a mix

I'm currently a mix of Nietzsche, evolution, Marilyn Manson, Jacques Lacan, and CoD4. I think it takes some bending and a little rattling to temper the mind. Here's to greater awareness or schizophrenia, whichever should come first.

hypothetically speaking

We live in hypotheticals. I mean our thinking is inextricably bound up with hypotheticals.

The future is hypothetical. We expect that it will come because we are used to this kind of regularity. On a more basic level, we are constantly preoccupied with imagining the consequences of our actions. Furthermore, the only way to have an opinion or belief about something is to imagine the thoughts and feelings we will have when confronted with the object of our opinion. I dislike the color red. I imagine that if I were to see the color red I would have a negative reaction.

This is all very hypothetical.

Similarly, hypothetical situations are just imagined situations. Many situtations in which people find themselves were hypothetical before ever being actual. That is to say we often imagine situations and then make them happen. We may either cause situations to happen or merely anticipate them.

So...

...yesterday I decide that I'm moving on in my life, but then, today, precisely that which I had my mind made up about pops, of its own accord, back into my life. Perfect timing. And by that I mean ridiculously rotten timing. So much for being resolute.

And that paper I have to write for Philosophy of Mind -- on emotion... it promises to be equally as confusing as the real-life phenomenon.

bring it on, all of it.

being yourself and living in accordance with your own will

it's like your being glad is your will showing through (what you want), and same for me

so if another person's being glad takes precedent over your own, then you let their will and what they want take precedent

it's easy for people to consciously and subconsciously use approval-seekers, but a lot of the time approval-seekers are just kind of false and annoying cause they're not really being themselves, they're being who they think others want them to be

that's why I think everyone really want to be a badass, b/c a badass says things like "no" and "fuck that" and "screw you" and are their own person. the trick is to be a badass, but not because you aim to be a badass

a response

If you examine The Downward Spiral, one can easily say he does know about Nietzsche and you can see the same lines drawn from Antichrist Superstar by Marilyn Manson, which TR Produced. I cannot say for certain though since Down In It is PHM era.

"The Becoming" is clearly a Will to Power statement. "Destroy yourself to become what you are."

"Everyday is Exactly the Same" is evident of Nausea towards life.

"Happiness in Slavery" is a mocking of slave morality. "Claims he does what he wants"

That's it, I'm going to read Nietzsche.

(do "burn." first)

this is gentler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIhFbGH0uEU

burn.

real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdhKnAw6VZw

lyric analysis (part II)

Okay, so:

It's really interesting that someone I know has said that "Down In It" (Nine Inch Nails) moves from Apollonian to Dionysian. I'm actually just starting to read The Birth of Tragedy and so I have some idea of what this means. But my question is - do you think Trent Reznor meant, or is aware, that the lyrics for "Down In It" should have anything to do with the Apollonian and Dionysian?

That's kind of why I felt awkward describing his lyrics as existential, because he may have written them without any existential knowledge or intent, and I wouldn't want to project onto his lyrics.

Also, I don't know if I could see TR as an existentialist. I'm trying. I think about the themes in his work and I see a lot of determinism, helplessness, the-world-is-a-cruel/absurd-place, living-is-pain, etc. It seems like he (or his musical persona) at least struggles with competing views about life and the world (as most thinking people probably do). For instance--

Deterministic:

-Something I Can Never Have
-That's What I Get
-Happiness in Slavery (the end of this one seems especially deterministic in its lyrics)
-Closer (the endless drum beat, the repetition, "can't help me get away from myself," "my whole existence is flawed," it's like he can't escape 'the human condition.')
-The Becoming ("all pain disappears / it's the nature of my circuitry/ drowns out all I hear / no escape from this - my new consciousness" & "the me that you know / used to have feelings / but the blood has stopped pumping / and he's left to decay / the me that you know / is now made up of wires...")
-All the Love in the World (all except the end, which is a radical reversal in mood that builds gradually throughout the song)
-Every Day Is Exactly the Same (repetition, lyrics, this is the epitome of determinism, "I believe I can see the future / because I repeat the same routine. / I think I used to have a purpose / but then again, that might have been a dream.")

Solipsistic:

-I Do Not Want This ("I have lived so many lives all in my head / Don't tell me that you care / There really isn't anything, is there?") ("And maybe I dont have a choice / And maybe that is all I have / And maybe this is a cry for help")
-Only (the song title itself, "Less concerned, about fitting into the world / Your world that is, cause it doesn't really matter anymore ... / ... Yes, I am alone, but then again I always was / As far back as I can tell, I think maybe it's because / Because you were never really real to begin with / I just made you up to hurt myself / There is no you, there is only me.")

