'I do not know its name but its nature I call Reason'

Photo Test

2009-04-21T17:04:00.001-05:00

Ben Stein's Film - Expelled

2008-11-30T02:28:00.002-05:00

So Ben Stein made a movie "Expelled" - a relatively horrible one, and I intend to argue for this claim.

Ben Stein calls the film a Documentary. The film itself is bookended by a discussion of Freedom. The content of the film is the subject of Intelligent Design as it relates to evolution. From the bookends, one might quickly ascertain that the film was made to explore implications of Academic freedom with regards to ID/Evol.

So why did I think the film was horrible? Well, I have three primary complaints, and I'll address those in turn, but first I want to offer my conclusions (not argument, I have some, but I'm not providing those here) about the intersection of ID/Evol.

To begin with, I typically side with individuals like the late Stephen J Gould. Gould, for those who may not be aware, argued that Religion and Science each engage (or should engage) distinct separate fields of inquiry. Science has its domain and this is entirely separate from religion. Religion has its domain, and its entirely separate from science. I tend to believe a heavily nuanced version of this position -and implicit in this belief is a particular way of understanding ID/Evol. Namely, that they have nothing to do with each other. Evolution, even of distinct species, doesn't entail anything to me about the "why" of how evolution occurred. Evolution is a mechanism (of the existence of things), in short. Intelligent Design isn't about a mechanism of creation, it's a hypothesis about a different facet of the world. It answers a question about "how" mechanisms come to be.

Well, something like the above is what I think, I'd need more space and time to nuance the position properly.

So, What's wrong with Ben's movie?

First, the film masks itself as trying to right a particular wrong. It argues that there is an established scientific authority that fails to look at diverse viewpoints, in particular ID viewpoints. The film argues that there is a wall in the academic and scientific worlds, and this wall must come down.

The film might be correct on those accounts, but the viewer will never know because the film film fails to live up to its own ideals. It almost exclusively shows singular viewpoints as it draws the battle lines. Rather than showing a lack of the wall, it highlights the two sides to the exclusion of other views. It shows only the most "reasonable" ID supporters, failing to recognize ID supporters who, for example, are explicitly Young Earth Creationists. It also fails to show the more "reasonable" evolutionary supporters, e.g. Pope John Paul II (see for example an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996) or the work of Stephen J Gould.

For a film that argues that a diverse range of opinions should be heard, and analysed on the merits of their own evidence and arguments - it fails to live up to its own ideal. It only shows opinions that fuel the fire that there exists a wall - it fails to engage even tacitly with counter-arguments.

Second, the film often appeals to an argument that I might label, an appeal to ignorance. The film often seems to press on supporters of Darwinism to define where life comes from, Ben Stein presses this very point in the final excerpted clip with Richard Dawkins. I wonder what they intend to prove by such displays? To say that, "My way must be good because your way can't answer a question mine can" isn't to show how your evidence is strong for your case. It's like saying "you can't prove aliens don't exist, so I can believe in them." The argument form is fallacious.

But perhaps Ben wasn't making such an argument? Well, besides the obvious wondering about why the material is included - it also reflects the absolute lack of analysis about the evidence in favor of ID. Ben's film is designed to show a conflict, but a necessary part of showing that legitimate conflict exists would be to [i]show[/i] the conflict inherent in the two positions - the film never does that. Outside of a couple loaded definitions, it fails to even present an argument in favor of ID. Let alone to actually show how the arguments conflict. It tells you to believe in a conflict by showing people who think that conflict exists. But that's just anecdotal.

In sum, the primary "argument" of the film is fallacious.

Third (and finally), the film engages in seriously questionable speculation. I won't develop this in detail, it's so inane to me that I can't really feel the desire to flesh it out. The film tries to establish connections between Nazism/Darwinism and also between Communism/Scientific Establishment. In the same vein, it also asserts an appalling implication about Planned Parenthood and Eugenics. One sympathetic interviewee was nice enough to bring up the terms "Necessary" and "Sufficient". His point was that something like Darwinism isn't 'Sufficient' to bring about a Nazi worldview - but that it was necessary. Unfortunately, Ben didn't listen to this nice gentleman because the movie goes on to create a case for the connection that throws sand in the face of the necessary/sufficient distinction. It's appalling.

So, the National Center for Science Education has a website that intends to show where the film and makers used some shady interview and production tactics. Check it out at www.expelledexposed.com if that's your shtick. Folks who know me are well aware that I find some real value in documentary films that might use shady tactics: Michael Moore is definitely not the "nicest" interviewer in the country, and yet I find some of his films to be wonderful. So the NCSE's website doesn't really fit into my complaint. The website does have information that might be worthwhile - so I thought I'd point it out for sake of being complete.

Sooo - I challenge all of you!

2008-10-20T10:42:00.002-05:00

I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" with Nina again this weekend. We wanted to show it to a friend of ours that doesn't believe in global warming. She seemed to have had some new thoughts to play with post the movie - always a great thing.

It also got me and Nina thinking - and it inspired us to take on a very simple (yet potentially difficult) challenge. A challenge I extend to anyone who reads this.

We are challenging ourselves to change merely 1 thing about our lifestyle each week. The change needs to, in some way, benefit the environment or the creatures who live in it.

We minimally are committed to doing this until the start of 2009 - but hey, maybe we can go longer?

Our first week (October 19th); we've committed to no longer buying non-organic eggs.

I'll keep it updated here what our other lifestyle changes will be.

Ontological Argument (Anselm's)

2007-08-28T11:38:00.000-05:00

Oddly enough, it seems that this silly little work of deductive brilliance is still within my realm of thought.

The Argument, as Anselm puts it, can be simplified easily enough.

1. God exists in the "Understanding"
--This is derived by Anselm assuming that an individual who can state "There is no God" must have an understanding of God that can therefore be denied.

2. Existence in Reality is greater than existence in the "Understanding"
--For Anselm, this is implicitly obvious given the terms and phrases he is using with regards to the tradition he comes from. This is noteworthy as the way most folks argue against this proof. Prima Facie arguments such as, "20 bucks in my pocket in actuality is much better than the idea that I have 20 bucks in my pocket" or a counter argument, "Communism is always better in theory than in practice." It seems to me that this premise should probably be taken at face value as true - Given Anselm's definition of God, as 'that being which none greater can be conceived' it would seem fair and within the realm of charity to grant that a "being" is better in reality than simply the idea of it.

3. God is the greatest of all conceivable beings

and therefore

4. God cannot exist solely in the Understanding, but must exist in reality.

Anselm's actual argument is a Reductio ad Absurdum where he draws out the steps differently to display a contradiction.

1. God exists merely in the Understanding (says the Fool)
2. If something exists merely in the Understanding, then something greater can be conceived (namely the actual existence of the thing).
3. God is the greatest of all beings.
4. This leads to a contradiction, God is the greatest and a greater can be thought of.
Therefore, 5. It must be false that God exists merely in the Understanding.

-----
My unorganized ramblings are the result of my thoughts which are centered around this argument. First, it must be admitted this is a work of pure beauty and genius. Second it's dead wrong.

Many challenge the second premise (existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind)...but why?

Anselm makes a mistake when he says that God exists in the mind.
First, he's being circular (or begging the question) if we understand that his point is to prove that God exists. He begins by asserting that God exists (in some fashion)...which is part of his conclusion.

Let's not attack it this way.

Instead, let's challenge the first premise carefully.
The "Fool" does not have "in his heart an understanding of God as "the greatest of all beings." The Fool might simply have in his or her heart an affirmation of strict finitude.
That is, The Fool could be atheistic by stating that "All existent things are finite things" We could draw this out categorically to deny God (understood as something infinite or as having infinite properties) fairly easily.

Brilliant - but purely wrong.

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-04-08T23:58:00.000-05:00

WARNING: Written late at night with way too much stream of consciousness thrown in.

First, Al Gore was funny.

Second, Al Gore is right.
He conceives of this as a moral problem.
We find this truth to be unappealing.
Misconception reigns supreme.

Third, Al Gore was wrong.
He has too much faith in a democratic system. That's odd.
He conceives of this as a moral problem.
He requests action. No action is required. Activity is.

Wu-wei: Non-action...NO! Wu-wei: Acting without action(s). No-action is a propertranslation....act without actions - but always act. Activity is proper.

What do Heidegger and Daoism do together to help us deal with the environmental crisis?
Well, they discuss a reshaping of the relationship between humans and......well, anything. This makes them deeply ecological. More importantly; by de-emphasizing a relationship between self/other...subject/object we can infer a de-emphasizing of a relationship between human/nature. If what matters is a dynamic interplay that allows for poesis or "dao" then what seems insightful in human/nature relationships isn't the human, or the nature. It's the interplay. That's deeply ecological.

Heidegger and Daoism also rethink ethical thinking. Primordial or Originary ethics. Etiquette.

This deeply ecological point of view taken together with a new form of ethics provides us with a new "environmental" or "ecological" ethic. That is, if we assume a field of study concerning what one ought to do with regard to the environmental - calling this "environmental ethics" - then Heideggerian phenomenology and Daoist ethics provide one method of dealing with this situation. --sidenote, this one method is the best, because it can fall in line with the strongest metaphysical stances...a stance that posits as its sole axiom, change--

What is necessary is not hybrid cars.
What is necessary is not renewable energy.
What is necessary is not massive genocide.
What is necessary is not political action committees.
What is necessary is not walking.
What is necessary is not recycling.
What is necessary is not saving the rain forests.
What is necessary is not veganism.
What is necessary is not giving money to the hungry.
What is necessary is not liberal use of nuclear power.
What is necessary is not trees.
What is necessary is not lowering CO2 admissions.
What is necessary is not thinking about the kids.
What is necessary is not peace.
What is necessary is not Kyoto.

What is necessary is a fundamentally different way of acting in the world.
To understand...(phenomenlogically)...that you are always already inter-reacting with the world.

Monotheism

2007-02-22T12:42:00.000-05:00

Is monotheism inherently intolerant?

This position was argued for yesterday by an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo. The intent of my blog isn't to discuss that presentation directly; but rather to help articulate some thoughts I had after that presentation.

First, it might seem initially difficult to talk about all monotheists in the world, right?
Well, I don't think so. One might be tempted to argue that talk about all monotheists is to speak about a stereotype, or generalization...yet the question posed isn't talking about monotheists at all. Rather about the term, monotheism. Is it a generalization to talk about "Football" or "Empiricism" or "Physics"? I think clearly that it is not. However, as we all know talk of these three subjects might involve serious limitations. I cannot speak that intelligbly about all football without qualifying the subject into - minimally- American and International varieties. All I can work with in such a large term, would be what is contained within that term.

How then can I define Monotheism? Well, I'll state that
Monotheism believes in a single god.
Can I answer the initial question? No...not without a greater picture or worldview. I mean, if your belief is simply in the divinity of yourself...then there is one god...you! Or if your belief is that a god is the only thing worth pursuing in life AND money is that thing, then your monotheistic god is money.

But are these what we mean by monotheism? Clearly not. The "Theistic" tradition of god, is almost universally shorthand for a belief in a god that is both 1) all-powerful and 2) all-knowing and also (most of the time) all-good. These traits tend to be associated with the idea that this single god is a First Cause (or an un-caused beginning to existence). This understanding stems from the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). This understanding of monotheism can help us clarify what is meant by the definition.

Monotheism (in the western Abrahamic tradition) is the belief in one First Cause; or all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god. Can we now begin to question whether monotheism is intolerant? ALMOST. It's at this point that I want to assert a claim that is clearly questionable.
This claim is that an Abrahamic monotheism necessarily implies a form of Cognitive Realism or Absolutism. That is, this idea begs an understanding of the world that affirms the Law of the Excluded Middle. (It begs this through its reliance on a principle of sufficient reason, that itself is imbedded with the law of the excluded middle) That is, a proposition is either true or false. For example, it is the case that either it is raining or not raining. Or it is false that it will be the case that it will both rain, and not rain. P or Not-P Dude.
---This claim is contentious, I make it on the assumption that the Monotheistic intellectual figures I have read most commonly work from this background, but as I am not a scholar of the intellectual history of all monotheists, I am prepared to be shown research here. But---the other method of perspective, that truth is many - while possible in the views of Martin Buber or Paul Tillich, is NOT the common-sense intuition of most individuals. Most people will tell me, that there is a true fact of the world, and what I need to do is understand it. For that matter, most scientific atheists or agnostics would also assert this. Logical traditions have formed to argue this point, but let's face it...the law of the excluded middle is pretty darn useful.

So, if we accept the law of the excluded middle AND that monotheism is about the belief in a single god -> can we begin to talk about intolerance. Oh hell yes!

Any time one affirms that truth is singular (not many)...AND one asserts that they know this truth -> there is a necessary entailment that the other is wrong. Come again?

