The title is a line from "How Little It Matters, How Little We Know" (Words & Music by Carolyn Leigh & Phillip Springer; Recorded by Frank Sinatra in 1956). The song talks about chemistry - the lab coat and bubbling liquids kind - right alongside romance. People didn't seem to think that was odd. Most people know the song "Swinging on a Star" (Words & Music by Jimmy Van Heusen; recorded by Bing Crosby in 1944, but I like Tony Bennet's version best). The song admonishes that if you don't like to go to school you may grow up to be a mule, apparently a rebuke to a whining child at the Crosby dinner table - which of course has it's own oddities to imagine now. Swinging on a Star also talks about bringing back moonbeams in a jar, a reference to the space program and the possibility of being an astronaut if you live right and make good choices. These songs, and many from this generation of songwriters and "crooners" were considered very challenging to societal norms for presenting their ideas in such a casual way. That little element of romance and that suave attitude of being upward moving in society were enough to make them seem slightly irksome to many. But they were not telling people to screw their friends, go for the bucks any way they could or live for today and nothing else.
Am I not in touch with new music enough to find more mindful thoughts in today's music? I hear way too much of the Disney output thanks to having an adolescent daughter. There is surely no good advice being doled out there. It's harmless in part, irreverent in the bad, directionless way for some parts and generally mindless for the vast part. I know pop music isn't talking about living a good life and thinking about your future mindfully. I still listen to a lot of the music of my college days. There is some intelligence in it to be sure. But it all seems soured, cynical. Any talk about the future is negative and there is no room for advice other than "get yours". That sounded more genuine at some point. But now it seems like a cop out. There are problems. There always will be. Shouldn't some portion of art discuss how to get on with life, how to live as best as one may?
Music, literature and poetry in the West has always been an odd thing. Chaucer and Shakespeare wrote to the common people of their times. Chaucer was practically a comic book writer. But they always told well rounded stories and had things to say about all aspects of life. Of course, we only know they existed because their work happened to survive. Were the "indy" playwrights, authors and musicians with this same cutting edge we'll never know? Without knowing, can we say that its more cynical now than it was before? It seems at least the most popular and enduring tales were at least well rounded. Future generations will have to puzzle over us. It seems that everything from our time and many years before will all endure. Everything has been recorded, cataloged, indexed and stored for what will be tantamount to forever compared to things prior to 1950 or so.
Of course, it's hard to ignore the role of religion in art through the ages. If all I wanted to find was some kind of advice in art, then the Christian industry in the US today could provide that by the bucketful. It was just the other day, right here in NJ not even an hour from my house, that I saw a car with so many Christian rock bumper stickers that it barely showed the brake lights. And walking from the PATH train yesterday I saw three different Christian books being advertised in the heart of midtown. And one need only visit the Met or listen to Bach to see how much religion has been in the mind of the artist since the start of recorded history in the West. But I'm looking for something else. I'm not seeking preaching. Shakespeare advising other people of his day is more on the mark. One person to another with no presumption of divine force.
What is the function of art? Does that question even make sense? If art serves nothing, then is it worthwhile? Or is art like so much else and simply needs balance to be in harmony with the world? Should there always be room for Frank Sinatra and Kurt Colbain? Has the passing of shared mores resulted in the passing of art treading on that ground as well? If it's all relative, does that mean artists can't grasp on well enough to depict any of it? I'm left feeling like it's just me - but I don't have evidence for that either. Does this amount to yelling at the wind saying "it was better in my day!" But it didn't really seem better in my day. I had more bliss, but I didn't realize what was making me happy. Youth is an elixir, to be sure. And since it's colorless, tasteless and odorless one doesn't even realize how quickly and deeply it's being drunk. It makes the cynicism seem wise and the mundane seem cool. It may also make the mindful seem boring or long-winded. C'est la art? Maybe I should ask a poet to re-write this.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
But if you want money for people with minds that hate; all I can tell you is brother try Wal*Mart aisle 8.
Politics is everywhere today. And in the chats about this party or that, this policy or that, the same ideas float by in many different forms over and over again. This is, among many other places, where I see the stunning lack of and lack of interest in the idea of a well rounded education. So few people, even those with the opportunity to have done so, benefited from a well rounded education. There is a basic lack of connecting ideas to history and history to ideology. This comes up most when people choose sides without any real knowledge of the true differences on the two or more sides in the debate they are entering.
One of the fun things in the news today is the Olympics and all the controversy about China's role as host. One of the things that people always fail to mention is that China had to fight hard to get this role. They didn't just invite the world in, they begged, cajoled and likely even bribed their way into getting people's nose into their nation. Why would they do this? There is no way they could not have predicted the strong and visceral reactions some would have. And by "they" I mean the government officials that would have petitioned the Olympic committees. The people may have been quite unaware in many cases. So if they knew the reaction, why do it?
One sub-topic for this is Tibet. I have always had many issues with the "free Tibet" clan. I do not deny that there has been wrong done by the China regime over many decades. But the story is not as simple as big bad China and little red Dali-Lama-hood. How many people know the role Xinjiang, Quinhai, Islam, Turkey and other influences in the region have played? I don't claim to understand it all, but I do know enough to say I'm not going to make simple sweeping statements because Richard Gere goes on CNN and does his holier than thou act. When looking for materials for this post I stumbled on a very interesting blog that talks a lot about these issues.
Of course, the US itself is tied to China in any number of odd and sundry ways which makes so much of this reaction so terribly absurd. China is to the US what the US is to itself 40-50 years ago. Large, polluting, self-aggrandizing, self-driven, world weary and ultimately tied to the idea that it's "their turn". But ignore the historical comparison and you have the intimate industrial and commercial bond we have. No China, no Wal*Mart. I would love to go around these protests checking tags on clothing to determine the number of people that would be naked without Chinese labor.
