skater or an elf with or without a ponytail tends to lose my aesthetic respect, black is slimming (but so is maroon), and I cannot stand Tolkien and his groupies.

So, why magic? Well, it started out with an interest in Eastern Mysticism and spanned into dabbling with other "metaphysics." However, I have passed into a phase of contempt for occultism because of the shoddy scholarship and generally anti-academic stance the occult community holds. A lot of this has to do with politics as well--I'm politically a libertarian, whereas the occult community holds a left-wing view of the world. Perhaps I'm being a bit pretentious here and quite snobbish. I do not sugarcoat it--I am snobbish. Any claims that you make must be well-reasoned out and transmittable to me; if it lacks transmittability, then I won't understand it, and if it's not well-reasoned out, it's a broken system. Logic is very important as it determines the mechanism of any system--if there is anything that is self-contradictory, then it has no place in debate. I'm not necessarily saying that it has to be empirically proven to be viable (despite my being an ardent scientist), but the solipsist in me still holds to the hope that perhaps... just perhaps the idea you present to me is an accurate state of so-called external reality.

Now, there's a loaded term, external reality. Once again, this is me going out on a limb here, but maybe I'll play the role of agnostic theist and believe that there is such a thing as external reality. Unfortunately, this reality has recently been challenged by Groblacher et. al as being "unrealistic" (Grobacher et. al. Nature. 2007. 446: 871-75), but it is nice to assume that there is such a thing as an observer-independent universe. Where that line is drawn... still not known.

So, what then is magic? I've heard various definitions, including the one above. Many of them, like James Curcio's, seem to involve a personal change as opposed to an external change. Here lies the problem. This personal change is description seems to play around with the notion of aesthetics and many occultists also claim that they are "artists." Even in Crowley's definition, "Art" takes an important place in the workings of magic. Interestingly enough, if we follow Nietzsche, we have a very negative view of artists due to their inability to understand the so-called ascetic ideal (Third Essay, On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche). Although I do not know if Nietzsche had the forsight to describe modern day occultists as part of this "artist" group, I have to admit that I see many parallels. Occultists seem to have an inability to describe what exactly they tap into when practicing magic and they constantly turn to metaphors and models that really lack in both rigor and taste. Instead of attempting to understand the experience, they shove it to the side as outside the linguistic boundary. Granted, this is a viable point, especially with Postmodernism's focus on the "figural over the discursive," but when the occultists are called to warrant their experiences, their explanations fail miserably. They speak of "energies" and "psychological transformations" as if they don't violate thermodynamics or neurobiology. Granted, parameters are also socially-constructed, the occultists don't understand the terms of their debate and therefore throw around all sorts of pseudo-science terms in an attempt to look intelligible.

This is why we need an approach that is more systematic. You can cry out "Nothing is true" all you want, but without coming to full realizations of what that sentence means, all of your candlework and sigil-casting are fragments of personality trying to connect to a current that is temporarily in style. You can invoke Paul Feyerabend and Jacques Derrida all you want, but a method is warranted for debate. Perhaps magic is less postmodern and more analytic than I thought--paradigm shifts, guerilla ontology, fucked up epistemology... these seem to be a linguistic analysis, if nothing else. Now, I know I'll get shit for creating a distinction between Postmodernism and Analytic Philosophy, and those that know me are surprised at my lack of usual nihilism, but I'll say it out loud here for all to hear:

A thought experiment is in process...

The Despair of the Writer

2007-04-25T23:46:00.000-07:00

Yet another earlier piece of writing

The despair of the writer is not within his own confidence or skill, but the lack of independence from others' lives. Writers often seek their own lives only to find that they are destined to tell those not of their own. They never tell the truth because they don't have one to tell. All they do is repeat the lies of others in hope of finding... something. But true writers do not need to write these down, for their audience is always an audience... of one.

-Bafomet, Metanarrative*

*Which is a lovely little play I wrote about postmodernity, chaos magic, and overall mopey intellectual bullshit.