Joe Monotheist: Truth is singular and I know what it is!
Implies that John Atheist is wrong...that Jason Polytheist is wrong...etc...

This is a necessary implication, we cannot conceive of a world where the law of the excluded middle holds.

Does this mean that Joe Monotheist is, himself, intolerant? Of course not. Joe might want to be as tolerant as possible, but unfortunatly his belief structure is being intolerant, in spite of him!

Reactionary Thinking

2006-11-17T14:19:00.000-05:00

What does it mean to be reactionary...well, it means to exist and be characterized by reaction to another cause. Isn't this what we always do? I mean, we react always/already to the causes in our world.

But what about in a different sense?

Well, for a Marxist a reactionary is a bad thing to be, as opposed to a revolutionary.

Okay, any other senses?

How's about being a reactionary thinker? That is, we all have an immediate reaction to the concept/idea/proposition we encounter.

---------
Concept : "Ban the Burka!" (Perhaps happening in the Nederlands)
Reaction: Oh My God! Can we stop just hating on Muslims already?

Concept : "There is no such thing as an absolute moral standared"
Reaction: Oh My God! Nazi's are okay! Bigots are okay! Rape is okay!

Concept : "The police protected fascists who spoke in Toledo."
Reaction: Oh My God! The Police must like the fascists!

Concept : "Applying to Doctoral Programs in Philosophy is like a crap-shoot."
Reaction: Oh My God! I have no control over this situation!?!
---------
There is nothing wrong with these immediate reactions; in fact it seems that some folks with greater or lesser knowledge on the situation might have valid, accurate, thoughtful reactions.

But it seems to me that relying (even if we are intelligent/rational/thoughtful people) on this reactionary response is going to be detrimental in all cases to our abilities as Critical Thinkers. In some cases we may find our reactionary response as accurate after further review - but even in these cases we have done something to hurt our abilities as Critical Thinkers. What have we done? We've re-affirmed reactionary responses. We've given validation to an form of reasoning that will often lead us down slippery slopes, through false dillemmas, and past hasty conclusions.

Could there be a valid reason why the police protected neo-nazis? Sure, perhaps a belief in the value of the freedom of speech...perhaps a more pragmatic approach that less harm and danger (in the sum total) will come from the lack of having a Nazi assaulted. Is applying to Phd programs a crap shoot? Maybe, but we still have multiple things we control about how we are presented on this gamble. Is the "ban on burkas" deliberatly targetting Muslims? Possibly, but are there valid reasons for wanting people in an open society to be able to see each other's faces? Does stating that there isn't an absolute morality prohibit us from condemning many actions becase those actions don't fit our absolute moral standard? Sure, but that doesn't rule out other reasons for condemning those actions based on a relative standard.

The point is, that our reactions are detrimental for the development of a larger viewpoint or basis of perspective. We need to stop this reactionary thinking, and jumping to these conclusions.

My Title

2006-10-26T08:30:00.000-05:00

So, I will probably blog some more soon.

I've been rethinking and thinking this title. I do not know its name, but its nature I call Reason. -- Emphasis, Capital R.

I think its kinda catchy. Yet, does it make me seem all extra-rationalistic? I'm thinking, some changes are in order.....perhaps

"I do not know their names, but their nature I call reasonable."

Doesn't that sound good?

Technology and Virtual Communication

2006-04-26T21:57:00.000-05:00

So for those who don't know me personally, I have issues with virtual communication - if you know me personally you have to be aware of my love/hate relationship with IMs and emails and webboards etc...

What is my problem with such things? Well, earlier i posted on the dangers of communities and being held responsible to such communities (http://originalrudeboi.blogspot.com/2005/04/virtual-identitycommunity.html) .. but I want to tackle this issue in a different way.

So I've recently been having conversations about enhancments to the virtual communication bit. One of the early problems is that with simple text (in an email, an IM or on a message board or blog) much of the communicative information is lost. Ya know, things like sarcasm or gestures and other non-verbal cues. This has got to be accurate. I won't dispute it.

What I want to throw sand into is the idea that things that help give these missing modes of information back - are better. In fact, I think they are worse. I'm referring now to webcams that give you access to gestures and expressions and oral communication through telephones, or now through teleconferencing and microphones/speakers.

The argument goes that as technology improves, we will be able to better substitute face-to-face interaction - and noone thinks it should be substituted when its possible, but rather that when people are thousands of miles apart - hey the closer we can get to the real thing the better. And I think, I disagree.

We all know that a picture isn't the same as a person - that the human on camera (in the movie) is no reflection upon reality, and that even our home videos never seem to "get it" or "us" -- we don't sound right on recordings and over the phone, we hate our voice on answering machines and so many folks claim to be "camera shy." Sure this is all anecdotal, but the point remains that cameras (video and still) and recording devices just do not capture - life. Even Kodak admitted that in an add campaign by saying "as close to life as possible" stuff. So what? This isn't disputed methinks, but rather the idea is that this Kodak Quality is better than no Kodak Quality - or more specifically, better than just Words on a Page.

But this seems to fail in something - the attentiveness we offer words. Words are good. Language is one of the most powerful tools known to man. The ability to express oneself articulately, or creatively boggles most minds. They do indeed have a huge impact - when used properly and given proper attention. Sure sarcasm doesn't come through easily over IM, but is that in the fault of the medium (partially) in the speaker (partially) and in the listener (partially). The truth is, written sarcasm can be expressed very clearly - read anything by Christopher Moore to find it. The problem is that the medium doesn't help in its essence - but more importantly the way the medium pushes US, as users into certain modes of being, and in particular, modes of attentiveness is the problem. OUR ability to focus and articulate and "listen" clearly is what the medium doesn't encourage. Not with "smilies" not with all sorts of distracting buddy icon, pictures, animations, advertisements, etc...

And thus, we get to webcams and the like. I think they do not help encourage attentiveness to "communication" or "getting what the other person is trying to say." I think the written text can do that better, and with more force. It seems that the webcam offers a strong illusion of connection, but its still not reality - and it takes away the focus from written communication into something both visual and oral. Whats wrong with this? Well studies show that as professors show powerpoints, students learn less. Studies show that its more difficult to present information through a visual media than a print (the telecast news show over the newspaper). All in all, we as people do NOT respond to these "visual and audio" technologies in strong ways. When we see simple written text AND we want to learn something - we absorb more from IT than we do when we see complicated images and sounds and text AND we want to learn something. Bottom line, is that while the webcams and sound thingies might "seem" good, i think its more visual or mental masturbation than better communication than a blog. Maybe. I'm prepared to rethink this....but you'll have to show me that this video and teleconferencing indeed encourages active attention to the other.....

I made a Philosophy Joke

2006-04-25T18:35:00.000-05:00

Daniel: "well she's a Kantian..."
Joel: "oh, then she's already got a problem....a priori"

Get it? Get it??

HAHHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I made a funny......

Something Cute

2006-04-24T07:15:00.000-05:00

So in the Princeton Review's Vocab Builder - Word Smart....they list THIS entry:

"Existential (eg zis TEN shul) adj. having to do with existence; having to do with the body of thought called existentialism, which basically holds that human beings are responsible for their own actions but is otherwise too complicated to summarize in a single sentence
(it goes on to say)
This word is overused but under-understood by virtually all of the people who use it. Unless you have a very good reason for throwing it around, you should probably avoid it."

Awwwww - that had me saying "that's cute" for quite some time......

Demarcation Criteria - Part 4 (final)

2006-04-20T10:04:00.000-05:00

The Final words concerning my hesitancy with Demarcation

It seems to me that the bottom line for demarcating must come out of a sense of academic elitism or bigotry. Neither of which is well founded nor is necessary for the pursuit of knowledge. No Philosopher needs to think of the primacy of philosophy and the inadequacies of say art criticism to pursue their exploration into ethics. In the same way, no scientist needs to think of how great methodological naturalism is and how inadequate creationism is to check out that sweet Catfish that hunts on land ;-). The scientist need know nothing other than Channallabes apus engages in a behavior that could clearly be a link in evolution from water dwelling to land dwelling animals. No need to slam the bible-thumpers. No need to reassert the primacy of methodological naturalism. To do this seems to me to be at the least, useless - but most likely a violation of some fairly well accepted normative ideas concerning dignity and respect.

I want to clarify here, that I am content to have titles of "truth-seeking" and "non-truth seeking" as a demarcation - but those things in the category of "truth-seeking" would not be easily demarcated between academic lines, or methodological lines. One way of talking about this has been implicit this whole time, I have made reference often to "academic disciplines" and anyone would be hard pressed to use this word without having in the background an idea of "non-academic disciplines." This indeed I will tentatively say should be our demarcation as opposed to something that is "philosophy" or "science" or "sociology." What demarcates something as academic would of course need to be worked out - but some simple criteria might involve the need (1st) to be rational, as Richard Rorty would have us use the word rational or (2nd) even going so far as to be pragmatic. Perhaps (3rd) Having that information being peer-reviewable, but not merely by the peers within a falsely demarcated discipline. Rather by peers in OTHER disciplines to see where that overlap comes in.

For example: the intensive experimental lab scientists would do well to talk to the inductive, non experimental "scientists" theorizing about ID...why? Because based on the two groups finding inconsistent (or Nietzche forbid consistent) evidence - we can then determine what is good or bad "truth seeking" what is, in effect, good or bad science. THIS is a demarcation that seems more valuable.

If String Theory or ID or Acupressure or Phenomenology is going to succeed or fail as something to be researched, studied, applied and taught to students - it needs to succeed for reasons that it is valuable, historicallyistoricaly relevant to our human pursuit of wisdom or truth. Not for reasons of a false arrogance concerning the output of "X group". Not because of bias against something that is different or taboo to our rational sensibilities. Not for a lack of research funding or possibilities. Not for a lack of courage to have one's core foundational beliefs challenged and shaken. Whatever it is we seem to call "truth" needs to be given that title and value - on better reasons that academic elitism or bigotry. Aristotle let us know that we cannot begin our pursuit without taking into consideration information from at least three areas. The Wise, the common folk and the world around us. I think its important to remember that all three have their own value to start inquiry - and of course, every new day must involve a new Ursprunglichen into truth.

Demarcation Criteria - Part 3

2006-04-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

The third portion of this conversation contains my attempts at refuting or at least throwing doubt, into the set of reasons I offered FOR the Value(1) of demarcating.

I shall leave the first reason for demarcation until after the second set of reasons has been analysed, because it seems to me that the second falls into the first, and I'd like to have the backdrop flavor and color of the second set of reasons in place to discuss the first.

(a) This understanding of Doman Purity can easily be dismissed because it is clearly in line with the need, pedagogically, to delimit what is taught in what class, or under what degree. I want to stress at this point that what is required to be taught is not the same thing as saying what is beneficial to be learned. More on this later, but the point is that if the notion of demarcation is SIMPLY in reference to these pedagogical concerns - it seems to have enormous value.

(b) Without addressing issues concerning the First reason (that of a higher epistemic value on X discipline over Y discipline) it is still clear that one reason for Domain Purity would be to articulate and understand the relation between the discipline and the truth that discipline leads to. However, it seems to me that when we begin to talk about this "truth" that the individual, independent discipline points towards, we find a very large difficulty. What on earth would this truth be? It seems to be incorrect to assume that Sociology points to sociological truth and History points to historical truths, when the sociological truth concerning the behavior of a society at time X in place Y AND the historical truth of what happened at time X in place Y will overlap in significant ways. The objects of individual disciplines, (truths) will necessarily overlap into the Truth - (in as much as Truth exists). Thus, the idea of delimiting for a Domain that is pure is to ignore this very overlapping nature.

(c) If we are afraid to leave our comfort zones of approach, knowledge, expertise it seems we will run two codependent dangers, one of relevance here and the other that leads me down an approach of conspiracy theory(2). The relevant danger is that it might limit the individual from finding that ever-elusive capital T-Truth. If my philosophical inquiry into the Mind/Body problem leads me to look at memory - it would clearly be to my benefit to look at what Neuropsychologists, Biologists etc... have to say concerning the memory. It would not be useful for me, while pursuing the truth - to avoid these relevant, other, disciplines.

(d) I came at this from the angle of assuming that methodology helps one understand "good" and "bad" within the field. I want to note that asserting for a sense of Domain Purity in methodology would not be the only criteria (for good or bad), despite this, it also seems to be wrongheaded. To assume that one particular method will achieve the best results, in all cases, is to assert that we have already learned (in our disciplines) the "Best way of doing Art Criticism or Anthropology." However, the history of each respective discipline will show that the methods used at different times and under different circumstances have varied in relationship to the content as well as to the culture at large(3).

Now - the primary reason that I was able to come up with concerning the value of demarcating academic disciplines: English or not-English...Science or not-Science was that implicit when we demarcate is the assigning of the the value judgments of "more truthful" and "less truthful."