This is what I see. Are there other ways we can categorize NIN songs? (I'm not usually a fan of categorization, but these are extremely loose categories and I don't mean for any of this to be set in stone!)


**Aside -- I love the whole moral dilemma about "Kinda I Want to" (And I know it's not the right thing, and I know it's not the good thing, But kinda i want to.) Same with "The Only Time" (i'm drunk. and right now i'm so in love with you. and i don't want to think too much about what we should or shouldn't do.). Also love the line: well i want to rip it up and swim in it until i drown, my moral standing is lying down.

my brilliant catchphrase for UMBC ©

I can't believe I didn't think of this before; I came up with this ages ago. I'm recording it here now so that anybody who comes up with it after of rips it from me can be easily pwned when I refer to this documentation.

Without further ado

You're always in The Loop at UMBC!©

amorality and amoralists

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

How in an amoral life can one think of anything as 'good' or 'bad'? Furthermore, it seems to me that since human beings have the capacity to value, and thus we have opinions of what "ought to be," being human precludes the condition of being amoral.

Rocks are amoral. Nothing rocks "do" can be considered right or wrong in any sense of the words.

I suspect "amoralists" are those who pretend not to have moral opinions. I simply don't believe that adult human beings functioning at usual levels can be amoral.

be you (cliché)

Be you, not people's image of you. Misconceptions are bound to occur; they can be dealt with later.

on human beings and animals

Ryan: I know my dog has a while (left to live) but (and this sounds terrible) for some reason I feel more sad when I think about her dying than when I think about death and most other people I know.

Celia: That doesn't sound terrible to me.

I mean it doesn't sound great, either.

But still. I think sometimes we have a greater connection with our pets than we do with some people.

Ryan: Yea, I wonder why there is that strong connection.

Celia: Because pets aren't judgmental.

Ryan: Wow.

Yeah.

True.

Celia: Our pets don't see us as bad or mean or anything like that even when we feel we are. They always come up to us, tails wagging or meowing. They really are man's best friend because they are always there when you need them.

Ryan: Well they can certainly see us as bad or mean, but I get what you mean; they don't make us feel like we did something wrong.

Celia: Yea, and they don't care what we look like or what we wear and things like that; and sometimes people do.

Ryan: Haha, I think most people do, all of the time.

Celia: Haha. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I guess. Well maybe that's a lie.

Ryan: But, you know, pets do care about what we look like, they just never criticize us for it.

Celia: How do you figure?

Ryan: A dog will growl at a really large shady looking man who's a stranger.

Celia: Haha that's a good point.

Ryan: But the dog isn't ever going to say that it's wrong to be a large shady looking man.

Celia: Maybe that is what dogs are saying when they bark: "Stay back creeper!"

Ryan: But even then they aren't saying that it's wrong to be a creeper.

Celia: That's true.

Ryan: It's a big difference, I think, between dogs and human beings.

A dog shows you how it feels; it never tries to impose a way of feeling on you.
[Animals don't seem to challenge human autonomy; they only ever act and react.]

We love them for that.

But we make pets feel bad on purpose all the time: "Bad dog!"

Celia: Yea but that's just a way of parenting; parents make their children feel bad to teach them.

Ryan: Well I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying that dogs don't ever do that (judge us) and I think that's part of why we like them.

Celia: No, yea, I completely agree.

Ryan: I think you brought up a hugely important topic.

Celia: I didn't mean to haha. You asked.

Ryan: I mean, in moral philosophy the treatment of animals and the difference between human beings and animals are huge subjects. Sorry for being all philosophical (it is like my life). [says the philosophy major]

Celia: Haha. Well animals are my life. So it worked out. [says the pre-veterinarian major]

the source of wisdom

...is in seeking to understand and be understood.

postmodernism

a post-War generation of baby boomers confronting disillusioned middle-age

Postmodernism is

"the décor of a room"

"the design of a building"

"the diegesis of a film"

"the construction of a record, a television commercial, or an arts documentary, or the ‘intertextual’ relations between them"

"the layout of a page in a fashion magazine or critical journal"

"an anti-teleological tendency within epistemology"