I'm not surprised by any of this. When you follow the connections of history and look at the ideologies driving these reactions and factions, it all fits into place. The West, which the US is likely at the forefront of these days, is driven by extreme ideas. It has been for ages. Christianity is a great example. Some people honestly seem to think that there was no religion in Europe before Christ. Or they think the religion was simply some stone age grunting around camp fires. The truth is there was rich and complex and diverse religion. But the West loves a rock star and when a good enough one comes along, they toss over everything that came before in his name. The history of the West can be partially understood as the perfection of this process through technology driving ever faster communication. Christ could never have gone platinum without Roman roads. Luther would never have been such a smash without the printing press. JFK would never have beaten "the man" without TV. Witness the pinnacle of all this: our current consumer culture. We have a new rock star being born, getting crucified and falling dead (and maybe risen on reality and late night TV) at the pace it takes the E! network to put on each night's show. Consumerism is the economic and sociological expression of a revolution addiction. Thank the Hippies (turned Regan Democrats) and their blue jeans for that. They taught the man how to sell their revolution back to them as fast as they could make it up.
So the news pumps out Richard Gere, people takes sides as they like and they get to feel smart. And then things move on to the next big flare up. People want it to move on. People want that next flare up. And now it goes so fast they only hang on for the rush. They are there in the square for the battle - and maybe some stay to declare victory. Most move to the next battle to scream and yell again, though. They are addicted to rebelling. They don't care if they see it through. Most don't even understand the forces driving it. They show up to protest for Tibet in Wal*Mart sandals. They drive 100 miles in their SUV to protest war in Iraq. They scream for abolishing government waste and control while they tap in their vote on Diebold machines. Maybe I'm silly, but I think if they had paid attention more in school, if they had learned to connect ideas together in long chains, they may see their own silliness. I don't hate them. I think they are very silly. I laugh at the absurd, not weep. Sic transit gloria mundi - but they would have had to pay attention in Latin to get that.
One of the fun things in the news today is the Olympics and all the controversy about China's role as host. One of the things that people always fail to mention is that China had to fight hard to get this role. They didn't just invite the world in, they begged, cajoled and likely even bribed their way into getting people's nose into their nation. Why would they do this? There is no way they could not have predicted the strong and visceral reactions some would have. And by "they" I mean the government officials that would have petitioned the Olympic committees. The people may have been quite unaware in many cases. So if they knew the reaction, why do it?
One sub-topic for this is Tibet. I have always had many issues with the "free Tibet" clan. I do not deny that there has been wrong done by the China regime over many decades. But the story is not as simple as big bad China and little red Dali-Lama-hood. How many people know the role Xinjiang, Quinhai, Islam, Turkey and other influences in the region have played? I don't claim to understand it all, but I do know enough to say I'm not going to make simple sweeping statements because Richard Gere goes on CNN and does his holier than thou act. When looking for materials for this post I stumbled on a very interesting blog that talks a lot about these issues.
Of course, the US itself is tied to China in any number of odd and sundry ways which makes so much of this reaction so terribly absurd. China is to the US what the US is to itself 40-50 years ago. Large, polluting, self-aggrandizing, self-driven, world weary and ultimately tied to the idea that it's "their turn". But ignore the historical comparison and you have the intimate industrial and commercial bond we have. No China, no Wal*Mart. I would love to go around these protests checking tags on clothing to determine the number of people that would be naked without Chinese labor.
I'm not surprised by any of this. When you follow the connections of history and look at the ideologies driving these reactions and factions, it all fits into place. The West, which the US is likely at the forefront of these days, is driven by extreme ideas. It has been for ages. Christianity is a great example. Some people honestly seem to think that there was no religion in Europe before Christ. Or they think the religion was simply some stone age grunting around camp fires. The truth is there was rich and complex and diverse religion. But the West loves a rock star and when a good enough one comes along, they toss over everything that came before in his name. The history of the West can be partially understood as the perfection of this process through technology driving ever faster communication. Christ could never have gone platinum without Roman roads. Luther would never have been such a smash without the printing press. JFK would never have beaten "the man" without TV. Witness the pinnacle of all this: our current consumer culture. We have a new rock star being born, getting crucified and falling dead (and maybe risen on reality and late night TV) at the pace it takes the E! network to put on each night's show. Consumerism is the economic and sociological expression of a revolution addiction. Thank the Hippies (turned Regan Democrats) and their blue jeans for that. They taught the man how to sell their revolution back to them as fast as they could make it up.
So the news pumps out Richard Gere, people takes sides as they like and they get to feel smart. And then things move on to the next big flare up. People want it to move on. People want that next flare up. And now it goes so fast they only hang on for the rush. They are there in the square for the battle - and maybe some stay to declare victory. Most move to the next battle to scream and yell again, though. They are addicted to rebelling. They don't care if they see it through. Most don't even understand the forces driving it. They show up to protest for Tibet in Wal*Mart sandals. They drive 100 miles in their SUV to protest war in Iraq. They scream for abolishing government waste and control while they tap in their vote on Diebold machines. Maybe I'm silly, but I think if they had paid attention more in school, if they had learned to connect ideas together in long chains, they may see their own silliness. I don't hate them. I think they are very silly. I laugh at the absurd, not weep. Sic transit gloria mundi - but they would have had to pay attention in Latin to get that.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
bliss by any other name
With the holidays comes a season of social interaction on a level I always face with fear. It's the worst kind of social interaction where norms are so strongly enforced and my paranoia of being truly and deeply offensive is at odds with my instinct to be nothing but open with my loved ones. As always, my fears far out pace reality and the season was a lot of fun. Not surprising to you, who are statistically likely to know me very, very well, my family is generally very intellectual and conversation is always interesting.