If it were correct that (for the sake of example):

i. Science indeed leads to truth
AND
ii. non-science does NOT lead to truth

then the demarcation would be essential to the development and pursuit of Truth. However, while the first proposition would indeed seem accurate, the second proposition is not. It has been a guiding belief in the background of these posts that all academic disciplines approach truth in their own way. Thus a demarcation between science and "the rest" would not be helpful. If the situation is indeed of this ( p v ~p ) flavor, then what does that mean? Philosophy, Art, Psychology, Astrology, Tarot Readings, History, Theology, etc... would all be given the same title. AND given the idea that the title (science or non-science) indeed references a different order of epistemic value then we are suddenly asserting that anything that is "non-science" is on an equal playing field with other parts of that list, but not with science. Another danger would the implicit equivallence of say, Philosophy and Tarot Readings or Astronomy and Astrology.

The defender of demarcation might respond: Whoa! Noone said it was going to be of a (p v ~p) but rather of a (p v q v r v s v ...) (Science or Art or Philosophy or etc...) flavor. However, this does not escape value laded context of distinguishment. IF there is a judgment of "science leads to truth" and "non-sciene does not" then we stuck in the (p v ~p) variety (either directly or by interpreting "q does not lead to truth" "r does not lead to truth" "s does not lead to truth" etc...). If we are not prepared to make the assertions that "science" is the only discinpline leading to truth, then I repose my question...what is the value of the demarcation? It seems this first proposition must either be the cause of the advocation for the demarcation of discinples or else reluctantly accepted when one advocates for the demarcation of disciplines.

MORE TO COME (Remarks concerning OTHER problems I see with demaracation, particularly at a Moral or Ethical level and the Conclusion)

(1) See Demarcation Criteria Part 1, Footnote 1.
(2) In short, less radical than I might otherwise assert it, I think the over-specialization of the academy is leading our Ivory Tower to ruin, both politically and socially.
(3) I feel the need to mention that other individuals in particular disciplines, notably in Mathematics, Science and Philosophy do indeed state that they have found real and static forms of methodology. Perhaps in reference to basic principles of mathematics (addition, subtraction) or else in Logic (Deductive validity, consistency, coherence) or else in experimental validity (repeatable, etc...). In response to this I shall simply state that one the one hand, these assertions aren't applicable directly to my conversation (they seem to reflect on more meta-disciplinary assertions) constituting an epistemological demarcation (which is not what I am arguing for or against in these virtual pages) AND on the other hand, I intuitively do not agree with notions of a unifying theory based on these issues but do not have the resources or inclination to defend my view in full here.

Demarcation Criteria - Part 2

2006-04-11T15:45:00.000-05:00

So in part 1 I laid out what is at stake in my mind. Now we are moving on towards the second part - where I want to assume some possible reasons for valuing a demarcation between academic disciplines. Here it should be quite blatantly noted, that while I will be using "science" as a backdrop for the conversation - the ideas spread forth could be applied to any academic discpline or in actuality, any grouping or discipline that is aiming at "truth" whatsoever.

Reasons FOR Demarcation:

First - It seems that one reason to demarcate between disciplines would involve making a distinction that is value-laded. Science is good. Non-science is bad. Or perhaps better said: Science gets one towards "truth" and non-science does not. Clearly being able to identify what is "science" would help identify what is valuable or useful etc...

Second - Another reason for demarcating might be to keep a sense of "Domain Purity"(1). It seems that if we can keep science (or philosophy or history or art) pure - then we all know what each thing is giving us:
(a) We know what classes to teach in our departments, what conferences to read papers to,
(b) What OBJECT our way of finding truth points towards
(c) With this we know our comfort zones, and are able to stay within our fields of knowledge and expertise.
(d) Most importantly, our methodology will be similar, and as such we will know how to judge what is "good" in relation to our domain and what is "bad."

MORE TO COME

(1) - This phrase, "Domain Purity" was flounced around a few times over some drinks after the conference that got these neurons firing in the first place...I'm not sure that I know what was meant at that party, so I am trying to assume what could have been meant on my own.

Demarcation Criteria (in reference to academic disciplines) (pt 1)

2006-04-11T10:03:00.000-05:00

The intent of this post is conservative, I want to get my criticisms for the need to set up criteria to distinguish one academic discipline from another down in a virtually tangible fashion. I do not propose these claims as conclusive or necessarily even firm - but I will still write as if they are firm.

Background and Context: This weekend the UT Dept of Philosophy held its annual conference, and the with subject matter being "Philosophy of Science and Religion" it should come as no surprise that there was much debate concerning ID (with Dover references)...which of course gave rise to the question: "Is Intelligent Design, Science?" which itself begs the question, "What is science?" or better stated, "What are the criteria that can be used to demarcate science from non-science?"

It is not my desire or attempt to answer these questions, as a matter of fact I believe that there is absolutely NO way to make a necessary demarcation...what I want to question in this context is what is the VALUE(1) of making these demarcations. What service does it render, and conversely, what disservice does it render.

PEDAGOGICAL DEMARCATION
Now, I am quick to argue that demarcation is necessary AND valuable when we are referring, as in the Dover trial, towards pedagogical concerns. However, it is not the case that when delimiting what is to be taught in a "science" class we need to know what is science, and when delimiting what is to be taught in a "math" class we need to know what is math. Rather, we need to know "what is appropriate at this level of scholarship" (high school/middle school/elementary/college/graduate school) which begs questions efficient use of time in classrooms, of the capacity of the student, of the goals of the particular institution or level f schooling, etc...

It seems to me that ID should not be taught in science classes in schools, NOT because "ID isn't science" but because it's not appropriate, or necessary to discuss ID at that level of school. One should note that ID typically refers to an understanding of "origination of life" and thus would be opposed, not by "evolution" in a broad sense, but only Evolution as evolution refers to an origination of life (typically begging theories of Big Bangs...). With this in mind, teaching the Big Bang to a freshman biology class seems also futile - micro-evolution at the cellular level needs to be taught, because that is a foundational principle OF BIOLOGY. It has a purpose and utility to help students understand biology in a greater context, to prepare their ability to understand science, and (being foundational) is of critical import for later work. Note, that my advocacy of evolution being taught in schools is "not because it's science" but because of its ability to most efficiently help produce better scholarship in a school.

My question then isn't what is the value of demarcating on Pedagogical grounds, but rather demarcating in a broader sense. It is my intuition that most people will recognize the need to delimit for pedagogical reasons -> however I do not think agreement will be so quick after this.

MORE will be coming....

(1) - I am not sure what sort of value judgment adjective would best fit here. I shall probably use simply the word "valuable" or "worthwhile"...but meaningful, pragma, utility, usefulness all come to my mind as possibilities....

Foster Care

2006-02-17T13:21:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/national/17foster.html

I don't know when I started using my blog to piss about the news - but anyway.

What this article tells me is clear: we have an enlarging and growing problem with taking care of OUR- COLLECTIVE children. John isn't the responsibility of natural parents who turned to coke, or a welfare agency, or foster parents. He's the responsibility of me, and anyone who reads this. Our nation, we the people of said nation, have a responsibility to take care of each other. Where does this responsibility comes from one might say?

Well, for different folks it'll probably come from different places.
The religious right bastards - your religion tells you to care for children - to care for any who are misfortunate - to care for your brother's and sister's children - to care for anyone in the family - and everytime a child is baptised, a religious community VOWS to support that child. So fuck off religious hypocrites who will read that article as a problem with "Government interfereing" or "Neglectful Parents" and wake up to reality - WE ARE ALL NEGLECTING.

If your not in a religious camp - maybe you're a humanist? We can find roots for responsibility there - or a socialist? communitarian? Laisez-faire capitalist? There is no reason we should not be caring for these children - all of them - all of us. What are the priorities of our society where we ignore the pleading calls of individuals who do not even have legal rights.

We are hypocritical with our Pledge - we ignore immigrants, we ignore oppressed peoples, we support slavery and we have labels to ignore the humanity of others "Enemy Combatant - Terrorist - Gangbanger - Inmate." We ignore dissenters and we defy religious freedom.

If we can be hypocritical on all these accounts - can we not at least take care of the kids?

Skepticism

2006-02-14T11:05:00.000-05:00

In brief, I'm lecturing on an article that criticizes the standard skepticism of Hume (the position that we must reluctantly, grumpily, taciturnly accept Skepticism as a position - shit folks, we cannot be 100% certain, Heisenberg taught us that) in a standard fashion. It says - what is this skepticism stance when it's claim to doubt becomes meaningless. Run it through this example:

There is a book in front of me.
How do you know?
I can touch it.
Why do you trust your sense of touch?
Other people verify it. AND I can see it, it fits the definition of a book etc...
Yes, but couldn't you be in doubt?

Here the argument can get quite sophisticated - the short answer is "Sure you can still doubt - there is always some doubt. The standard argument against this is as follows:
Stating that an event (it will rain tomorrow without evidence) is probable and ALSO stating that an event (it will rain tomorrow with very strong evidence to support it) is probable is a verbal manipulation that leaves you nowhere. Why not allow the word "certain" in cases where it is most certainly true? When there is multiple, strong, clear evidence to advocate for it's truth? It's possible that the computer I am writing from will POOF! out of existence - no list of propositions that I can write (as known) would be contradictory to the event of it POOF!ing....but waiting for such a list to be possible leads you into an idiodic semantic battle.

This seems at the front, fairly convincing. We should talk about some things as probable (say Evolution or Intelligent Design) and other things as certain (say, the conservation of energy). It's USEFUL!

But what this argument doesn't do is adequately criticize the classical formulations of Skepticism. It posits that there is a position/stance: Skepticism. When in fact, the Greek skeptics, Descartes even Hume often advocate for skepticism as an ability or skill. Skepticism isn't a position one adopts, or a title for an individual in an absolute sense: Joel is a skeptic - meaning Joel refuses to talk about something as certain. Rather skepticism is a mode of being, or mode of thought: Joel is being skeptical or Joel is a skeptic (as someone who is often engaged in the mode of being skeptical). Skepticism is a way, as Sextus Empiricus writes - that leads one to tranquility or as the Chuangtzu advocates - puts one in harmony with the world.

Some news articles

2006-02-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

I don't often just post random news articles - but these couple struck a happy nerve:

From the NYTimes
(Alternative voices on the same story)
From the Toledo Blade (kindy wishy washy but hey, it's one of the most horrible city papers I've read)

ZING! Stepping up into the ring and fighting back (in some very conservative areas) - Boo ya!

And fighitng back from within the Religious community:
From the NYTimes
(Alternative voices on the same story)
From the Christian Post
this one was just funny - Falwell will hold a rave in his church....teheheehe
American Chronicle

Some folks sure do want to take their religion back - and I for one support em! Keep on fighting the good fight!

Hume

2006-02-09T11:14:00.000-05:00

So as always, I typically don't have anything that important to stay - just a random string of thoughts that accompanies my work.

Well here is another one - oh so briefly.

Hume rights, from the Enquiry, "First, when we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded or sublime, we always find that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from a precendent feeling or sentiment."

My response - Damn! I want his LEGO set!

Theft (vol 2)

2006-01-31T10:16:00.000-05:00

This is in response to an old post of mine http://originalrudeboi.blogspot.com/2005/04/theft.html

Anyway - In that post I argue that theft is only real when there is a actual perceived loss. I still hold to this.

But when prepping a Lecture on W.K. Clifford's, "Ethics of Belief" I found the way to articulate another facet to the question of internet piracy.

Clifford states that, "What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society."

Whoa! Clifford, it MUST stop being communal existence and living? WTF? I'm not sure that all the folks who find private property a crutch to civilization would agree.....but that isn't exactly my point right now.

So on one hand, I agree. Internet piracy, whether it be theft (perceived loss) or "harmless" is probably bad if it encourages a "den of thieves." My question (and it's simply that, a question) is if internet piracy of music is indeed encouraging a "den of thieves" in society.
First, this idea of a den of thieves must be understood, and I want to talk about it as the lessening of an understanding of private, public and corporate property. People are stealing from corporation, as employees ganking stamps or as customers shoplifting, people "taste-testing" in grocery stores, students have little concept of the teacher owning the pencil they "borrow" or petty theft of things like Internet access - digital media - cable is growing exponentially. I would advocate that the loosening of the public conception of what is "bad stealing" and what is "sticking it to the man - etc..."is indeed sufficient for society to be turning into a "den of thieves."
Second, the greater question must be which comes first, the theft or the thief. There is no theft until there is a thief right? But there are not thieves without there being theft. They seem to spring into existene (ursprung) in the same moment. So if this it the case - what are the necessary and sufficient causes to bring this about? Here is where I find less of an issue with the piracy than others might.

Piracy is bad - as is being a Pirate. (Arrrr, me hearties!)