"the collective chagrin and morbid projections of a post-War generation of baby boomers confronting disillusioned middle-age"

"a new phase in commodity fetishism"

"a fascination for images, codes and styles"

"a process of cultural, political or existential fragmentation and/or crisis, the ‘de-centring’ of the subject"

"an ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’"

"the replacement of unitary power axes by a plurality of power/discourse formations"

"the ‘implosion of meaning’"

"the collapse of cultural hierarchies"

"the dread engendered by the threat of nuclear self-destruction"

"the decline of the university"

"broad societal and economic shifts into a ‘media’, ‘consumer’ or ‘multinational’ phase"

"a sense (depending on who you read) of ‘placelessness’ or the abandonment of ‘placelessness’ (critical regionalism) or (even) a generalised substitution of spatial for temporal coordinates"

...when it becomes possible to describe all these things as ‘postmodern’ (or more simply ‘post’ or ‘very post’) then it’s clear we are in the presence of a buzzword.

country casual

Which is the original?

Reflection

Reflection ~ Tool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CywF3tnEI

pop psychology!

Stephanie is indifferent to your indifference. (Facebook status)

A: ...but not indifferent enough not to need to make a status out of it?

S: I know, right?

A: So the question is: are you sure you're really indifferent or are you just telling yourself that?

S: I'm fairly certain it's the latter. I find myself unable to lie to you. You should be a psychologist.

A: I mean, chances are...if it's on your mind...you're not indifferent. Sometimes I pretend I'm a psychologist, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go with psychology at this point. If I were a real psychologist I would probably not be talking about myself, I'd be focusing on you.

S: Well pretending you're a psychologist to your friends can be more worthwhile than a session with a real one. And I didn't realize you were talking about yourself prior to that comment.

A: "Sometimes I pretend I'm a psychologist, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go with psychology at this point in time."

I considered that talking about myself. If we were having an actual therapy session I probably would avoid saying things like that. It's not professional.

Oh and totally. Pretending to be a psychologist is worthwhile and fun, that is until you get something completely wrong...then you just feel like an assuming jerk.

So you have to be confident, but at the same time try to come off as unassuming as possible.

S: LOL Thanks for the advice on how to be a successful psychologist

And your assumptions have not been wrong up to this point. I'm just not sure how comfortable I feel with being that see-through when it comes to my statuses lol. I wasn't prepared for your eye-opening insight.

A: Ah, that's an interesting point. We all wonder how see-through we are.

And what's even more interesting is that you probably have a desire for someone to guess/figure out all your mysterious statuses. Why else would we put them up. We always know that there is the possibility someone will figure out what we mean. And that's really what we want. It's a way of expressing something that we don't feel comfortable expressing (or don't know how to express) to people in person.

S: That's very true.

authenticity

I’m sure there are infinitely many insights to be had; so while every insight is a nice temporary high (some greater than others), I don't think that there exists some End where you have had so many insights that everything becomes illuminated. I do think that insight makes living life a richer experience and, somewhat ironically, reveals that things are ever more mysterious than we previously thought, as insight, generally speaking, brings with it new or more sophisticated ways of seeing the world, giving reality more depth. Life really is a struggle, in my opinion. But I think I can appreciate that. I am never more satisfied than when I have run my heart out or overcome some challenge. But I don't necessarily think of overcoming as "conquering." I mean, first of all, it seems rather superficial to just conquer things and people purely for the sake of conquering them. Besides, in the scope of the universe, whatever "conquering" we can do is negligible. So, instead, when I talk about overcoming a challenge I mean something more akin to a triumph of the "self," however that is to be measured.

Because of some recent reading, I'm inclined to believe that every decision we make can be as significant as we want to admit. (In what way a choice or decision is important is another issue altogether.) So while the "small potatoes" attitude might be appropriate after the fact to avoid excessive mental and physical stressing about a choice made (we shouldn’t dwell forever about a mistake we’ve made!), the choices themselves are where we encounter the self. The idea is that who we are and what we do are consequences of the choices we make. I am neither essentially evil, nor essentially good -- I can, in fact, choose to act in either way. And nothing stops me from acting either way. That is our great freedom, that nothing stops us. We are free because nothing holds us back.