After a few whiskeys and a huge meal, I said to my godmother that I fear all who say they know anything. It was embedded in a conversation about religion which descended from a conversation about politics. It's a thought I have always and express seldom. Socrates was on the money as far as I am concerned. We know nothing. We have faith to form axioms and belief to give us the rest. The "knowledge" we have is highly contextualized. This belief of mine gives me a deep mistrust of those that say they know the origin, purpose and future of the universe without any doubt - from any source secular or divine.
We hosted yet another meal and a guest told me I know too much to be happy. We'd been discussing the fed and how the interest rates, tender and other financial aspects of the US government work. After I spent a while going on about it, apparently I'd proved I was too much in the know to qualify for any ignorance benefits. If knowledge is power and power grants right, I guess I have the right to be miserable. Of course, knowledge is only power when it's knowledge of the right kind. What kind of knowledge counts for power has changed over history. Knowledge of how our government's financing works is useful to a point. But what could I *do* with that? Could it give me power over something to know this?
Our ancestors knew the stars better than we do now. They made monuments to track them and to signify their impact in the world as they saw it. And they had great stories to pass this knowledge on. Why? I believe that knowledge was the power to farm, navigate and do many other things with great success through careful planning. Success begot growth, growth begot specialization, specialization begot civilization, civilization begot cities and cities begot good for nothing loafers who didn't need to navigate or farm. But they still knew the stories that came from the stars. In many cases, they used that knowledge to wield new power. The stories had power because they were revered, and they were revered because they have delivered the ability to do things so well in the past. These new keepers of the stories established their right to power by showing they "know" what the stories mean - never mind that the meaning lay back on the farm or out on the plains.
What is knowledge when it is only for the sake of knowing? What did all that knowing get us today? Power suddenly disconnected from its original right. Power used for other things. People who "know" the stories still hold the power. And so I fear them a little bit. Mostly because I believe they don't understand what they think they know. I fear those that follow them a lot more. Those who believe in those who think they know are very dangerous. Even if all they do is live in bliss.
After a few whiskeys and a huge meal, I said to my godmother that I fear all who say they know anything. It was embedded in a conversation about religion which descended from a conversation about politics. It's a thought I have always and express seldom. Socrates was on the money as far as I am concerned. We know nothing. We have faith to form axioms and belief to give us the rest. The "knowledge" we have is highly contextualized. This belief of mine gives me a deep mistrust of those that say they know the origin, purpose and future of the universe without any doubt - from any source secular or divine.
We hosted yet another meal and a guest told me I know too much to be happy. We'd been discussing the fed and how the interest rates, tender and other financial aspects of the US government work. After I spent a while going on about it, apparently I'd proved I was too much in the know to qualify for any ignorance benefits. If knowledge is power and power grants right, I guess I have the right to be miserable. Of course, knowledge is only power when it's knowledge of the right kind. What kind of knowledge counts for power has changed over history. Knowledge of how our government's financing works is useful to a point. But what could I *do* with that? Could it give me power over something to know this?
Our ancestors knew the stars better than we do now. They made monuments to track them and to signify their impact in the world as they saw it. And they had great stories to pass this knowledge on. Why? I believe that knowledge was the power to farm, navigate and do many other things with great success through careful planning. Success begot growth, growth begot specialization, specialization begot civilization, civilization begot cities and cities begot good for nothing loafers who didn't need to navigate or farm. But they still knew the stories that came from the stars. In many cases, they used that knowledge to wield new power. The stories had power because they were revered, and they were revered because they have delivered the ability to do things so well in the past. These new keepers of the stories established their right to power by showing they "know" what the stories mean - never mind that the meaning lay back on the farm or out on the plains.
What is knowledge when it is only for the sake of knowing? What did all that knowing get us today? Power suddenly disconnected from its original right. Power used for other things. People who "know" the stories still hold the power. And so I fear them a little bit. Mostly because I believe they don't understand what they think they know. I fear those that follow them a lot more. Those who believe in those who think they know are very dangerous. Even if all they do is live in bliss.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Blink and you'll miss it
Someone from work was telling me about what makes a good camera good. Apparently it has to do with a lens having multiple points of focus. This allows there to be a very sharply defined section of a photo while the rest remains in the background out of focus. The example used was a bird perched on a tree in some jungle where the bird is in great relief and the rest is just a sea of green around it. There is an art, I'm told, to using a good camera like this. Just having one does not grant you a good shot. The skill is in seeing where the good subject is and more-so even being able to manipulate these points of focus to good effect. I immediately picture looking through the camera and pullout out and in as I turned the lens clock and counter. The image in my mind is when I use the zoom back and forth with my cam-corder. The key seems to be where to stop so the picture is just right.
The podcast I listened to on a plane to Rochester New York spoke about ants and the concept of emergence. Emergence is the idea, in this context, that order or intelligence seems to come out of chaos and disorder in some way that is not fully comprehended. It "emerges" from what seems to be nothing. The examples at work in the show were many, but it was the ants which caught me. Ants farm, have cattle, build bridges, dams and do other very human sounding things. I knew that. What I never thought much about was how they knew how to. Any given ant is dumb as a rock. This includes the queen. There also appears to be no means by which ants explicitly communicate. One ant does not tell another ant what it has learned, moreover it seems impossible that any ant learns anything at all. However, as a colony, they do all those human sounding things. How? Where does that knowledge and skill come from? Where does it emerge from? And, the question I have, where do you focus to see it? Is it the species? The colony? Some grouping or order of magnitude larger or smaller? All we know is that one ant can't, but the colony can. Where does the "can" come from?