But how is this behavior and ontological identity developed originally? Initially? As a person who puts an extreme primacy on the "nature" side of the debate - I want to argue that our children's lack of understanding that the pencil should be returned, and the internet pirate who sticks it to the man, are a subordinate problem stemming from (among other things) a greater notion of theft that is endemic of the United States.

A child's first example in behavior is their peer group and family group. The peer and family group's prime example of behavior is what is portrayed in the media. The media is dictated by the money behind the media. The money of the country is allowed it's form by a government.

This is slippery slope would be a bad place to find the grounds to advocate for an endemic problem of theft - wouldn't it?

Arctic Melting

2005-10-10T06:03:00.000-05:00

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/healthscience/web.1010arctic.complete.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/09/news/arctic.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/10arctic.html?hp&ex=1129003200&en=64e93c8fc877d5f2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

anybody else thinking that this cannot possibly be a good thing??

Etiquette pt 1 - Messy Ethics

2005-09-29T08:04:00.000-05:00

Alright, So as some who read this might be aware, I'm working on a thesis that wants to develop ontologically based ethics.....and as I work through this I realize more and more that the very nature of ethics is at stake in what I'm working on. We can talk of different types of ethics, virtue-rule-etc... But we are starting to realize as a philosophical community (and it seems the nonphilosophical community has had this intuition since the dawn of civilization) that ethics are NEVER as clearcut as what we think. The first stage in my development of 'etiquette' as opposed to ethics (part of my thesis goal) is to show that "ethics" are not satisfactory in terms of guiding moral life, action, etc...

So let's just start with the basics for now....ethics are messy.

Let me put out a few of the typical examples, that escalate.

Stealing is morally wrong - isn't it?

1) Joel steals $2 from Matt in order to buy a case of beer.
2) Joel steals $20 from Matt in order to buy a case of beer.
3) Joel steals $2000 from Matt in order to spend a week in Germany drinking beer.
4) Joel steals $2 from Matt in order to feed himself.
5) Joel steals $20 from Matt in order to feed himself for the week (PBJ!)
6) Joel steals $2000 from Matt in order to start a vegetable garden.
7) Joel steals $xxx from Matt in order to feed starving children.
8) Joel steals bread from Matt in order to......

You guys get the idea, at what degree does Robin Hood become a hero, and not a thief? To what degree is Joel allowed to steal in order to do what with the stolen goods?

We could run through this with most of our "moral maxims" like killing, lying, etc...

Ethicists have carefully taken up these positions and begun to define contextual circumstances that may or maynot allow for actions that might be deemed immoral to be taken.

My question then becomes, without going into the various solutions to solve the "murkiness" of the ethical or moral maxim, can a contextual analysis alleviate this problem.

I want to say that theoretically it cannot. I can just pull the skeptic card here - on what standard willl we judge one's contextual analysis, and why that standard? The reason I think this card is a valid trump - is that the contextual situation is based so heavily in the person's individual experience of the situation.

Some might say that a single mother with 3 children who is unemployed is justified in stealing bread to feed her children - others might say she isn't, as the state is there to help (or family, or churches, etc...). I'd say that if the mother is unaware of the state's aid, or has negative feelings towards the state's aid, or other countless emotional blocks or setbacks or preconcpetions, theneither position becomes relevant or irrelevant. The problem is that human psychology is such that we cannot just say that given knowledge of an aid program, people will all feel that it is a better option than stealing. We can say that it is - but then we are coming from a moral highground - something that I am unwilling to do. Understandings of a moral highground pave the way for Frege and Hitler and Stalin and {insert pet Facist here}.

We have to accept that people's perceptions and emotional connections to situations will shade their understanding of right and wrong - and given this, the murkiness in ethical theory seems to stand - an unpassable bog of gray, doubt, and confusion.

Immigration

2005-09-06T07:02:00.000-05:00

Well, it's that time of the year again...the time when I freak out about bigotry and racism. What prompted my website and forum trolling this year was an NPR story on All Things Considered concerning Rep. Tom Tancredo, 6th district rep from Colorado. In the NPR story, he or someone working for him (I could of caught it wrong) mentioned that the immigrants need to "Learn the American language" and lose their previous cultures by "becoming part of the American culture and American dream."

While I won't even comment on an "American Language" which is just fantasy.... I dare anyone to define for me American culture or American dreams...and clearly that culture is based on "foreign" cultures, ie the culture of Western Europe that the immigrant populations first brought here. Many ways we talk of a civilization's culture is to look at it's devotion to Education and the fine Arts...it's Holidays and it's Religion. Is St. Patty's day "American" culture? Is Halloween? Is the passionate devotion to sport? All of these were brought across this country. Holidays, many of them, are imported. I mean, we have Turkey-Day and "Blow shit up and drink (cuz we're nationalisitc)-Day. Enough of holiday's....is there something uniquely American about Hollywood? (I might even answer yes to this...) or Broadway? Do most Americans appreciate the fine arts as a whole? What about Religion? As a Hodgepodge nation, I think we'd find it hard to articulate an 'American' understanding of faith and religious culture...a few good books can help illustrate the eclectic 'American' viewpoints. "Memoirs of the Spirit" comes to mind. What about education? We have huge education rates and a small illiteracy rate (officially) but is our education system one of great culture? We talk of Greek education as something to be proud of...but we refer to Athens, not Sparta when we think of this. Is the US more like Sparta? or Athens?
Leaving these questions behind, are immigrants (legal or illegal) avoiding these "cultural" pillars of American society? I dunno, most people seem to want to watch HBO and head to the Cinema. Most folks indeed tend to watch sports...and you'll be hard pressed NOT to find people celebrating Turkey and "Blow Shit up"-Days. It seems to me that immigrants cannot be seen as avoiding American culture...they just aren't conforming to standards of that culture. Instead of celebrating "Blow Shit Up"-Day with a couple cases of Bud or MGD...you might find them drinking some Tecate or TsingTao. While on Turkey-Day all us northern European types are eating Turkey, Potatos and Stuffing...I've sat at some wonderful tables of Pavo, habas y arroz. The mindset of celebrating friends, family and community is still relevant, even if there aren't any cranberries on the table...isn't it?

Despite this amazingly inadequate glimpse at the dicussion of whether or not immigrants are involved in the culture (if there is such a thing) of the American society - one thing is blatantly clear. Tom Tancredo and his various friends, www.tnrip.org, http://www.uscitizen-noway.org/, www.deportaliens.com, (not to mention the Klan, National Alience, WVA, etc...) aren't making this discussion. They are stating as a presupposition that such things as "American Culture" exists....all of which to hide culturally charged bigotry.

True, these folks are not at the surface, "Racist." They have no problem of Latinos who fit into the dominant social structures...they don't complain about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or Jennifer Lopez...they complain about the poor hardworking individual, who sees life better on the other side of the barbed wire fence protecting an inhospitable desert.

These Bigots disgust me. Their Bigotry is deeper seeded than one of Race...it's one based on circumstances beyond all our control - the circumstance of having been born privledged, or born not.

I'll leave this rant off with some song lyrics - the Adjusters "Our Town" and "TSKF"

So now we're a statistic in a rich man's speech
he says the solution is within our reach
if we close down the borders
and cut those bastards out
American-For Americans
that's what he says....

Don't wear those masks - I can see right through them!
Don't hide your faces...in sheets!
You say you're from the grassroots boy...well shit makes grass grow green.!

-joel

searching for the necklace around your neck

2005-09-03T21:58:00.000-05:00

So, at the bar recently a conversation came up between two of my colleagues, and one of them expressed an opinion or view I find troubling. It is not my intention to imply these colleagues during this lil rambling blog are in anyway doing something silly, deconstructive, or wrong. In fact, I will liberally bend the reality of the instance if I feel the need to make the example work.

That being said. I'm afraid we all need to pay some attention to song lyrics like
"what you're really searching for, is a key to an open door" and
"emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind"

The conversation that occurred involved the reasons why a person might be in our situation - graduate students studying philosophy at a terminal MA program. The troubling opinion expressed was that "This is really the only thing I could possibly be doing and be satisfied. it's what I need at this moment in my life."

This seriuosly troubles me. Perhaps I'm dealing too much lately with avoiding absolute statements. The above is clearly absolute...and I must speculate as to why a person would make such an absolute statement. I can think of a few reasons, 1-they truly believe that there is nothing else that they could be doing....2-they are trying to justify this decision in life....3-they are trying to instill in themselves belief that it is the best possible thing to be doing.

If (1) is the case...I would want to pursue questions of variety and potentialities. Just because this is what you currently want to do, doesn't mean you won't be able to find satisfaction later. If I'm craving a Burger..well...I might find a pizza that totally was what I needed and wanted. I just didn't know it yet.

If (2) is the case...I point out that one doesn't need to justify their life...for what cause, to what purpose?

If (3) is the case...I hope the person is not fooling themselves...but that of course is my fear. So often people use a process of justification in order to convince themselves of a truth.

Regardless of which reason, there are two dangers in my mind. One is the notion of absolute stances...which are often more full of gray area...and the other with using the absolute stance as a form of justification. Now, back to those song lyrics...I think this self-delusion is indeed the greatest form of mental slavery. If we aren't accepting the rest of the potentialities....what kind of existence are we leaving? Sartre reminds us we have only one absolute...that of freedom. At all times there is an absolutely free range of choices, that we limit for ourselves. But should we limit it to the ONE we can be happy doing? or living? Should we limit so much that there is such a thing as the ONLY? Of course not, to do so is to live without that freedom. Do we know these stances certainly? Clearly not...our selves are such complicated amalgamates of remembered sensations and perceptions how can I only know that I only want a Burger?

I don't mean to think that someone who claims to want a Burger is an idiot, or silly...simply that the pattern of using this "This is what is right for me..and it's the only thing that is right for me" as justificaiton for an action...or as a true belief - is a dangerous mode of reasoning or thinking or action (whichever it is). It can be reflective of self-delusion...and not many folks I know would want to unequivocally advocate self-delusion.

K, enough rambling for now.

Listening

2005-05-05T10:53:00.000-05:00

So while writing this paper on compassion and protest - the thought occurred to me that there is something very interesting in the notion of Listening.

I can't say that I've done much work on this, so I have lots of speculation without much worked out, but I wanted to see if I can drum up some talk or other folks ideas.

My basic idea is that 2 people engaged in a monologue isn't a situation of listening. There must be active engagement on both parties. It seems that the listener needs to speak using "questionmarks" to ask engaging and thoughtful questions that flesh out the listeners understanding of what the speaker is saying. The speaker on the other hand needs to speak in "periods" in order to provide the basis for letting the individual talk.

For whatever reason, I was thinking of listening in a really backhanded way.

The speaker provides the grounds and backing and qualifiers for the project, the listener tries to provide the warrant and the rebuttals. Together they come to a conclusion, the output of dialogue.

BTW - Sorry the posting has been fairly dry lately, I've just got too much to do currently.

Theft

2005-04-20T11:28:00.000-05:00

So I made an offhand comment yesterday that I truly believe in. I wonder if this comment has been published before, cuz if not.....I have a paper on my hand perhaps.

Anyway

Theft, is only rightly called theft, when there is an actual deprivation or loss.

I mean, there is no theft with an illegal copy of a CD that you would positively never have bought. How could there be? What has the artist lost? Royalties? Nope, because you weren't going to pay for it anyway. There was no loss or deprivation for them.

One might say that there is the loss of their recorded intellectual property (into your hands), but this seems poorly thought to me. They still have their intellectual property, locked away in their intellect. They aren't deprived of it. There wasn't one of 100,000 officially released CDs gone. Its a copy.
Take a different example - wireless internet.

Am I deprived of something if my neighbor picks up my signal and checks her email? Perhaps if I can't use the full potential of my bandwith, but really, it would take 10 people on my wireless before I'd see a decrease personally - my wireless card can only deal with so much. Where is the actual deprivation? The company has already alotted the bandwith to me, so are they losing anything?

*Shrug*

Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-19T13:39:00.000-05:00

Whoa! 2nd day Pope! And a Scary fellow at that.

I guess we won't be seeing much progress (at least the sort I would like) in the Catholic Church for awhile...of course, this guy is 78...how long can he be around?

Mortals in the fourfold

2005-04-19T12:36:00.001-05:00

One idea I've been toying around with is the meaning of the "mortals" in the fourfold that Heidegger discusses throughout his later philosophy. I can't say I've come to any definite conclusions here, but my initial inclination is that this has been treated in a way that might not be entirely proper. (Either as an interpretation of Heidegger, or perhaps as a place where he failed to understand things clearly).

My reflections are based mostly from Building Dwelling Thinking, any suggestions on where else to look would of course, be appreciated (when I find the time to actually do more with this).