We can choose to evade or deny our freedom by living “un-authentically” in any number of ways: we can just do what everyone else does, we can do what others tell us, we can do what has been done in the past, we can deny that we have any control over our action, we can claim that who we are is a product of sources outside of ourselves, etc. All ways that people often avoid the “burden” of thinking for themselves. All ways that people avoid living authentically. I think it is especially difficult this day in age to break away from being just a cog in this civilized machine. There are so many rules and expectations we are born into and that we are never encouraged to question (only to accept); we are expected to perform our social function in society, which is often how the value of our personhood is determined. So if we follow precedent without thinking because we're so used to conforming then we're not exactly exercising our own freedom. A large part of thinking for yourself includes realizing how your life is controlled or laid out for you. Once you're aware of all the little things you do like wear a suit because that is the only acceptable style of dress at work, or eat meat because you've always eaten it, or go to church because you've always gone, then you can start to consider whether any of these things is acceptable to you. Hence, it is a struggle to live authentically. Living authentically means acting not out of fear or conformity, but for reasons that you believe and can hopefully justify. This way of thinking has convinced me that life can be as deep (authentic) or as shallow (unauthentic) as we are able to make it.

I have to credit Irrational Man as the source for most of these ideas.

selling out

<SELLING OUT>

"I think the term "product" has a bad rap. I blame Walmart."

"I think Walmart is evil enough to dwarf the combined sin of the rest of mankind to nothing (in comparison). Walmart is "selling out" incarnate. Sold out and morally bankrupt."

Yay for shopping at Walmart
because the ethical implications of doing so just don't weigh heavily enough on the average middle-class American conscience (conscience? what conscience? that would involve some mechanism of internal reflection. we are too approval-seeking to have developed anything like a conscience.).

Yes, I "center" my posts because I am THAT pretentious.
"LOOK,
I HAVE SOMETHING REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT TO SAY!"
(I hope that's the implicit message I'm sending.)

Barack Obama - the nation's 44th

Love it or hate it, for better or worse, this is it. History made in a day. But the power to make history is always there.

I voted 3rd party.

re-model

the same, over and over. that is me.

dead disco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEsr5Mm3JfE

wisdom and hangovers

Can a hangover leave the residue of wisdom? Something more than the typical "that was a mistake" afterthought? (or wisdom beyond the physical residue of dried throw-up?)

Completely unrelated (or is it?):

I think that desires and opinions are like optical illusions - they tend to flip/flop and play tricks with the mind.

computer screen

Little Bird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIIudD44o58

i

finally have something to say and can't say it. I'll say this: I'm glad for self-control and restraint.

reminder

Critchley, S.,Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction

Volume II by Scott Soames, The Age of Meaning, (Princeton UP 2008)

freethought - a joke?

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. ~Wikipedia

Why exactly is it called freethought? Free from what? Free to do what?

Okay, free from the pressures of authority, tradition, dogma. That's all well and good. But strictly bounded by science and logic? Isn't that confining human thought? These freethinkers...are they virtuous only in looking at the world through the goggles of science and logic. Are there no other ways of thinking that are to be praised?

Gosh. That Wikipedia notion of freethought (is there a better one I should know about?) really seems to cause trouble for all sorts of human thinking. Firstly, how can a person ensure that their thoughts are purified of emotion and other such human characteristics? Secondly, in trying to purify our thoughts of emotional baggage and otherwise, aren't we trying to blot out a part of what makes us human beings? What, so maybe being human isn't all that great? And we should try to transcend ourselves through freethinking...? Become something no longer human - something better? What would that be like, 'cause, as we are, with all our logic and rationality we feel; and sometimes it's hurt, and sometimes it's ecstasy. Hurting and elation are limitations on our thinking? They aren't merely aspects of our thinking?

What good are reason and logic separated from all the interesting content of human life? Since when can any "good" or "bad" be found in the principles of reason and logic? Again - I keep coming to the conclusion that we would cease to be human if reduced to "creatures" of pure reason or "freethinking." A kind of wholly amoral existence.

turn your volume up BEFORE playing

Well, not quite. Lyric Analysis (part I)

Lyric Analysis:

Preface-

Am I not living up to what I’m supposed to be? ~Trent Reznor

Too much of human action has been motivated by FEAR!

Terrible Lie!

Don’t take it away from me; I need you to hold on to.

There’s nothing left for me to hide.
I lost my ignorance, security, and pride.
I’m all alone in this world you must despise.
hey God,
I believed your promises, your promises and lies.

terrible lie!

Juxtapose this with Nietzsche’s observation: God is dead.

My interpretation: Tries to convey the agony of someone wanting very much to believe, but, in the end, abandoning belief for what seems more real, for what is not a perceived lie.