Moments in history have a way of connecting to form chains. The expression "hind sight is 20/20" comes from the idea that the chains are easy to see when you have benefit of knowing the effects of the causes. Churchill has a Naval defeat in the Mediterranean, and decades later he shows an obvious prejudice that leads to Israel and Palestine being locked together for what seems like may be forever. Who could have said that it would be that way? Is there a hope that if there had been a dedicated and unblinking rational mind in the mix that they could have seen giving Churchill the kind of sway he had over the middle east was ill-advised? Ahmadinejad comes to Columbia and these learned folks forget the Persian traditions of hospitality. He walks away a winner where it counts in his Islamic world and we lose more points with the heats and minds we know we need to win.
Of course, there are other opinions here. Others think these events are very different. Even in hind sight, where does one focus? When does one break the chain of cause and effect to snap a photo? From what place does the meaning emerge to give history context and inform those who would not like to repeat it. That place of focus, that loci of wisdom is too fine for words to capture. Blink, and you will miss it.
To lament an old lament: even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The podcast I listened to on a plane to Rochester New York spoke about ants and the concept of emergence. Emergence is the idea, in this context, that order or intelligence seems to come out of chaos and disorder in some way that is not fully comprehended. It "emerges" from what seems to be nothing. The examples at work in the show were many, but it was the ants which caught me. Ants farm, have cattle, build bridges, dams and do other very human sounding things. I knew that. What I never thought much about was how they knew how to. Any given ant is dumb as a rock. This includes the queen. There also appears to be no means by which ants explicitly communicate. One ant does not tell another ant what it has learned, moreover it seems impossible that any ant learns anything at all. However, as a colony, they do all those human sounding things. How? Where does that knowledge and skill come from? Where does it emerge from? And, the question I have, where do you focus to see it? Is it the species? The colony? Some grouping or order of magnitude larger or smaller? All we know is that one ant can't, but the colony can. Where does the "can" come from?
Moments in history have a way of connecting to form chains. The expression "hind sight is 20/20" comes from the idea that the chains are easy to see when you have benefit of knowing the effects of the causes. Churchill has a Naval defeat in the Mediterranean, and decades later he shows an obvious prejudice that leads to Israel and Palestine being locked together for what seems like may be forever. Who could have said that it would be that way? Is there a hope that if there had been a dedicated and unblinking rational mind in the mix that they could have seen giving Churchill the kind of sway he had over the middle east was ill-advised? Ahmadinejad comes to Columbia and these learned folks forget the Persian traditions of hospitality. He walks away a winner where it counts in his Islamic world and we lose more points with the heats and minds we know we need to win.
Of course, there are other opinions here. Others think these events are very different. Even in hind sight, where does one focus? When does one break the chain of cause and effect to snap a photo? From what place does the meaning emerge to give history context and inform those who would not like to repeat it. That place of focus, that loci of wisdom is too fine for words to capture. Blink, and you will miss it.
To lament an old lament: even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
in it and of it
Had a conversation with a good friend about consciousness. I said something that, after I wrote it, I had to back and read several times. I don't know if I've thought it before, but it feels very right. Consciousness is how we feel time. You run your finger across your hair and you know how your hair feels. You hear the train rush by and you know how that sound feels. You walk out of a building into summer air in the city and you know how the street feels. I think that we feel time passing as what we call consciousness. The difference, I feel, is that the feeling we call consciousness is as if we were running our hand through hair that goes on for all our waking hours. That sort of extended feeling is usually ignored. Are you aware of the clothing touching your shoulder? Likely not (maybe now that I've made you focus there). But that feeling is there the whole time the clothing is there. Our brain ignores it for us. Consciousness is the draping of time over our being like cloth, but we do not ignore it. We feel it.
We are in the world and of the world. The fact is that we often talk about how things "feel right" and I think there is a lot to that. I do think we can feel the world. We feel it and we lose grasp of that feeling not because we fall short of it in our experience but rather because the words fail us. The definitions are never nimble or supple enough. We can never make a word bend as a reed does in the wind. And I don't mean that is some abstract poetic way at all. I'm being as literal as I possibly can be. The wind blows, the reed bends and the two play with each other to form the actual reality of the world, the actuality of the world. Our words can't bend in the wind our mind blows. Our words are stiff, or, if not, ineffectual. What is a word if it doesn't mean the same thing said twice? As always, the exception proves the rule. Look at the way a poet must break words to make them be art.
It's no coincidence that the more complex society becomes the more rich our languages become. It's not just that you need new words to label new things, though of course that has a role. But there are also new modifiers, new tenses, new abstractions, new phrases and more. The words can not change. But the way we combine them, the new ones we make and the ways we find to contrast them gives huge leaps for the mind to take. And the space to jump from where we are to where we will be is why we need language to grow. We have learned to encounter and experience so much more. We have shifted and broken time, space, context and our bodies. Of course the old language would fail to meet the needs of the new reality. We feel new things and we need new words. We feel old things in the light of new things and we need new ways to use old words. How plastic is this lump of flesh in our skull? How much further can it leap and stretch? Will we know when we reach the precipice? Or will we think we're leaping long after we're left to stare over the edge wide eyed and dreaming of jumps we never really take?
This post was inspired by hearing Neruda's "Enigmas" quoted in the movie Mindwalk. Maybe I watch too many movies?
We are in the world and of the world. The fact is that we often talk about how things "feel right" and I think there is a lot to that. I do think we can feel the world. We feel it and we lose grasp of that feeling not because we fall short of it in our experience but rather because the words fail us. The definitions are never nimble or supple enough. We can never make a word bend as a reed does in the wind. And I don't mean that is some abstract poetic way at all. I'm being as literal as I possibly can be. The wind blows, the reed bends and the two play with each other to form the actual reality of the world, the actuality of the world. Our words can't bend in the wind our mind blows. Our words are stiff, or, if not, ineffectual. What is a word if it doesn't mean the same thing said twice? As always, the exception proves the rule. Look at the way a poet must break words to make them be art.