My basic thought is that clearly Dasein is included under mortals, but what about other humans, or even other Daseins than the Dasein most familiar to me, myself. Are they just other mortals? And is our responsibility to each other simply one of making sure that others are being-towards-death? Or should humans be necessarily seen as other animals. If they are other animals, then the relationship of a mortal to the earth would seem applicable to other humans. In this sense then, it seems one could tease some notion of ethics based in caring and protecting towards other humans. Just some thoughts I'm working through.

here are some excerpts from a paper I'm writing, the text cited is Basic Writings, ed by David Krell. Just a further explication of what I've already said

Mortals are the part of the fourfold that are most easily recognized, as they are the human beings. Heidegger notes that, "mortals are in the fourfold by dwelling. But the basic character of dwelling is safeguarding. Mortals dwell in the way they safeguard the fourfold" (Heidegger, BW 352). Thus the way we can understand the fourfold is to understand the way mortals themselves are a part of the fourfold. Before doing that though, it is important to mention the way by which mortals dwell. They dwell insofar as they "initiate their own essential being – their being capable of death as death" (Heidegger, BW 352). Thus the mortals dwell insofar as they are being-towards-death. This isn't to mean that mortals seek or strive for death, but they live under the awareness of their eventual death, in the awareness of their own mortality. With this in mind, mortals begin to dwell with the rest of the fourfold.
Dealing first with the earth, Heidegger sees dwelling with the earth as essentially being a caring-for the natural world. He defines the earth as, "the serving bearer, blossoming and fruiting, spreading out in rock and water, rising up into plant and animal" (Heidegger, BW 351). Thus the earth includes plants, animals, rocks, water, and almost anything else that can be generically called the environment. He further writes, "Mortals dwell in that they save the earth…to save properly means to set something free into its own essence. To save the earth is more than to exploit it or even wear it out. Saving the earth does not master the earth and does not subjugate it" (Heidegger, BW 352). One can clearly see how this resonates with what has been said about dwelling already. Saving the earth is not treating it as standing-reserve, but is rather the active allowing of the earth to stand for itself. This treatment of the earth becomes of special importance later, when one wonders if humans are solely included under mortals or if humans other than Dasein are included here as part of the natural world. Before getting to this, an account of how mortals dwell with the sky and divinities shall be explored.
(Section omitted)
What Heidegger fails to address here is the understanding of how humans should interact towards humans. Remembering that the original goal of this paper is to argue that Heidegger offers an ethics, based in etiquette, it becomes important to note what kind of ethics can be garnished from dwelling. Many have begun to see an environmental ethic inherent in this notion of dwelling,[1] but I would like to pursue the idea that human beings are not solely grouped into the mortals of the fourfold. I would like to state that the human being, as another animal, can also be accurately be seen as a member of the earth in the fourfold. In this way, humans are also animals that need to be saved and cared-for as one individual human dwells in the world. Part of dwelling then is the basis of an etiquette towards the self, as well as the Other. To sum up, dwelling is an etiquette of actively caring for others by allowing them to stand in themselves, for themselves. It is the opening up of phusis, for others and the self.
[1] Julian Young in Heidegger's Later Philosophy and Bruce Foltz in Inhabiting the Earth are the two I'm most familiar with, but a brief search through the Philosopher's Index will reflect many more.

p.s. I can now be googled. That sort of scares me, and sort of excites me.

Ahh! Domination!

2005-04-19T12:28:00.000-05:00

So it happened, I experienced the dehumanization that comes from technology. The fact that it concealed from me the truth by forcing me to act as standing-reserve.

Yes, I did it. While proofreading a paper, I read a line and saw no problem with it. "An etiquette" I read. Then while correcting changes in word, that nasty dirty green line showed up and I CLICKED IT, and CHANGED IT!! (I have since corrected this error). Stupid technology doing too much, too often and not letting folks think for themselves.

Grr, I want a typewriter. (well, maybe not ;-) )

Virtual Identity/Community

2005-04-06T22:26:00.000-05:00

As a member of three virtual communities, it seems to me relevant to address some of the issues that occur with these virtual communities.

First off, it seems to me that the largest problem that can occur from virtual identities and communities is anonymity. In person, through dialogue, one can do their best to deceive the people they are in dialogue with. Yet, by being in that face to face encounter deception becomes quite difficult. People are more likely to get caught in a lie, or reveal much of themselves through their gestures and nonverbal cues. There is also more of a sense towards being honest in person. Looking in someone's eyes makes it more difficult to deceive. I could probably mention Levinas and his Face of the Other stuff here, but I'll hold off on the overtly Levinasian stuff until I have a better grip of it.

With this anonymity it seems to me that people can begin the process of failing to take responsibility for their actions. In community this is a huge deal. Part of community is being in these ethical relations of responsibility. As a member of the community of the class I TA for, I have a responsibility to the students, to the Professor, and to the other TA's. As a member of my neighborhood community I am responsible to my neighbors in different ways (not throwing load parties late at night, parking properly, etc...). As a member of the virtual communities I am part of, I am responsible to have intelligent rational discussion and dialogue in a spirit of respect.

Now, I've said responsible - what do I mean by that? Well, I mean that I have to be accountable for what I do/say. If I were to throw that block party, I would need to be accountable for any damaged property, I would be expected to ensure that my neighbors are alright with it, etc.... If I am responsible to follow through with what I say (telling a student to meet me at a certain time, I need to be there!). I must take any punishment or reward for my actions. Along with this, I am responsible ethically. For sake of simplicity, I'm going to simply define ethically as acting out of an etiquette or mode-of-being (Seinsart) of universal respect. Perhaps later I'll do my best to explain my personal notions of ethics.

Where does this leave us? With the need to take responsibility for our actions, anonymity provides a false blanket to hide behind. One can avoid and skirt this responsibility through deception. Provided that one is engaged in an actual attempt at putting their identity legitimately front on the web, the next issue becomes one of motivation.

Why am I involved in these online communities? Katie has said in a comment that the powers of technology allow her to do things that she might not otherwise have done. They give her the ability to communicate with friends and loved ones who are further away. This seems to be a wonderful thing, but there is still danger lurking here. Virtual communication will never be a substitute for the actual experienced communication. From simple things like satire and sarcasm being misunderstood, to the loss of nonverbal cues and gestures, simple written words will never express more than the combined sensed experience. Even if virtual communication evolves (perhaps devolves) into a form that allows for say, holographic projection...something will still be missing. Allow me to address this with a rhetorical example. Can you walk into the room with your lover/partner/family/roommate/etc... and tell that there is something troubling them? Do you need to see them, or even talk to them? Or can't you sense the tension, the wrongness, the problem before the communication begins. That is the value of lived communication. It is always better than virtual communication. So the danger with virtual communication comes when people opt to use that, as opposed to actual face to face communication. Examples of this abound: college students IMing people down the hall, people in the same office building shooting memo's and emails to folks who are a few offices (or cubicles) away.

Moving on, the other primary danger with technology can be described in a couple of ways. Heidegger talks about the difference between techne and technology, and the notion that technology forces beings into a sense of standing-reserve. That is, our technology is making us act, and think, and exist as a resource. A human resource for the economic structure, and an enslaved resource to our machines. The laptop and cell phone were designed to let people stay in communication or work from home (with the purpose of spending more time with family). What has happened? The Car, the home, the beach on vacation are now extensions of our office. They stopped being places of living or relaxation, but became places of work. Telecommunications mean that I am on call to people in the business fields all hours of the day. Even a pager cuts away at your autonomy. Another approach to this problem is (I believe) coming from Alan Borgmann. He notes the difference between a tool and a device. A tool being something that the human must have some focal knowledge to use, whereas the device is something that doesn't require anything of the person.

Taking this notion to think of virtual community, you tend to run the risk of being a standing-reserve to your community. Think of the blogging habit of some of us (myself included). I found myself the other day checking for comments, with the desire to respond. Let me emphasize, I was motivated to go out of my way to do this. This is the danger. I was beginning to act as if I was required to respond on this blog. To some degree I am, I need to be accountable for my words and thoughts, and that means responding to folks who intelligently engage them. But in another sense, there doesn't have to be the immediacy of the project. Putting this in more universal terms (because perhaps some don't have that same drive towards responding to comments) - how many bloggers feel guilty if they haven't updated in awhile? How many people post something saying "I'm sorry for the absence" - I ask you....WHY!?!? We tend to feel guilty if we aren't posting everyday, everyweek. But what does that say about our relationship with this tool...is it a craft we employ? or are we finding ourselves partially enslaved by our own project.

*Shrug* Virtual identity and virtual communication are dangerous things, and need to be approached with the proper Seinsart. They need to be seen as tools, and not as beings that we allow to mold and shape us.
-j

Certainty

2005-04-05T13:12:00.000-05:00

This was taken from an interview Prof Roth did with Kinue Tokudome, published in Courage to Remember. [Reading I'm doing as part of critical engagment with theodicy]

"Q: Are you comfortable about not being certain about certain things?

Yes, I am. This is party because of my training as a philosopher. I think human life is better off when people aren't too sure about things. Mischief and destructiveness break out most often when people are too sure, especially when they are sure that they are right and therefore that other people are wrong." [Bold Emphasis My own]

Ahh blessed uncertainty. How much more apt can this be put?

Another quote (same source), "There is no heart that is as whole as one that has been broken." Again, the admittance of incompleteness, of unfulfillment, of the pursuit and inquiry, of dwelling in the question - not of answers. Broken heart.

A final one, more on the theodicy side than the certainty side.
"What still brings tears to my eyes is my recognition of how good, beautiful and moving humanlife can be on onehand, and how much human beings do to waste it, destroy it, and direspect it on the other."

-Good stuff Prof Roth, thank you.

Communities

2005-04-03T22:25:00.000-05:00

So, my school hosted a conference on contemporary philosophy concerning community.

I'll probably need some time to fully digest what I heard and reacted to this weekend, but here are some initial comments/insights/whatever.

One, there seems to be issues concerning the way one identifies in communities. Clearly we have a complex identity, and each portion puts us into a chance at community in many ways.
Another issue seems to be why or what it means to be within community.
A final issue involves the over-generalization of community; that is, many people seem to advocate an idea that we should be seeing ourselves in community with others from seperate communities. A pseudo-egalitarian concept of recognizing ourselves in community with everyone else. But if we are indeed in community with everyone else, what is community? Have we expanded it into something else? Whydon't we just talk about ourselves with ethical reponsibility to everyone else (if that is what we mean).

*Shrug*, I'll get back to this soon enough.

For the more Theological minded of you

2005-03-30T22:01:00.000-05:00

If there are any of my friends involved in theology reading this.....

What significance, if any, or what line of thought would you put into this comparison.

Abraham is asked to slay his firstborn son, and God stays his hand.

God in turn, allows for the destruction of his only incarnate son (and self).

I'm not sure I have a response, but something that sort of fell into my head.

Terrorism and Friends (2)

2005-03-30T12:30:00.000-05:00

So, a month ago I posted a little blurb that was inspired from a Glen Phillips song, US foreign policy lacking in its ability to make friends. I ended with the question concerning, since WWII, has the US made any friends?

I think we can see that the US has not made friends, not of the type that existed between nations prior to WWII and not of the type that exists between nations in certain portions of the world.

Perhaps the first step to articulate this is to define the word "friend."

The OED offers a plethora of options, here is but a couple: (as a noun)
1. a. One joined to another in mutual benevolence and intimacy
5. a. One who wishes (another, a cause, etc.) well; a sympathiser, favourer, helper, patron, or supporter; spec. a supporter of an institution or the like, contributing help, money, etc.
6. a. As opposed to enemy in various senses: One who is on good terms with another, not hostile or at variance; one who is on the same side in warfare, politics, etc.
(as an adjective) B. adj. Well-disposed, friendly, not hostile
(as a verb) To make (persons) friends or friendly; to join in friendship; to join (a person) to or with another in friendship.

So, we have some varied senses of the word friend, and clearly if to be a friend is simply like (5a) or (6a) to be on the same political side or to be a contributor of money then the US has indeed created friends....yet, this seems to miss something that comes from the sense of friendship that people have in modern understanding. That is, when I as a person name another as "friend" I am saying something strong and deep, I am talking about a commitment to the other that will go beyond the current situation...something historical.

We would be quick to say that if I made a friend at a party where we were teamed up against others...a person who later stole from me...that person was never a "friend" in the proper sense. We talk of acquaintances in highschool who were friends but who really weren't deep or close friends. It is this sense of the word that I think is lost in those OED definitions, and this sense that seems lacking in US foreign policy.

Let's look at some case studies. The French, a political ally throughout much of the cold war, something happens and instantly they are so distasteful that we must call something "Freedom Fries" over "French Fries?" How about Pakistan...the US is about to sell them some F16 fighters capable of carrying a nuclear payload....but are they a "friend" or a Friend of the US? Clearly it seems to me that it wouldn't be hard for us to imagine invading them in 20 years....I mean, we did the same thing to Iraq...(Sold them military equipment in the 80s, and 22 years later have had two forces of American soldiers in the country). Even granted that the American presence in Iraq was just (which as most who know me would recognize I won't actually grant), is it hard pressed to see the same arguments being used against Pakistan in 2022?