Down In It:

I used to be so big and strong.
I used to know my right from wrong.
I used to never be afraid.
I used to be somebody

I used to have something inside
Now just this hole thats open wide.
I used to want it all
I used to be somebody

Ill cross my heart and hope to die but the needle's already in my eye.
And all the world's weight is on my back and I don't even know why.
And what i used to think was me is just a fading memory-
I looked him right in the eye and said goodbye.

I was up above it.
I was up above it.
Now Im down in it.

My interpretation: Losing God and throwing off world views perceived to be false. Sacrificing a false stability and knowledge for a lack of knowledge or a nothingness that is, at least, real and true. Note: Why did Socrates believe he was wise? Because while others claimed to have wisdom and knowledge about things and were wrong and didn’t know it or denied it, Socrates knew he didn’t know any thing, which was one thing more than the others knew.

I don't think I'm projecting with all this religious interpretation either. "hey God" is actually part of the lyrics in the first song. And the second song follows right after the first in order on the album: Pretty Hate Machine. That's a bit of justification and legitimacy then. I'm sure I could scrounge up more, but I don't feel like discussing the particulars. And I swear I do not have any kind of "holier-than-thou" attitude. And I'm not speaking tongue-in-cheek. I'm being frank.

The end of the stream (of consciousness).

These epiphanies - I call them connections because they come out of me just thinking. No new inputs are coming into my brain – it is just me thinking through whatever is already in my head, on my mind. No new material. Therefore, it must merely be the reorienting and turning of old material in novel ways that accounts for such “epiphanies”. Hence, I have taken to calling them “connections” – as opposed to completely new ideas, or revelations, or [ideas] divinely conceived.

Anyhow (for something completely different...), here’s a small part of a conversation about Dawkins and his whole atheism movement:

Friend A: do you know what his goals are?
Friend B: rid the world of religion. i'm guessing you don't like that
Friend A: I don't know. prima facie, I don't like it, but that's just on the surface
Friend B: do you think that certain religions--islam, for instance--do more harm than good?
Friend A: I would suggest hitting the heart of what's "wrong" (and even of this I'm skeptical): ridding the world of dogma/unreason/irrational beliefs

And then it was mentioned that religion perhaps “needs to be focused on so strongly because it is so often accepted as being above criticism, while other areas of irrationality are not.”

But here’s my schtick:

I’m skeptical of going after “unreason” because, really, I think there is something naturally and unavoidably “irrational” about man. (I’m currently reading Irrational Man, by William Barrett, though I can’t say whether this is what Barrett was getting at or not.)

I suppose many people see in religion a representation of all that is irrational or dogmatic – unreason – and want to get rid of it, the fundamentally irrational and therefore “wrong.” But this is to equate reason with right and unreason with wrong, two identities or assertions which are not, in my mind, at all justified or, to my knowledge, justifiable. This is what Kant wanted. Morality as rooted in human reason. But what is the justification? This seems to be what Dawkins would agree with or somehow support, from what I’ve been told. But didn’t the existentialists (and I speak broadly) already anticipate what happens next? Didn’t they ask questions like: Is it even possible to end unreason? Even theoretically? Is man irrational by nature? Is irrationality part of the human condition (not to be confused with human nature)?

The existentialists seemed to think or see that holding reason so high wasn’t going to get us anywhere, and might in fact get us somewhere we don’t want to be. Alienated from ourselves as human creatures who (should be exchanged for “that,” spell-check is telling me) are fundamentally irrational, though we have stumbled upon logic and reason along with our powers to use logic and be reasonable. But in these we are limited. Gödel has proven that mathematics is incomplete, hence his “incompleteness” theorem. And we have quantum mechanics to defy and discredit the holy treatment of logic (and as a subdivision of logic, human reason). So we have found that what we thought were infinite and universal capabilities (capacities?) – i.e. logic, reason, etc. – are really finite and imperfect areas of human knowledge which seem to confirm, or at least suggest, the finitude and imperfection of man, of human beings. We used to believe that through religion, and then reason (or maybe vice-versa), that we could (might) eventually arrive at some ultimate explanation or inherent meaning for the world, for ourselves, for humanity, but now it seems that religion will fail us and that reason will do no better. Therefore, the skepticism regarding any movement which would seek to destroy unreason, and condemn irrationality in all its forms, as those may just be fundamental characteristics of man.