It's no coincidence that the more complex society becomes the more rich our languages become. It's not just that you need new words to label new things, though of course that has a role. But there are also new modifiers, new tenses, new abstractions, new phrases and more. The words can not change. But the way we combine them, the new ones we make and the ways we find to contrast them gives huge leaps for the mind to take. And the space to jump from where we are to where we will be is why we need language to grow. We have learned to encounter and experience so much more. We have shifted and broken time, space, context and our bodies. Of course the old language would fail to meet the needs of the new reality. We feel new things and we need new words. We feel old things in the light of new things and we need new ways to use old words. How plastic is this lump of flesh in our skull? How much further can it leap and stretch? Will we know when we reach the precipice? Or will we think we're leaping long after we're left to stare over the edge wide eyed and dreaming of jumps we never really take?
This post was inspired by hearing Neruda's "Enigmas" quoted in the movie Mindwalk. Maybe I watch too many movies?
Saturday, August 04, 2007
fluid thoughts
I've just been watching Akira because it happened to be on cable. For those who don't know and don't want to do any homework, the short story on Akira is that it's a movie dealing with the possibility humans may someday manipulate the most basic forces of the universe. Think of it as trying to be the ultimate "super hero" the hard way - by evolving into one.
The "ultimate" is what has me thinking now. What we consider ultimate at any time in history is so connected to where we are. If I appeared with my laptop or even a flashlight at the right time in human history I would be the world's most powerful wizard. Today, for those who stay tuned into what science is capable of delving into, it would take the power to move mountains to get noticed. One thing about the ultimate that has always been the same, though, is that people always advance their idea about what it is. It always leaps out ahead of us. We always imagine more with everything we learn and master. And as we advance and achieve the ultimate of the past we find it is vastly different in nature than our ideas and hardly as impressive.
In high school physics, I was taught that matter had four states and that the most energetic was a plasma. Fire is the image most draw on here when it comes to a plasma. Turns out current thinking is far beyond that four state idea. There are many states for matter and the continuum goes right on through energy and its forms. The ultimate state is no longer a plasma. The states used to progress nicely from more dense and less energetic to less dense and more energetic - fire is easier to pass through that wood, but passing through wood will not burn you. It is interesting that now the pattern does not hold. The highest energy states appear to be more like liquids and can be immensely dense and energetic at the same time. The stuff of the early universe was like a pool of water. It had flow like water.
No surprise that the highest energy states should be liquid like. Liquids are as flexible as anything can be and still very strong. Water is the creator and destroyer here on our planet - carving the Grand Canyon and cradling the very essence of life. Not too dense and not too energetic, water is the middle path. The middle path is closer to ultimate. Or so it seems for now.
Having just returned from a trip through the APAC region (stops in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Sydney and Melbourne) I saw such a scale of ideas. People on the sides of the highway in Malaysia living on the little farms they have had for a very long time I imagine. A striking image of a teenage boy sitting in the mud next to a cow doing what appeared to be having a txt conversation on a little mobile phone that likely puts much of what we have in the US to shame. What would that boy think of as the ultimate? How different would it be from what I think? I wish I had had time to find out.
The "ultimate" is what has me thinking now. What we consider ultimate at any time in history is so connected to where we are. If I appeared with my laptop or even a flashlight at the right time in human history I would be the world's most powerful wizard. Today, for those who stay tuned into what science is capable of delving into, it would take the power to move mountains to get noticed. One thing about the ultimate that has always been the same, though, is that people always advance their idea about what it is. It always leaps out ahead of us. We always imagine more with everything we learn and master. And as we advance and achieve the ultimate of the past we find it is vastly different in nature than our ideas and hardly as impressive.
In high school physics, I was taught that matter had four states and that the most energetic was a plasma. Fire is the image most draw on here when it comes to a plasma. Turns out current thinking is far beyond that four state idea. There are many states for matter and the continuum goes right on through energy and its forms. The ultimate state is no longer a plasma. The states used to progress nicely from more dense and less energetic to less dense and more energetic - fire is easier to pass through that wood, but passing through wood will not burn you. It is interesting that now the pattern does not hold. The highest energy states appear to be more like liquids and can be immensely dense and energetic at the same time. The stuff of the early universe was like a pool of water. It had flow like water.
No surprise that the highest energy states should be liquid like. Liquids are as flexible as anything can be and still very strong. Water is the creator and destroyer here on our planet - carving the Grand Canyon and cradling the very essence of life. Not too dense and not too energetic, water is the middle path. The middle path is closer to ultimate. Or so it seems for now.
Having just returned from a trip through the APAC region (stops in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Sydney and Melbourne) I saw such a scale of ideas. People on the sides of the highway in Malaysia living on the little farms they have had for a very long time I imagine. A striking image of a teenage boy sitting in the mud next to a cow doing what appeared to be having a txt conversation on a little mobile phone that likely puts much of what we have in the US to shame. What would that boy think of as the ultimate? How different would it be from what I think? I wish I had had time to find out.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
tibetan extremists should invade
From the borders of the USA, invaders start pouring in. Every one of them unarmed and marching quietly. They respond to no prompting. Eventually, one of them is shot for not responding. He does not even flinch. After his body jerks back with the force of the bullet in his shoulder, he rights himself and keeps marching. That image is played again and again on the news. Not one of his fellow marchers even looks his way. Our forces open fire and many of the invaders fall. Again, not one of those still moving even acknowledges the fallen or slow their pace. Those on the ground simply chant something unintelligible to those inspecting the fallen bodies. The tabloids rush to print that we've been invaded by zombies. The truth is we've been invaded by Buddhists. They are trying to live the words of their master. They don't come to convert. They are marching on Washington DC so they can sit on the lawns there and meditate. They will not leave until the USA has seen what the force of will set to peace can do.