Let's look at Russia even. There is a situation where one side did lower their arms, (to gather friends...which ironically has worked in some places) and has this allowed friendship to emerge? Well, talk to a Ukrainian and no it has not...the politicians there are polarized around support for the US and support for Russia. Could this polarization happen if there wasn't animosity and hostility?

Alright - I've chosen some of the poor examples, so let's check out Canada and Britain. Surely they are friends of the US right? Canada, that shares a long border with the US used to be a free open experience. Yet ever since 9/11 the animosity is great enough to cause many people more hassle. The Canadians have passed bills and acts mocking US legislation (Like the Canadian "defense of marriage" act) while supporting Canadian ideals. There definitely seems to be a growing rift. Britain you say? Well, here I would concede if it weren't for the thousands of people who protest actions from across this pond. Britain's are up in arms about the way the Bush administration handles foreign policy and it doesn't seem accurate to say that because Tony Blair supports it, it must be so.

What the US seems to be lacking in my mind is that we are quick to have "buddies" not friends. We are quick to find "allies" and "coalitions of the willing" but does that mean we have friends in the deep sense that most folks I know talk about friends? Not your drinking buddies, but your close friends. The US doesn't seem to invest considerably and intimately with its allies...nor does it seem interested in long term alliances. When Germany and France pointed out problems with US foreign policy a few years ago, the White House was quick to distance itself from those folks...60 years of alliance didn't seem to hold much water. Look at the US's interaction with NATO, the UN, and other multinational organizations. We are quick to use them when they are helpful, and quick to disregard them when they are not.

Seems to me like the US has some drinking buddies - but do we have friends? I might personally define a friend as someone I would take a bullet for. Someone I would give my kidney for. Someone I would hold on their death bed. Someone I will share excitement with. A friend is a person who will birth a child, that I will delight in. A friend is a person who can have me haul 50 billion pound cement blocks out of their yard, with only a cold beer in payment. Someone who I would give all the money I have, why? *Shrug* they need but ask. A friend is someone who one has a relationship, that while not unconditional, allows for lots of slack.

Would the US pull out Britain's cement? or help Africa's problem with AIDS? Would or will the US bail Iraq out of trouble, for free? No, historically we have not acted like we have friends.

While this blog goes long, a new question is raised in my head. I have my testimony to my friends but I live in a society that does not by and large act this way with other societies. I feel like there is an inconsistency here. Either I am better than my society (which I doubt) or else I am lying about the way I treat friends (at least to some people I call friends). Perhaps the way out of this whole that I see has to do with the attempt. I believe that I will act those ways when put to trial, and I desire to. That leaves the question of whether or not my country can slither away under the same defense? Does the US try and desire to act out of friendship to other nations? That becomes the question in my mind.

2005-03-25T21:52:00.000-05:00

So, on the most northwest tip of the country, I decided it was prudent to give a nice blanket "F-U" to the United States....I can't say I am aware of what my country has done to recently raise my ire, but clearly it will happen sooner or later.

To quote ye olde wilderness ravagers, "Be Prepared"

The Face of the Other....Electronically?

2005-03-25T21:50:00.000-05:00

So Folks, as I begin my first venture deep into the Face of Levinas, I am puzzled by one extension of his concept of responsibility through encounter...namely, how does this extend into the modern world of faceless technology?

I'm not sure I have a conclusion yet, but I do think its worthwhile to notice that Levinas talks about the encounter as necessitating ethical interaction. That is, when in relationship with the Other there is already the responsibility to the other. So when I am in dialogue with another, there is necessarily responsibility between us. I have obligations about responsiveness and attentiveness. Levinas offers that one hears the call of the other, and sees the other, and is therefore called to ethics....think 'bout how we bag up folks heads before death, or torture - its a simple way of dehumanizing an individual. I'm prepared to think that we do indeed have this ethical relationship, but is this relationship alleviated when we aren't in that face to face connection? Levinas seems to want to use ideas of auditory responsiveness, but it is still the Face of the other that is mentioned.

So, while I have yet to really grasp the concepts of the Third or the Stranger for Levinas, I don't think I'm prepared to ask questions that might fall into those categories. So when dealing with this modern faceless communication, I don't want to deal with completely anonymous communication yet, things like Chat rooms, or Forums (where identity is concealed).

Thus, the question in my mind that percolates is: How do situations of faceless communication, say in Phones, Cell Phones (as a very separate way of using a phone), IM, Email interplay with the supposed ethical relationship between two people in dialogue? My inclination is to suppose that these things offer a large risk, because it is easier to shirk one's responsibility, but that the communication must in some sense, entail ethics. Yet, I'm not sure I can say they entail ethics in the sense Levinas mentions, or simply ethics in the way that I think one is responsible for what one says. Another consideration is the distance face to face communication, video mediums allow for one to say the radically different superficial other, that will show the depth of the Other....how does that relate to one's ethical obligations?

I think a key to this comes in our sense of communication, as well as our sense of identity. If we can understand what it is that builds our identity, then it seems one will be able to understand in what ways, and through what mediums one is sending out the call for ethics. That is, I expect the call from the physical aspects of my identity, as a white male, as a brownhaired person, as a member of a privledged class that lets me scrape my existence through studying and teaching. I also expect that response intellectually in dialogue with other critical thinkers who can pick up this call....Do these identities spread out into the virtual world, or am I creating different identities?

Am I Joel Van Zanten on the world wide web, and deserve ethics and responsiveness and am required towards responsibility and attentiveness as this being, or have I invented and created a virtual persona with the people who know this being of Joel Van Zanten. Do my family and friends expect me to react the same over the phone? cell phone? email? IM? Can we react in these same ways, is it even possible to!

I'll be struggling through these notions for awhile, lemme know if you have any thoughts.

Heidegger and Subjectivism

2005-03-09T12:34:00.000-05:00

So, Heidegger denies the subject, wants to talk abou Dasein, and let that stand for the being that is within the question of being.

Alright, fine, but it seems that the critique by folks like Derrida is accurate, Heidegger himself speaks of the mortals as a seperate group in the fourfold, and makes a clear statement about there being an abyss between human beings, and other beings.

Is he therefore caught up in the subject? How can we, following his train of thought of avoiding subjectism, extent this realm? Should I be extending it towards animals, perhaps....plants....getting harder to see.....rocks....umm.....

See, when we speak of Dasein, we are creating an inherently valued being; valued insofar as the being is morally responsible for actions, and one must treat the being ethically as being. So, Heidegger seems to want both, for humans to be those beings morally responsible, morally free and for the humans to treat the natural world in such a way that it is also worthy of standing on equal ground, thereby naming it as a valued being in our ethical relations. It seems to me that we need to expand this or narrow this, and as I certainly don't find it satisfying or even accurate to narrow the scope on the "who to be ethical towards" end, it seems that we need to be open to other beings, other Dasein, to have moral agency.

So Dogs and Cats, daseins perhaps? Dolphins, Monkeys, hmmm. We may never know if these are beings capable of authenticity, but it seems to rescue the Heideggerian approach something has to give here. I might be quick to argue that dasein is limited towards organic or living creatures, so as not ot worry 'bout the sentiency of rocks.

Of course, Daoists with their daoist 'fall' seem to alleviate this problem in their own right, and perhaps what Heidegger needs to offer is something similar of his own.

Bible?

2005-03-05T01:03:00.000-05:00

"I give you eyes to see, and ears to hear"

But to hear what and see what is the question. I'd like to propose that there wasn't a limitation implied in this quotation.....

Environment and Philosophy

2005-03-04T18:42:00.000-05:00

To Stella:

It seems to me clear that in both western and eastern traditions of philosophy, there has been seperate approachs to dealing with the notion of nature. There is clearly the need for a philosopher to deal with the issue, but on both sides seperate metaphysics/ontologies/ethics have caused for divergence as wide-ranging as the geography of this earth.

It seems clear to me that there are compelling systems of ontology (metaphysics) in both eastern and western traditions that indeed argue for an understanding of the human's relationship with nature as one of etiquette. Etiquette insofar as the person needs to engage the world within a certain framework of mannerism, thoughts, and actions. In parcitular, the Daoist tradition seems to compell an individual into a relationship with nature in a foreign manner than western thought. The standard western approach tends to address an understanding of master-slave or perhaps even caretaker-thingtobecared for. The Daoist approach hints at a different relationship, one that allows for the truth of the world to reveal itself to the seeking human. A relationship where there isn't dominance, or if it is to be dominant, the natural is dominant to the human (as the natural is at peace with Dao and the human is not). Daoist understanding would hint to an etiquette similar to the student-master relationship in martial arts between the human and the world. Reverence, respect, and awe given from the human to the natural world, that when allowed to be natural, will return with generosity, tranquility, and knowledge.

In comparison, Heidegger's rejection of traditional metaphysics seems to argue for an ontology that indeed would also place at the very essence of being an etiquette towards the natural world (fourfold). By being the caring-for that the fourfold needs, the human being is able to engage in a freeing, sparing relationship with the natural environment. The human spares the fourfold by letting it stand-in-itself; thereby revealing the thing's essence...unconcealing the truth of the being. The natural world then is cared for, respected, and seen as the home of the holy, and the human being is able to live comfortably, tranquilly, and engage knowledge of the world.

There is easily a connection here, from both Eastern and Western traditions (neither limited to the two mentioned) that embrace, perhaps not an Ethic, but a relationship based on etiquette between the human being and the environment the human finds themselves in.

Terrorism and Friends

2005-02-24T22:33:00.000-05:00

So, I've often been bothered by the wording of the phrase, "war on terrorism."

I very honestly just do not understand this. It seems plain to me that terrorism, an act of aggression from an illegal entity, is about as easy to have "war" on as smoke. Now, it's often been said that this so called war is actually creating terrorism, not stopping it. Another common complaint is that if people are upset or annoyed, then they are more likely to blow themselves up in some name of terror. This is all pretty common knowledge, and I wouldn't mention it except that I think I noticed an interesting way of looking at it. I heard a wonderful song by Glen Philips on my drive the other day, (thank you iPod). The track is called Gather (or else, lay down your arms) anyway, I first heard this at the Toad reunion tour in Bogarts. Awesome show, besides the point. The lyrics are: "Lay down your arms, gather your friends."

So profound when taken from the perhaps individualistic perspective that Glen gives it (methinks) and offered as the "friends of nations." Perhaps if the US would lay down its arms (the nuclear stockpiles, m16s, you name it) and we might be able to gather some friends.

That being said, I wonder what "friends" the United States has made since WW2? Any ideas?

Chris Cuomo talk at UT

2005-02-24T22:12:00.000-05:00

So, today I sat through an entirely engaging conversation under the title "Why Christian Values are not Ethics" by a Dr Chris Cuomo, of the University of Cincinatti. This was, in fact, so engaging that I dropped the other five posts I want to make or finish on this weblog, to talk about it.

She offered the point of view, and I do hope I'm not butchering it, that religious values (Christian as she uses something Dan Quayle said about Murphy Brown as a backdrop, along with the current political climate) do not constitute ethics. Her primary thought (and this is quite shortened) is that one's values are not necessarily thought out constructed ideas, but rather are often ideosyncratic beliefs. These beliefs do not necessitate ethics, simply because for a value to become an ethical idea it needs to have the rigors of a method applied to it, to find validity or truth content, that has a universal nature. She offers philosophical methods as ways to transform these values into an ethical conception. The motivation for this transformation comes from an understanding of respect for the other, (she uses Levinas to build this, duh, the word "other" and Levinas just flow together). Thus with the motivation of respecting the other in mind, people will be able to move towards a grip of ethics. This grip will allow individuals with different values to communicate and form a civil society. Reading this over, let me say again, that I have left out much of her argumentation, and don't have the skill to recreate it all here.

I totally buy this - I think. It seems quite clear to me that what one values, doesn't necessarily translate into an ethical system, and I also agree that an ethical system needs to be something that diverse individuals (the beauty of humanity really, the diversity) are able to harmonize on. Dr Cuomo mentions that this will allow society to flourish, and I agree. If we can find a common thread to agree upon with ethical issues, then clearly we can avoid all the back and forth whining that happens to follow debate. In fact, it would open up the way for society to critically think* and therefore flourish.

One thing that I noted is that this has a parallel to the way one looks at democracy. If democracy is simply defined my majority rules, we have the old mob rules. Instead, most democracies provide for the minority to have certain inalienable rights, and therefore be protected from an abusive majority. This seems to reflect, first of all, a respect for humanity (the others) that is the motivating force in Dr Cuomo's system. We also, in a democracy, have individuals coming from unique background, trying to reach common decisions. Just as people with unique values come together through a method (whichever it may be) to formulate ethical principles. I also propose that a democracy is a flourishing system.