I mean, I'd like to see someone give a rational basis for all of human emotion.

Maybe meaning and purpose will come from somewhere else. Maybe we should think of ourselves differently.

Why my mind may be racing:

I had an energy drink at 9pm - earlier this evening.

Full Throttle: Blue Demon.

remembering where I came from

This is something I posted 2 and a half years ago on an internet philosophy discussion board. The topic of the thread was "Are we that meaningless?"

At several points in the span of the past half hour I have found myself agreeing with most of the opinions in this thread. I of course bring one more to the discussion.

Why are we searching for the meaning of life anyway? Searching for a single meaning that applies to us all is sort of like looking at the big picture because the smaller frame that is our life cannot have importance independent of the whole. And it's funny because if you can't find yourself to be important (or meaningful) as an individual, you're actually letting down a part of the big picture.

What if the big picture is just a disorganized mess of little ones, a mosaic that doesn't reveal any particular design? We don't know...can we know?...who knows...

I'm still young and it seems like life is going to be short. I'm afraid of death, but I'm excited for what happens next. Maybe it's better that it just happens to me because how the hell am I supposed to know what to do next, or what to do now?!?!

Even though I've said this, I still want to know what's in store. I want to know why I am here. I want it to make sense, as if it were a reason I could understand and think "ohhhh.....so that's why....wow, cool!"

I wish I could contribute a little more, I had a few interesting thoughts, but they evaporated almost as quickly as they began to form... I'll still be here though, still thinking.

It was the summer before my freshman year in college. I had already decided that I would study philsophy in college a year and a half prior to this, at some point during my junior year in high school. I have to say, it's kind of weird, morbid, nostalgic, even interesting to be able to look back at something I wrote, something I thought, something I thought about very hard before posting (as usual - whether I appear to you better or worse for it), something I believed, something I confessed, something I was - two and a half years ago. That something is still a part of me, I feel. Many different thoughts have occupied my mind since then, but to read again what I once wrote, I can say that the words I posted then are not at all foreign to me now. I am actually surprised that what I said then is soo close to who I still am. It's almost uncanny, and slightly disorienting. In a good way. I have such a difficult time figuring out who I am and dealing with my identity, my self-concept, the I, that I think to see such consistency in my thoughts after over two years of life is a remarkable insight into my own identity.

I probably seem pretty funny to you with all this talk of not knowing who I am. Just saying this I am reminded of the oft-quoted Socrates and his famous imperative: "[Above all] Know thyself." Maybe there is something to this. To know thyself seems to be the fundamental objective in anyone's life. And I don't know how you could arrive at such knowledge other than through self-reflection. I mean, sure you could live life to the fullest (however that may be), but if you never think about the things you have said or the things you have done or the things you have thought, do you know who you are? You can be, but do you know what that being is?

I'm afraid that I am rapidly coming to the end of this post. I'm hitting a block in my thinking, just as I did two and a half years ago when it seemed that my incoming thoughts had evaporated "almost as quickly as they began to form." This pattern of hitting a wall in new thought, where I'm left to ponder the old worn out thoughts that continue to circulate and take up all the space in my head, has got to be of some importance. There has to be something to say about why this happens, whether it is a pattern many people experience, and whether it is a pattern I can change.

Why do I feel so much less articulate than my 17 year old self? Another good question. On the one hand, I would like to say that I have changed. That if you were to transport my 17 year old self here to meet me, he and I would find that we are two different people. On the other had, I also feel that who I once was, what I once thought, never really is gone. That, somehow, my 17 year old self is still inside me, maybe a few layers down. Because the differences between my present self and my 17 year old self are so insignificantly minute that even if I have not seen people for two and a half years, they still, without strain, recognize me as ... me. And not as a different person, unrecognizable. I guess that brings up the question: am I still me?

It's a fact that I've known people who wish they were the same as they were before - who wish they had never changed from who they used to be - and it may be morbid to think about, but if one's past self is a few layers underneath the present self does that then mean that people sometimes wish newer layers had never smothered older ones? Can I ever revert back to who I used to be? I feel like it's impossible to whack off the topmost layers to get to the ones underneath, that it's only possible to add another layer to who I am. There are some who would say that when we change who are, we change so that there is nothing left of what used to be. That the layered theory is all wrong because there are no layers. In another camp, there are those who would say it is impossible to change at all. That who you are is who you are, always, no matter how you try to hide or distort it.