The US rails on its news stations that it cannot allow them to simply march in like this. They will all be arrested. However, after dragging the 221st limp chanting body from the lawns of DC, the futility of putting them all in prison becomes clear. They go on chanting there and make the other inmates nervous. The President goes to the UN and demands sanctions against Tibet and other nations whose citizens have marched on US soil. The UN points out that they have done nothing but trespass and many US citizens have now joined them in their march and meditations.
The US economy kicks in and now the meditators are being marketed. With no response from any of them about what kind of cut they would need, many tour firms and television shows are simply pumping out images of the fields filled with people in simple seated posture over every medium they can. Now the fields are also filled with camera wielding vacationers. Fat children start throwing things at the seated people to see if they will move. It is reported that there have been sexual acts committed on some of the women late at night right in the open as they sit and do not move. Not missing a beat, MTV's punked producers get a show on the air where contestants try and get meditators to flinch using whatever means they can concoct. Shirts, mugs, hats, trays and everything else that can be silk screened appear all over with images of the meditators. Slogans of support, derision, confusion and stupidity are slapped over, under, next to and on top of the images. PBS and NPR start airing a documentary about them. Not to be out done, the Science Channel and Discovery Channel band together to air studies being done on the flocks of people.
One night, they all begin to leave. The press rabidly questions them as they go. People are followed home and harassed for weeks. Homeland security bars every person who participated from a foreign nation from entering the US again. The unanswered questions bubble over in the media. Larry King practically dies screaming at people on his live coverage of the exodus. Preachers in the evangelical heartlands preach a triumph of the Christian ideals of the US over the godless. And when there are no more of them on the lawns and the images disappear from the televisions people start to think - "about what, I have no idea!" to quote the late Mr. Dangerfield.
The US rails on its news stations that it cannot allow them to simply march in like this. They will all be arrested. However, after dragging the 221st limp chanting body from the lawns of DC, the futility of putting them all in prison becomes clear. They go on chanting there and make the other inmates nervous. The President goes to the UN and demands sanctions against Tibet and other nations whose citizens have marched on US soil. The UN points out that they have done nothing but trespass and many US citizens have now joined them in their march and meditations.
The US economy kicks in and now the meditators are being marketed. With no response from any of them about what kind of cut they would need, many tour firms and television shows are simply pumping out images of the fields filled with people in simple seated posture over every medium they can. Now the fields are also filled with camera wielding vacationers. Fat children start throwing things at the seated people to see if they will move. It is reported that there have been sexual acts committed on some of the women late at night right in the open as they sit and do not move. Not missing a beat, MTV's punked producers get a show on the air where contestants try and get meditators to flinch using whatever means they can concoct. Shirts, mugs, hats, trays and everything else that can be silk screened appear all over with images of the meditators. Slogans of support, derision, confusion and stupidity are slapped over, under, next to and on top of the images. PBS and NPR start airing a documentary about them. Not to be out done, the Science Channel and Discovery Channel band together to air studies being done on the flocks of people.
One night, they all begin to leave. The press rabidly questions them as they go. People are followed home and harassed for weeks. Homeland security bars every person who participated from a foreign nation from entering the US again. The unanswered questions bubble over in the media. Larry King practically dies screaming at people on his live coverage of the exodus. Preachers in the evangelical heartlands preach a triumph of the Christian ideals of the US over the godless. And when there are no more of them on the lawns and the images disappear from the televisions people start to think - "about what, I have no idea!" to quote the late Mr. Dangerfield.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Defending Religion, again...
I was speaking with some folks about religion over dinner this week. We got to talking about how religion is useful to people - or not. One person made the point that religion's truth can be seen in its power to explain those things reason and science can not. There comes a point, he explained, where god is the only explanation left.
I did not protest. But I did smile. The irony was so thick. It is exactly the same impulse for reasons, explanation and understanding that founded science. To seek out where the truth is in something until you find it and never surrendering to ignorance is the best of science.
Of course, as I see it, to leave the explanation in god's hands seems a bit silly. Religion plays the role of bad science when cast in that part. "Well I've tried everything I can think of... Must be god." I would rather say we do not know yet. Which means I betray the spirit of science more than my religious friend.
I'll settle for ignorance in some cases because I just don't feel like everything is within our grasp right now. I know that I do not know.
And, again laden with irony, I think religion loses part of its power when it's used as explanatory. Religion is meant to uplift the spirit. To give guidance is the power of religious doctrine. It's exactly because it deals with that which one can't explain that it is derived from inspiration - a word that almost literally says "letting spirit in". To bend religion so that it now is taken from the high perch of spiritual matters and is made to explain the mundane phenomena of this world is a crime against that spirit that inspires - wherever or whatever you feel that spirit derives from.
Why do I always end up defending the very thing these people say they hold dear from their own impulses to destroy it? In this case, I wisely only put these thoughts here. I've had enough of this conversation in real life...
I did not protest. But I did smile. The irony was so thick. It is exactly the same impulse for reasons, explanation and understanding that founded science. To seek out where the truth is in something until you find it and never surrendering to ignorance is the best of science.
Of course, as I see it, to leave the explanation in god's hands seems a bit silly. Religion plays the role of bad science when cast in that part. "Well I've tried everything I can think of... Must be god." I would rather say we do not know yet. Which means I betray the spirit of science more than my religious friend.
I'll settle for ignorance in some cases because I just don't feel like everything is within our grasp right now. I know that I do not know.
And, again laden with irony, I think religion loses part of its power when it's used as explanatory. Religion is meant to uplift the spirit. To give guidance is the power of religious doctrine. It's exactly because it deals with that which one can't explain that it is derived from inspiration - a word that almost literally says "letting spirit in". To bend religion so that it now is taken from the high perch of spiritual matters and is made to explain the mundane phenomena of this world is a crime against that spirit that inspires - wherever or whatever you feel that spirit derives from.