From this parallel, I think one could find an interesting new definition of democracy from Dr Cuomo's work.

I think that's all I wanted to say.

edit : I have not informed Dr Cuomo of this post, and I probably should in good faith and respect. Please take what I've said as an interpretation that stems from me and allow any errors to be my fault, not the fault of Dr Cuomo's work.

Suffering and Evil

2005-02-20T22:41:00.000-05:00

So I'm taking another course in Judeo-Christian attempts at theodicy.

I've definitely begun to agree with Wendy Farley with her approach, "I place suffering rather than sin at the center of the problem of evil." I think this is a thesis worth breaking down.

First off, its been noted that people are quick to get lost in an abstract game when dealing with evil, stemming from Hume's classic formulation and just getting caught up in the abstract stratosphere. Thus keeping suffering in one's mind, be it personal or literary or current, can help one ground the theodicy in reality. This seems important to me, but also superficial.

Suffering needs to be at the center of theodicy, very much because evil is allusive and hard to grasp. Evil is subjective. But the phenomena of suffering seems to me to be subjective in a workable way. While the causes of one's suffering are subject to the person feeling the despair, the feeling of suffering seems quite universal. Universal in the sense that it happens to everyone, as good ol Buddha pointed out, and universal in the sense that the experience is similar from time to time. Clearly there are differences in degree, but the weight and burden, the lack of motivation, etc... is similar from time to time. Suffering then is something that can be dealt with, hopefully, universally (at least in the previous senses). Evil cannot, as what constitutes evil seems to vary with culture, time, person, religious conviction, you name it.

Suffering is able to dealt with then, its able to analyzed, appreciated, understood and worked through. Suffering should be at this center.

I must admit that the second aspect of what Farley mentions is alien to me, for she mentions that suffering, rather than sin should be at the center of this problem. My religious convictions are sporadic at best, and to therefore talk of sin seems immediately foreign to me. I'm quick to substitute sin with "personal immoral actions" and from there acknowledge the ambiguity in moral actions. I think that Farley is making a great move here, because she's advocating for a response to this problem that doesn't necessitate a Juedo-Christian framework. It does infer one, as she isn't dealing with suffering as it relates in Buddhism or Daoism per se, but it opens up the issue to think of from without this restraint. I see that as admirable.

Anyway, this is a short post, expect more commentary on Wendy Farley and "Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion" in the future.

errata

2005-02-17T21:30:00.000-05:00

So I have been informed that etymologically, there is no basis to look at the word "amen" as having an a-privation. It appears that the root is not in a greek or latin language, and instead is found in the hebrew mn. I have no idea what mn, might be in Hebrew, so someone with that knowledge should certainly fill me in. Amen is also another way of writing Amon, a god of ancient Egypt. Now, I must ask if a word must be from a greek or romance language to have at its heart, an a-privation. Someone with more knowledge in linguistics could be of help here.

I was informed that amen refers typically to "verily" or "truly". I must ask if this idea of verification couldn't be inferred from an acknowledgement of not-man. That is to say, "Verily: As God, or From God, or Not-Man (not the imperfect fallible human)." *Shrug* I may be barking up a horrible etymological tree here, yet I'm not sure my analysis was meant to support an accurate etymological look at the word. Rather a different interpretation of the word, that lends insight and advice to individuals with a spiritual bent; as well as those with the particular inclincation towards organized Christian faith as expressed in the USA.

privations in definition/non-violence

2005-02-16T12:46:00.000-05:00

Alright, so I haven't posted anything in a real long time. And that's fair, I've gotten the idea to use this blog in a different way. My goal is to redesign a bit, and use this as supplementary notes on what I'm doing academically. That being said, I may be the only person reading it.

Oh well.

Today, I've been musing over the notion of pacifism, or non-violence. Before hitting that nail, some background is in due order to organize my thoughts. Heidegger makes an interesting idea when looking at the word truth, or in greek, aletheia. A-letheia.
The A-Privation there is intriguing, truth is then a "non" or "un" something, and of course this is where Heidegger goes with his understanding of truth as unhiddenness or unconcealment.

I've been thinking of other areas where this framework applies, one being in the word "Amen" and loosely with an understanding of pacifism. Amen is clearn, A-men, non-man. When this word is used in religious ideas, there is an inherent conception that the person being praised, questioned, protested, is not-man. This should be a key conception in the christian tradition which is notorious for using the word. Yet, it seems to me that it is not. Too often is god inferred to have human ideas, human abilities or characteristics, despite the dogma that says otherwise. Of course there is debate on the notion of human being an "image" of god, but that is for another time and another place. The issue that individuals need to grasp with "amen" shouldn't be what was stated above, but giving God human like motivations and concerns. I don't think god cared if George Bush or John Kerry was elected president of the united states. I'm not sure god is watching you to see if you aren't drinking excessively. I find it hard to tell that god is motivated by such concerns as "war on terror" or "stop abortions." I think god's motivation needs to be seen as something more than human, amen. Anyway, probably more on this later, I do want to get to pacifism.

Pacifism, defined by the OED is: "The policy or doctrine of rejecting war and every form of violent action as means of solving disputes, esp. in international affairs; the belief in and advocacy of peaceful methods as feasible and desirable alternatives to war." This is often summed as as simply, a policy of "non-violence." Before addressing the non-issue, notice that this idea is consistent throughout much of western and eastern history. Socrates argued for the lack of retaliation, or non-retaliation. Christ said something similar, not to meet anger with anger, but rather, turn the other cheek. The concept of ahimsa refers to "non-harm" and Daoists define virtue its in negation, and one virtue is non-harm and non-retaliation. Clearly the point I am about to address isn't circumstantial.

Non-violence must in some way pressupose a knowledge of violence, and understanding of violence, perhaps the act of violence itself. Pacifists, politically, are seen as "protesting" something, but there must be something to be protested. What I want to say is something deeper though: namely that to understand non-violence one must have more than an act of violence to react to. One must be violent. And this is where the error of many individuals stems. My basis for this is still maturing academically, but through lived experience in relation to martial arts and my personal fixation with Daoism, the theory stands quite solid.

"One must learn to be hit, before one may hit." Was something I used to tell my students, I'm recognizing now how limited it is (while still affirming its value, pragmatically). My statement above is based in a belief that one must know the experience of being harmed, before one can learn how or when to harm another. But knowing violence is much more than committing an act of harm, it is an orientation and a knowledge of the acts involved in violence.

To study martial arts is first and foremost, studying ways and actions that commit serious harm. This is the tool one uses to learn something more essential to ______. (substitute in, existence, ethical life, wisdom, practical knowledge, etc...) The tools used in development, are violent. Not simply violent because they have the potential to cause harm, but violent in intent. When doing a simple exercise routine, not even a kata or paired exercise, I am visualizing a strike against an object, a tree.* More than just the act, the visualized intent or reason for the motion is harmful. The tree, theoretically, is replaced by one's enemy. Martial arts, have at their basis despite their usually nonviolent goals, violent actions.

This seems to me to fit with the teachings of the Sages, who often say that one must know X, to shun X. The quote that comes to mind is, "Know Magic, Shun Magic." But one could see how sections of the Daodejing fit clearly into this. To be able to shun violence, as is the goal of most martial arts, one must know violence.

Bringing this back around to the pacifists, how many of them have a knowledge of said violence? They clearly have a motivation to wish it "gone", but do they have the prerequisite knowledge to truly make that happen? My contention is that so many individuals jump onto this idealistic concept, and yet our world has barely changed for the better, and oftentimes has changed for the worst. Is this because the "man" is still smashing us down? No. The man exists because of us, (see the Organization Man) rather we haven't been able to recognize the need of pacifism, because those who are acting violent aren't looking past their immediate ends, and those advocating nonviolence don't understand the prereq for their statement.

Embrace the uncarved block - be prepared to know about anything potential.

*Posture 6 in the Marrow Washing Classic, as taught by Deng Ming Dao

2004-01-07T23:12:00.000-05:00

one more thing

to be open-minded is to not have a fixed position based on word recognition

2004-01-07T23:11:00.000-05:00

is a rose a rose by any other name?

of course, yet, of course not

a rose is only a rose because of the name and build up we have for it. its not a daisy, or a tulip, its a friggin rose, its love, its beauty, its pure, its innocent, its passionate, its everything

is the plant the same? sure
but is the rose the same, of course not, because the name holds onto the connection to the world, the name is what maintains that connection, the name is what describes it.

we name things, such as a rose, or a friend, or an enemy, or whatever, and they don't refer to a person, or a plant, or anything, but they refer to what we connect to them

a simple thing, the connection and differences we have based on something from our perspective, but look at it not just fromones perspective, but from ones naming

that is, take a movie
i call it amazing, you call it crap....we talk about it for awhile, discuss our reasons for our naming, and yet, when we relook, we have a connotation for that movie that is now biased based on our perspectives of other things similarly named, thus the movie is up there with this book, that album, that night last year, and this person...all "Amazing"

to review your opinion of one, is to diminish the idea of the others, because they are all connected through a name....through a connection created and lived via the naming of the thing

so then we have strong beliefs....not something as petty as "i like this movie, its amazing" but something with more primacy. I call him a friend. immediatly he is associated with all friends, all people i know whom i call that....this person hasn't even met these others, but they are united through my naming of them. and unfortunatly, the reverse is true......i have named many people my friends, and when i am hurt by one, i find it hard to see the good in the rest....i become hurt by them all. i see people around me having problems with 'girls' or 'boys' due to hurt caused by some.....that name association has amplified the damage originally done

like a rock hitting a pond, the naming creates an amplified affect.

so we have a rose, its not just a rose, but a friggin r-o-s-e....which holds connections and connotations

we have religion, which is not just religion, but r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n which holds connections and connotations for me.

so other things that are named a rose have similar connotations. she has rosy cheeks [she is beautiful and passionate]......zoroastrianism is a religion [similar to christianity, and therefore morrally suspect based on the people involved]

this power of naming, its dangerous isn't it?

for i haven't given her a chance to be passionate, she just has rosy cheeks, and i haven't thought about Zoroastrianism and don't know the people involved......thus even though i understand roses, and understand christianity, i don't understand the connections to the rest

the power of naming, something we should do carefully...........lest we destroy past joy based on future issues, or future potential based on past pain.

simple math?

2003-11-12T21:24:00.000-05:00

Are christians terrible mathematicians? 1+1+1=1 or 3 ????

2003-11-11T20:43:00.000-05:00

alright, i have two thingson my mind today.....

one of them is violence....and i don't have much to say, but i need to get a few things out...

violence is the intent to do harm, the INTENT, not the harm. people confuse this so much. but this form of understanding violence allows for a little old lady to accidently kill someone by sliding through a stop sign....and uh, the idea that violence is in the ACT or the HARM caused does not. so ha! so yea, and thinking about it i don't think that violence is necessarily related to hatred.....and therefore nonviolence doesn't have to be an act of love....but inanycase that is just the first of my isssues, and this is only one of my two issues

the other has to do with that dude who got shot in ball state by a cop....and of course as all things related to police conduct, my conversation with Merrit, the indiana state cop who was there to pound on for my black belt test.....

my issue is that we give our police officers some sense of "priveldge" and respect, for the situation they voluntarily put themselves in. ideally we offer them respect because they choose to protect us, they choose to put themselves in danger...this leads me to a few things

first, i get sick of normal individuals who compare an officers decision making process to their own. we aren't "trained" to act in danger, so i think its just fine to except more out of an officer than i expect out of myself.......
second, i'm tired of hearing about cops who aren't up to snuff. i'm serious, i'd rather have a lack of policeman, than undertrained or unethical cops.....

grr, alright, this is kinda short but i gots to be doing other things, like draw a hot bath, light some candles, drink a great beer and relax (i love thee stella artois)

redemption

2003-11-05T20:59:00.000-05:00

Alright, its time to hit up the ol blogger again, so here we go....the topic for this time...redemption*

what does it mean, to be "redeemed" is what i want to think about, or rather, what i have been thinking about since the frog prince gave me the Stephen Donaldson series "The Chronicles of Thoman Covenant, the Unbeliever" (thats sci-fi fantasy for those not too nerdy).
anyway, so redemption, what does it take, what does it mean, what the heck are we supposed to do about it......
well, first things first, in order for an individual to be redeemed, we need to have some heinous sinful terribly morally suspect action that requires the redemption, ie a fall, or the fall

it seems like people only need 'redemption' from big actions, big falls.....its not like i really need to redeem myself for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, but the three time rapist needs to seriously do something to find redemption.....why is it only these big acts? i think because of a loss of trust or faith, that is........when i do something that is morally suspect, but doesn't take away ones trust or faith in me, i don't need redemption, i need some forgiveness, or some guidance, or something...this seems fairly straightforward to me

so, we have falls, or failings, that violate a sense of faith or trust...these are big deals...and the most recent example i see is the violation of the overarching political framework in this country on the realpolitik. That is, when the most optimistic poll i've seen [and NPR agreed with me today] is that 55% of elgible voters are turning out for the votes, it seeems fairly fucking obvious that there has been some loss of trust between those "Politicians" and us "voters" or as i prefer it, those "elected servents of the public" and us, the "public"

So, thats the most glaring example of an act that needs to be redeemed that i can think of. how does one get redeemed?

well, ye olde dictionary offers me this.
To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum.
To pay off (a promissory note, for example).
To turn in (coupons, for example) and receive something in exchange.
To fulfill (a pledge, for example).
To convert into cash: redeem stocks.
To set free; rescue or ransom.
To save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences.
To make up for: The low price of the clothes dryer redeems its lack of special features.
To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of: You botched the last job but can redeem yourself on this one.