At this point, I'm stupefied. What I thought would be a short post has dragged on to this. And, reading what I've written, it seems tinged with negativity. Does it seem to have a negative slant to you, or is that just me slanting it? An important question.

Goodnight. But oh what's the use of saying goodnight when there's no promise that you will read this at night? If you were here, now, I would say goodnight to you. But you aren't. So do I cut it out altogether or make it more general, like: "Cheers."

The Sopranos

floodgates

I think I'm surprised by myself. I speak and act more freely than ever and I'm caring less and less for self-censorship. And I have no inclination to change it.

Existentialism

Humanity, the universal, is more real than any individual man. ~Irrational Man

This is a much abbreviated account of the Platonic Ideal. Existentialism rebels from just this type of abstraction.

An interesting parallel to Utilitarianism, which holds that the value of a man is determined by his contribution to the collective good, is Platonism which subjugates the value of the individual to the collective (the universal - the abstract), a move thought to be justified by pure reason (or rationality?). Existentialism questions the justification.

Kant's Categorical Imperative, too. It is precisely because of our reasoning capacities that we are moral agents. For Kant, our moral agency is rooted in our reason. But what is this necessary connection between morality and reason? Why is reason so privileged?

For man to enter history as the rational animal, it was necessary for him to be convinced that the objects of his reasoning, the Ideas, were more real than his own individual person or the particular objects that made up his world. ~Irrational Man

But what if things are the other way around.

I gave a talk on Existentialism 36 hours ago. I feel like I could give another talk.

funk

I feel kind of reckless. And now vain because all I ever do is talk about myself which makes me feel odd and embarrassed. I'm in a funky mood right now where everything's a glaze and I don't know what I'm supposed to want. I don't know what I want and I rarely try to think about it. A lot of times you don't know you would have wanted something unless you try it. I usually just do things and assume I will be happy once I'm finished and can think about them in retrospect. Could you live your whole life doing things you think you will be happy about in the future? I guess that's what people do.

favorite series ever (right now)

Mad Men (AMC) - Wisdom from the 1960s

On Advertising (1):

On Sex:

On City Folk versus Country Folk:

On the Future:

On the Past:

On Dating:

On Psychiatrists:

On Love:

On Marriage:

On Business:

On Advertising (2):

On Restaurants:

On Clients:

On Grief:

college --> parties --> drinking

Why do I get so excited about the idea of drinking? The thought of downing a few beers with a group of friends is wildly compelling, isn't it? Friends, alcohol, good times...right? I guess this all started when I was a freshman. Curiosity. Experimentation. Good times. [Bad times.] Formation of strong associations. Fond memories. Future projections. Temptation. For all you know, this sequence of events might describe my becoming an avid library book reader. In fact, it's a pattern that describes a broad range of human activity.

Moderation in all things, right? But what about the things that make us happy? Shouldn't we want to maximize the things in that category? I'm not making any arguments here, just asking asking you to think about a few questions and their ramifications. Okay. That's all.

green eyes

Mary: Your eyes are definitely green, not blue. Get it right.

Alex: "The perception of color depends upon various factors. These are the same eyes; however, depending on the light and surrounding hues, the eye color can appear quite different."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlueGreen.jpg

Mary: After a year and a half of dating you, I think I can safely say that your eyes are primarily green.

Alex: The interesting thing is that their greenness or blueness is completely conditional (dependent upon conditions like lighting and surrounding hues). They are neither unconditionally blue nor unconditionally green. So why should we prefer one color to the other? Maybe because one color appears more often? But this only happens because the conditions for that color happen to arise more often than the conditions for the other color. So what does that mean about “the” color of my eyes?

Here’s what Bertie Russell said, anyway. Mind you, here he’s talking about a table instead of a pair of eyes:

“This colour is not something which is inherent in the table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour which it will seem to have to a normal spectator from an ordinary point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour.”