Melquíades

2007-04-25T23:36:00.000-07:00

An earlier piece of writing, reflecting on definitions of "magic"
Quite a silly piece of writing, yet, nonetheless, one of the rare instances in which I have some literary style in my writing

I am Melquíades, the traveler, the teller, the prophet, the gypsy, the wise man, the sage, the bard, the loon. I am the one people come to when they wish to hear stories or discuss the world outside of what they know. However, most see me as merely an entertainer, a jukebox. Few take me seriously. They believe that I am merely a charlatan like Magnus Eisengrim, yet I am far from a man of illusions. Magus Eisengrim is a beautiful man—his well-toned body, sculpted face, enigmatic voice, elegant poise—a fact that even I cannot deny. His eyes enchant me as he hypnotizes me into a light slumber of sensuality; his hands grazing my skin in an erotic touch that burns a strange fire that consumes everything except for me and him.

He then closes his own eyes, allowing my empty ones to wander around that handsome face of his, filling my own hunger for such a saccharine sight until I realize that his lips brushed mine. In all my voyeurism and detachment, I have not noticed that his face was burning right in front of mine with the same yearning and hunger I was trying to satiate. My tongue, normally poisonous and sharp, was tamed instantly by his and a courtship of its own was performed by our mouths. Magic? I shall say so, yet it is not magic belonging to the illusionist. No. It was my own magic that brought this performer to grind his hips into mine.

People always believed in magic, yet they never knew what to expect. The nature of magic is so elusive, so mystical, that it has been missed by many. Magnus Eisengrim provides miracles and feats that are visible. He plays on the human dependency on sight and therefore earns his reputation through the awing of the masses. Yet his acts of magic are always illusions, empty tricks and performances that fuel the human desire to see miracles. The audience, therefore, believes that I am under his spell because they saw his powder and smoke flash at me—yet did they realize that it was I who directed Eisengrim’s “spell” towards me? Therein lies true magic—manipulation of the universe to manifest one’s desires. As the foolish genius Aleister Crowley states: “Magic(k) is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” This explanation of magic is too simple and too open to accommodate the image of dark winds and crashing thunder, therefore leading the mundane to overlook the only valid principle in the universe: change.

What magic truly is, no one can explain for even definitions and magic change in the course of the universe. Even change itself changes as can be seen by taking that derivative of a polynomial equation and finding the slope of the equation at different points. Of course, some may say that there is a formula to change (after all, a derivative is a defined mathematical entity) and that indicates limits of change. We can therefore assume that the limits create laws that must be kept in order to maintain the mechanical order of the universe. That was classical physics. To state limits such as a formula for change (derivatives) is to imply an architectural structure of the universe and therefore the existence of a divine architect has entered the mind of humans.

Architects have planes, rules, and boundaries, clearly defining the difference between the bedroom and the kitchen (although some may argue using criticisms like Marxism on the nature of the servants sleeping in the kitchen to be ready for any of the tyrant’s outrageous requests) and with these boundaries, we are able to build according to these obligations. Yes, these boundaries and obligations exist… for the time being. The constant of change affects these boundaries as the kitchen may turn into a swimming pool or the house is demolished by an earthquake. Theism and the belief in an architect forget the constant of change, therefore they are unable to fully experience the power of liberated magic.

Of course, with such a general description of magic, it is inevitable that humans are driven to properly define magic and set up categories for the little subgroups. Little do they know that creating a definition for magic violates the only unchanging (yet still changing) principle: change (a paradox expressed through limited linguistics of logically fallible human beings). Such acts are similar to defining what is deconstruction or what is beings. Heidegger describes nicely (albeit densely and profoundly) what our attitude towards magic should most likely be if we wanted to be efficient: Dasein. Magic should be about experience over meaning and the figural over the discursive.

Few are called upon the path of true magic, yet even fewer are called upon discerning the meaning of magic. To paraphrase Karl Marx, let the philosophers deal with the abstractions and incur change upon the world yourself! It may be that there will be a magical revolution, but the masses provide little incentive for hope.

So let them think that Magnus Eisengrim is a true magician. Yet let them also see the smirk on my face as his hands travel down to my own hardening groin.