Wow, isn't it fairly sickening how much these word is referred to in economical situations?

So, we have this amazing and impressively long list [for an american english dictionary], and what should we do with it. Well, it seems to me that the action in those instances is quite active. That is, the action isn't a passive arrangment [after time one becomes redeemed] no, its involved, active, time to do it now!!! we PAY! the sum, we SET FREE! we FULFILL our promise, we CONVERT the money, yadda yadda yadda

thus,it seemslike for one to be redeemed is within that individuals control.....ie, forgiveness is something that another person does to you, when you commit a wrong. someone else FORGIVES you...but with redemption, it is something that one must seek and choose....thus, it is something that is within control of the individual

just thought i'd explicate how my thought process went for awhile therethats it for now

-joel
*-i'm purposfully avoiding the religious significance of these words

2003-10-31T15:46:00.000-05:00

Alright, I have two things on the agenda in my mind.

First, new thoughts about hypocrisy.....Alright, so I say I'm a pacifist right? But if some dude is wearing a sheet and burning a cross while insulting me old hetero lifemate, i'd turn the sheet red. i'm sure of it, dead friggin positive. if someone came after my nieces and nephews, my mother or sisters, my father or brothers, and i could stop it by hurting that other person, their down for the count. i know this. so am I a pacifist? or am I a hypocrite? or am I, as i've often stated, a realist.

So I do what I do too often, and look up the word in the dictionary. This is what I get: "1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. or 2. An act or instance of such falseness. "

So here I profess to be a pacifist. Which includes the beliefs that violence is wrong right? Now, how does one "hold or possess" a belief? I'm going to say that holding and possessing is NOT the same as action. Thus, we typically think hypocrites are people who act differently than they talk right? But in essence, does that necessarily have to be the case? Can one possess a belief and not act on it? Well, people sometimes act quite differently than they believe. A typical example is how people say things like "Oh, I shoudn't eat this triple chocolate cake" while they gorge themselves. The person in question definitly believes that eating in that manner will be unhealthy or bad for them, but they do it anyway right? So it seems to be that acting differntly than you believe is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when one does not "hold or possess" the belief....as in, eating the chocolate cake...saying "oh i shouldn't" when one really believes they should. Now, notice how subjective this is.....what a piss and a half when hypocrite is such a good insult. Its subjective to the point of being almost unable to determine if another person is, in fact, a hypocrite. And, it blurs the distinction between a hypocrite and a liar. That is, the hypocrite is simply the liar who acts out the lie. Instead, the hypocrite must also be "professing" the belief. I am going to take this word to mean, more than a simple statement of what the beleif is, but a more persuasive statement and argument. To profess would mean to go beyond a simple statement.

THus, i can profess i'm a pacifist, and still be justified in saying that at certain situations, i would kick someones ass, provided i do, in fact, think that mya ction in kicking those peoples asses is wrong. Which I do.
So ha!
now, the other thing i have to mention, is i hate ties, their symbolic partial choking of the body, the fact that to wear one is to be wearing an instrument of tortue and restraint....god its a terrible society we live in where not only are people these corporate drones, but those corporate drones are wearing a symbol of their captivity and enslavement by the sytem they are feeding. i hate it when educators* are wearing this, when their purpose should be the freeing of anothers mind in order to allow that other to take in information. in short, i hate ties.

thats all for now folks

*-educators my also be read "babysitters"

2003-10-22T15:55:00.000-05:00

""r s m x v i: blogs are only good if you update them ;-)"

"Alright alright, after getting this message twice i'll update....I'm such a tool.

So, nothing much ahs inspired my thoughts as much as this lately...

its entitled, Big Rat
1.
Big rat, big rat,
don't eat my millet!
Three years I've served you
but you won't care for me.
I'm going to leave you
and go to that happy land,
happy land, happy land
where I'll find my place.

2.
Big rat, big rat,
don't eat my sprouts!
Three years I've served you
but you give me no comfort.
I'm going to leave you
and go to those happy fields,
happy fields, happy fields,
who will moan there long?

so there ya have it, something to think about a bit.

mostly, i've been thinking about how people in shitty situations express things quite similarly, that is, the above poem is a 2500 year old piece of work written by the poor peasents of Wei living under one of the fuedal kingdoms of Zhou. Yet, it reminds me of african slave spirituals in the structure of it. I'd ahve to bust out some african slave spirituals to find one for ya, but trust me, it has the same basic flow and structure. "master, master, don't beat yer slave. I've worked so hard, and get nothing. I'm going to Zion, Zion, where noone will be sad" i mean....its a simple little poem right?

it seems quite easy to understand and relate to each others suffering and shit, and we see these tangible connections between two peoples in their low points.......do we have this same ability to easily relate to each others happiness? i'm not so certain. perhaps someone can be me some examples of how we do, cuz i'm having problems coming up with one....course, i could just be depressed and not coming up with happiness examples, but maybe i am not just depressed and there aren't any.........either way, i'm gonna keep looking for one, to see if humans are just inclined towards despair and therefore relate easier to it....cuz i'm beginning to think we are......as humans, focused upon the negative in all things......and not often on the positive.

The other thing that has influenced my mind, although not to the extent of the ol rat there, is Crime and Punishment, i'm actually about to finish this! i've opened it many times, and not once have i been able to finish this classic of russian literature, but damint, perseverence is taking me through! and i'm nearing the end....so, yea, if i wan'st sickof typing i'd talk about my newest thoughts concerning matters of necessary destruction

but i'm sick of typing, sooooooooooooooooo peace

2003-09-17T19:43:00.000-05:00

Whats up guys, is been awhile for me cuz i haven't had more than like, a couple main thoughts going through myhead, but something struck me today...and i mean really struck me kinda hard.

i've always considered myself a person with a guilty conscience, like i always feel like somehow i caused the problem, screwed something up, or whatnot....i still feel this way, but i do try to not feel this way, which sometimes gets me into trouble

anyway, i say "i'm sorry" to people a lot, and i mean alot, in fact, many of you have probably noticed it, or if you havern't, you will soon enough......but i think i had a realization about this

cuz tons of us do it, all of us say "i'm sorry" when what we're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with a personal form of blame or guilt......yet, this is taking to be an apology....

*its not a fucking apology people...this is the breakthrough*
check it i say i'm sorry, when i feel bad....like most of us do right?

when you do something wrong, you usually feel bad, which causes the apology so instead of actualing apologizing, we just slip out an "i'm sorry" cuz both things happen sometimes

yet, there are those times when we're not at fault, and we slip it out anyway, and here is the brilliant thing, "sorry" only means "Feeling or expressing sympathy, pity, or regret" so regret can be a part of that apology, but just feeling sympathy...its fucking empathy to say "i'm sorry" not an admission of guilt, not the satiation of a guilty conscience, simple human to human empathy.

so this now means 2 things, i'm no longer gonna feel bad when people tell me i apologize a lot, cuz odds are i'm not apologizing at all! and secondly, i'm gonna try to use better language to apologize, i mean.....i want to actually express regret and sorrow....not just say "i feel bad that life sucks for ya cuz i was a dick"

so yea, anyway

p.s. - oh, and take the time out of yer day to look at how society [the simple society of our social groups and stuff] react with the dissidents and disturbers of our society.....
a wiser person than me once said, that the only true way to judge a society is to see how that society treats it's criminals and dissenters.......

2003-08-28T18:03:00.000-05:00

So, I had my first time substitute teaching today, and it went fairly well. I had 8th grade science kids, 3 normal sections, 2 ap. FIrst off, ap meant nothing diferent from normal except the kids finish the exact same worksheet faster and therefore have more time to be little bastards. Anyway, after lots of using the word "quiet" and lots of quesitons about how many litres are in 382 mL [i had to pull up the good ol alcohol knowledge of 1000ml is a litre cuz the one size of liqour is 750ml and the next largest is the 1 litre..hehe] and lots of explaining that i have a girlfriend and her name is katie and lots of questions about music and stuff, it went alright

the kids were easy to scream, easy to intimidate, and have more hormones than a bus full of mid school boys, oh wait, thats what they were, except coed and not just boys. so yea

my contention or bitch about things is this......the public schools of jefferson county are fulling living up to John Taylor Gatto's view on the american education system: [let me sum it up]"Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would 'leave no child behind'? Coult it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?"

of course it is! our country's education system is designed to make us easy to control pieces of shit, i mean it was modelled after a prusssian form that exactly states the purpose of stopping revolutionary impulses. here is a quite quote from H.L. Mencken, "The aim (of public education) is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality." Many thanks to LEO for finding that for me. Anyway, i add this little bit about public education because i'm noticing something.....the schools are getting BETTER at this mindless control...or perhaps not better, but certainly trying to get bettercheck this out

middleschoolers [supposedly in all of this county] are in a dress code, have halls in the school they can only walk down in a single direction, are given assigned seats in the lunchroom, aren't allowed in the halls before or after school, they must sit in the cafeteria, where an assistant principle with a megaphone yells at them for switching tables or "standing up without the intent to buy food"...they are told they can't talk in the hallways, and what i witnessed was one lady yelling, or at least speaking quite loudly "you know there is no talking in this hall, why am i hearing your voice!" when a student says excitedly, "Hi Mr White!" to a teacher down the hall.......they get yelled at if they walk on the lefthand side of the hallway, (note: i heard this while i kid was walking to the drinking fountain).

I even found out that teachers are losing more and more ability to teach their own subjects, the classes have become all standardized so that kids fit better into some stupid test scores, [btw, this school district has changed "teaching modes" 3 times in the past decade because each one is supposed to raise test scores....any surprise none of them are that successful???] the fucking whole district even has the same friggin HAND SIGNALS to signal silence in their classrooms

ironically, its the black power fist......i mean, c'mon, hurt one of the few revolutionary gestures left out there why don't ya! ugh

so, as i was saying, my first day went alright, poor lil kids.........

-joel

p.s. emily, i know blog is short for weblog, still doens't make it a word, blog is still, just as silly as saying "wog" or "weg" or "eblo" or a W.L.

first post

2003-08-27T13:15:00.000-05:00

So, i'm finally buckling down and creating a silly lil thing called a blog.

First order of business is to make fun of the word blog, what the fuck is a blog? Its a word that doesn't exist according to the merriam-websters collegiate dictionary [tenth edition], and thats the friggin american one! If the americans don't include it, you can rest positive that the brits won't include that nonexistant word. So perhaps i should check other languages? my spanish dictionary doesn't include "blog" and the pinyin dictionary i use can't figure out what "blog" is either.

Stupid website called by some nonexistant word.

So, as i think about existance, i have somthing to mull over....what is life, the age old question right? I'm thinking about Chois dog, which is doing fairly poorly and is drugged up....i dunno how long the pup needs to stay drugged, but i mean.....is it worth it to prolong the poor girls life if she needs to be drugged up to even tacitly enjoy it? Its the same with modern medicine....whats the ponit of keeping a coma ridden patient alive if they are NEVER going to breath without a machine. Call me heartless, but i think i'd rather we pulled those plugs, and let nature do what nature does. I for one hope i never have to rely on a machine to be 'alive'..or even as is the case of Lucky, i hope i never have to rely on some pill to be around. I don't get it...why do humans try to dodge nature? Some of you might laugh, but in one of Laura Ingles Wilders, Lil house on the prarire books, there is a quote that I'm sure she stole from someone else, the line is "Nothing is certain except for Death and Taxes" or perhaps better stated, "Nothing is certain except for death and taxes," said Pa. But seriously, death is certain, its a part of life, its a part of existence....and humans seem to be the most devoted group of existants EVER to try and avoid it so much. To cheat it if you will. Seems so odd to me.

Alright, I think thats all i have to bitch about right now

oh, and i'm listening to Toad the Wet Sprocket rihgt now, specifically their reuinion show of 23 Feb 2003, at the Vogue in Indy. Good stuff.

Don't let the bastards grind ya down