Mary: Goddamn it they're green.

potato chips

I was walking to class the other day and I was eating a bag of lays baked potato chips at the same time. I was kind of making a show out of it and I was thinking, what if I see someone else eating a bag of chips -- wouldn't the slightest head nod be appropriate? So I'm thinking about this and two girls walk past me going the opposite direction. The one farthest away looks straight at me and says: nice bag. She was eating a bag of the same potato chips. I said, hey, you too! It kind of made my afternoon.

who watches the

stockholm syndrome

"This is the last time I'll abandon you...And this is the last time I will forget you...I wish I could."

this adventure

Life here is busy, and thinking about the end of this summer adventure is bittersweet. CTY is really a break from "real" life and a 7 week plunge into fantasy world. I look forward to being back home and with my family, but I'm going to miss the friends I've made and the structured days spent here (and even all the drama!). Here I am motivated by the success of my students. At home I have to conjure motivation from obscure places. 5 more days till the end of this adventure.

on being a teacher

After four and a half weeks of teaching talented and gifted middle and high school students, I can say that I enjoy being a mentor and I am happy to be looked up to. But there is a second almost more exhausting side to being a teacher though: adult drama.

I wasn't actually aware of all the gossip and bickering and situational weirdness that goes on in the adult world. It's really not too different from undergraduate age drama, with the exception that consequences are greater. I've witnessed everything from drinking incidents, to E.R. visits (unrelated to drinking), to ambiguous romantic relationships, to hostile work environments, etc. My experience here has become something I will definitely remember and learn from for a long time to come.

As a side note, while I enjoyed The Dark Knight, I wouldn't recommend the new X-Files movie.

REMINDER: Read "The Watchmen" (Graphic Novel).

don't speak

I forgot how frustrating it is to lose your voice. It's also kind of funny and amusing, and apparently cute, but mostly it's irritating. You become a kind of spectacle. You can't speak, so instead of listening to what you say, people watch you. Everyone around you is talking and laughing, but you cannot join in the conversation. Spoken language is one of our main means of getting others to do what we want. Without our speech we lose a certain amount of control.

First day of session 2 tomorrow.

student arrival day

It's student arrival day.

The Wisdom of Crowds

Two books I would love to read:

1
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economics, Societies and Nations (2004)
by James Surowiecki

"..[A book] about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.

The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton 's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds]

2
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
by Charles Mackay

hotel california

Lafayette's PARDEE HALL is exactly what I envision when I hear HOTEL CALIFORNIA. Go figure.

Mirrors on the ceiling,

The pink champagne on ice
And she said ’we are all just prisoners here, of our own device’
And in the master’s chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can’t kill the beast

summer music and answers

I haven't felt like listening to the decemberists for about a year and a half now. Listening to the song Crane Wife, I am suddenly reflective and sentimental. Reminder: Learn how to play John Lennon's Imagine on the keyboard. Also, I really ought to book tickets for a concert this fall. Let's see... nine inch nails anyone?

So what do you say to someone who feels a gaping whole in their heart and soul? To someone who cannot be reconciled with her own mortality? To someone whose body is ailing and in near perpetual pain? To someone very smart who cannot make up her mind? To someone whose world is so considerably shrunken that her sphere of interest barely extends past the person she's talking to? I find that my advice for her is useless. She seems to latch onto people who pay lots of attention to her, but conversation with her is often one-sided. She expects answers not discussion. When it comes to this I ought to be forward with her; I do not have the answers she's looking for.

name for my future daughter

Chloe?

keeping pacts

It's Saturday. I return in triumph. I started unpacking late, but I did manage to finish most everything except clothes. Close enough. I'm going to hit the hay now because I've got to wake up around 8 in the morning to be ready to leave here around 9 for the State Championships. Goodnight, you.

Side note: My Rock Band drumming skills are steadily climbing. I'm officially a HARD difficulty level drummer.

making pacts

It's Friday. I'm making a pact with myself to unpack later. I'll spend tomorrow at the Track and Field State Championships, a spectator. To be honest, I am looking forward to the meet. Of my own volition, I have spent the majority of my time indoors since I came home, and I could use tomorrow as an opportunity to be reacquainted with fresh air and open spaces.

For every sensation, I seem always to find that I reach some threshold or maximum tolerance level. e.g. I have a relatively low tolerance for pain, and I am not often moved by other people. When I am moved, I am deeply moved. I've recently taken to getting emotional when I watch a good film. If it weren't for movies, I might not know that I am compassionate. The mundane doesn't seem to excite me very often. And I can never fake excitement very well. But again, when I am excited, I am, to put it plainly, bursting with excitement. The point here is just to put down some thoughts to get this thing rolling. I'd like this to be a dedicated space for my thoughts, where you, good reader, are welcome to know what I know. I plan to return either in triumph or disappointment. The goal: to have unpacked my stuff by midnight tonight, at which point I will be here to make a note of it. (Friday, May 23, 2008: 12:30 p.m.)