Why do I always end up defending the very thing these people say they hold dear from their own impulses to destroy it? In this case, I wisely only put these thoughts here. I've had enough of this conversation in real life...
Sunday, January 28, 2007
A Slight Departure
This morning I watched a bit of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (hhgttg) movie with my 8-year-old daughter. I was surprised to see how much of it she both understood and appreciated. It inspired me to make a slight departure from my typical science, math, politics and religion related invectives and talk about my most prized (non-animate) possession (discussion of possession of animate things for another time).
I came upon hhgttg in much the same way I came upon all things from the UK. In my youth my mother and I lived in a valley. That valley had little to no TV reception. Only two channels were watchable. One was channel 9 (WWOR for those in the NYC metro), and I was mostly not allowed to watch that outside my mother's presence due to it's content. So I had public television. And in the late hours when my mother was out working 3rd shift somewhere (after working 1st and 2nd in other places for sure), I would be treated to the finest out of date entertainment the BBC saw fit to give away. Monty Python, Faulty Towers and Dr. Who were my most steady friends. For a very brief window, they aired the Hitchhiker's TV series. But it was gone long before concluding the story. My mother, seeing how disappointed I was hunted and found the books. And a lifetime love was born.
I have been in love with the mind of Douglas Adams for as long as I can recall. From his typewriter (as he had stated his loathing of pens as instruments of serious writing) sprung gems that have both entertained my mind and educated me more than most serious tomes could ever hope to. From Mr. Adams I learned about human nature. He gave us the SEP Field (Somebody Else's Problem). You see scientists had found that when you surround anything with a force that gives an onlooker the impression that it is somebody else's problem they don't see it at all. I also learned about the questionably fruitful nature of human (and non-human) endeavors. In the first book pan-dimensional beings build a grand computer to calculate the secret (a question) to "life, the universe and everything" only to have it demolished to make way for a new hyper-space bypass moments before it would come to it's conclusions in an oversight of bureaucracy.
All this sets the stage for my mother's 18th birthday present to me. A leather-bound edition of the 4 book long "trilogy" of hhgttg called "The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide". I had already read all the books (though it contained a never before published short story I g
obbled up before my party was through). The book came with me to Fordham and was there the day the 20 year old bull dyke, a friend of mine, came to me and said she was going downtown to have her new 5th book in the "trilogy" autographed (he always called it a trilogy regardless of the number of books he wrote - the 5th was the last). Now, I'm not one for autographs and hero-worship. However stories of Mr. Adams in person were the stuff of legend. He was just as cantankerous and obnoxious as one could imagine for a mind that birthed these books. So I decided I should see this for myself.
As if Mr. Adams had been briefed for what we were expecting, the spectacle of the day could not have been better. It was a particularly warm November day. The line to get into the B. Dalton's bookstore on West 8th was around the block. Being dressed for the cold and getting the hot we were all sweating in the sun and carrying heavy loads of discarded coats and gloves and such. So when I finally reached the doors of the store and entered I was very relieved to be immediately distracted from my misery by the play taking place before us all. The first thing I saw was a very irate man in a white shirt, little bow tie and glasses, wearing a B.Dalton's name tag. He was quietly but insistently pointing at something I could not see and trying to get past another man who was impeding him. "He can't do that in here. It's simply not allowed!" he whined. The man in his way was in a black blazer and looked less than entertained. Strangely, from his bearing, I could just tell he'd been through this before. "He's almost through. It's silly to stop it now." he said. Moments after hearing the the crowd parted just enough for me to see Douglas sitting at the table signing a book with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Now being able to see him I could finally make out what he'd been muttering the whole time as he signed, "If he wants me to step outside to fucking smoke, I'll step outside and give the fucking books away instead of letting people buy them. I don't give a shit..." He continued in this way the whole time the little man from the store was standing there. I, and everyone around me, laughed as mutedly as we could for fear of being kicked out before getting our turn.
When I did make it up to the table, I handed over my leather-bound edition without a word. I had no idea what to say.
I had it open to chapter 29 of "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish", which is the fourth book. Chapter 29 is interesting for being only one paragraph long. It is a flight announcement. If I had any idea how much I would end up hearing these in my life to come I may not have made that choice. But being so short it provided quite a bit of blank space on the page and struck me as a good place for the book to be signed. The book was signed in a flash and then he slammed it shut - a bit hard for my tastes. But then he saw the cover and looked surprised. "What the bloody hell is this?" he asked aloud. The man in the black blazer, his manager I had surmised, turned instantly and said "Don't worry Doug, you got paid on it." "Oh, OK." Douglas answered calmly and then looked at the book more gently. "The More Than Complete," he read aloud. "Well that's not true now is it?" With that he opened to the title page and c
rossed out the word "more" to replace it with "less". I was stunned. Everyone around me glared. I'm sure they were very unhappy they hadn't thought to bring their own.
I adored that book. Too much, in fact. I was obsessed for a long time with it's care. The the universe interceded and it was lost from our move to our last home. I was devastated for along time. I searched everywhere I could. After a few years, I gave up. Then, long after I thought it was gone for good, my wife found it when unpacking from our recent move into our new home in a box that had been in the garage and never opened form the apartment. I'm very happy to have it back. I intend to be more careful to apply the lessons I learned from the stories on its pages this time and not hold it too dear. I also hope to get another generation hooked. Bu that will have to wait a few years. After all, I don't intend to explain to an 8 year old why it's so funny that there is a male character who is said to have at least two known heads above his shoulders and an unknown number below. That is something left behind the SEP field for at least half a dozen more years.
Good luck, and always make sure you know where your towel is.
I came upon hhgttg in much the same way I came upon all things from the UK. In my youth my mother and I lived in a valley. That valley had little to no TV reception. Only two channels were watchable. One was channel 9 (WWOR for those in the NYC metro), and I was mostly not allowed to watch that outside my mother's presence due to it's content. So I had public television. And in the late hours when my mother was out working 3rd shift somewhere (after working 1st and 2nd in other places for sure), I would be treated to the finest out of date entertainment the BBC saw fit to give away. Monty Python, Faulty Towers and Dr. Who were my most steady friends. For a very brief window, they aired the Hitchhiker's TV series. But it was gone long before concluding the story. My mother, seeing how disappointed I was hunted and found the books. And a lifetime love was born.
I have been in love with the mind of Douglas Adams for as long as I can recall. From his typewriter (as he had stated his loathing of pens as instruments of serious writing) sprung gems that have both entertained my mind and educated me more than most serious tomes could ever hope to. From Mr. Adams I learned about human nature. He gave us the SEP Field (Somebody Else's Problem). You see scientists had found that when you surround anything with a force that gives an onlooker the impression that it is somebody else's problem they don't see it at all. I also learned about the questionably fruitful nature of human (and non-human) endeavors. In the first book pan-dimensional beings build a grand computer to calculate the secret (a question) to "life, the universe and everything" only to have it demolished to make way for a new hyper-space bypass moments before it would come to it's conclusions in an oversight of bureaucracy.
All this sets the stage for my mother's 18th birthday present to me. A leather-bound edition of the 4 book long "trilogy" of hhgttg called "The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide". I had already read all the books (though it contained a never before published short story I g
obbled up before my party was through). The book came with me to Fordham and was there the day the 20 year old bull dyke, a friend of mine, came to me and said she was going downtown to have her new 5th book in the "trilogy" autographed (he always called it a trilogy regardless of the number of books he wrote - the 5th was the last). Now, I'm not one for autographs and hero-worship. However stories of Mr. Adams in person were the stuff of legend. He was just as cantankerous and obnoxious as one could imagine for a mind that birthed these books. So I decided I should see this for myself.As if Mr. Adams had been briefed for what we were expecting, the spectacle of the day could not have been better. It was a particularly warm November day. The line to get into the B. Dalton's bookstore on West 8th was around the block. Being dressed for the cold and getting the hot we were all sweating in the sun and carrying heavy loads of discarded coats and gloves and such. So when I finally reached the doors of the store and entered I was very relieved to be immediately distracted from my misery by the play taking place before us all. The first thing I saw was a very irate man in a white shirt, little bow tie and glasses, wearing a B.Dalton's name tag. He was quietly but insistently pointing at something I could not see and trying to get past another man who was impeding him. "He can't do that in here. It's simply not allowed!" he whined. The man in his way was in a black blazer and looked less than entertained. Strangely, from his bearing, I could just tell he'd been through this before. "He's almost through. It's silly to stop it now." he said. Moments after hearing the the crowd parted just enough for me to see Douglas sitting at the table signing a book with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Now being able to see him I could finally make out what he'd been muttering the whole time as he signed, "If he wants me to step outside to fucking smoke, I'll step outside and give the fucking books away instead of letting people buy them. I don't give a shit..." He continued in this way the whole time the little man from the store was standing there. I, and everyone around me, laughed as mutedly as we could for fear of being kicked out before getting our turn.
When I did make it up to the table, I handed over my leather-bound edition without a word. I had no idea what to say.
I had it open to chapter 29 of "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish", which is the fourth book. Chapter 29 is interesting for being only one paragraph long. It is a flight announcement. If I had any idea how much I would end up hearing these in my life to come I may not have made that choice. But being so short it provided quite a bit of blank space on the page and struck me as a good place for the book to be signed. The book was signed in a flash and then he slammed it shut - a bit hard for my tastes. But then he saw the cover and looked surprised. "What the bloody hell is this?" he asked aloud. The man in the black blazer, his manager I had surmised, turned instantly and said "Don't worry Doug, you got paid on it." "Oh, OK." Douglas answered calmly and then looked at the book more gently. "The More Than Complete," he read aloud. "Well that's not true now is it?" With that he opened to the title page and crossed out the word "more" to replace it with "less". I was stunned. Everyone around me glared. I'm sure they were very unhappy they hadn't thought to bring their own.I adored that book. Too much, in fact. I was obsessed for a long time with it's care. The the universe interceded and it was lost from our move to our last home. I was devastated for along time. I searched everywhere I could. After a few years, I gave up. Then, long after I thought it was gone for good, my wife found it when unpacking from our recent move into our new home in a box that had been in the garage and never opened form the apartment. I'm very happy to have it back. I intend to be more careful to apply the lessons I learned from the stories on its pages this time and not hold it too dear. I also hope to get another generation hooked. Bu that will have to wait a few years. After all, I don't intend to explain to an 8 year old why it's so funny that there is a male character who is said to have at least two known heads above his shoulders and an unknown number below. That is something left behind the SEP field for at least half a dozen more years.
Good luck, and always make sure you know where your towel is.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Dynamite to cause avalanches on the slopes
watching the science channel last night, I saw a bit about some folks who cause avalanches for a living. They find likely spots where the terrible snow flows may occur and blast them so that they will give way and clear the danger while no one is in harm's way. I've been watching the news and I feel like some folks are doing the culturally equivalent thing. But I'm not so sure that their intent is as benign. I'm watching the slippery slopes be made much safer to ski by people causing huge calamities that no one seems to notice.
The first one that caught my eye was in Canada. Here a man unsuccessfully tried to get the high court to hear and appeal for the murder of his wife. His appeal was for a lesser charge based on the fact that she had insulted his honor. They refused. Happy ending you may think. But there is a devil in the details. They refused because of the fact that the man had had an affair and that having an affair was the very insult he claimed has sent him into the honor fueled rage. However, I see a great big hanging snow sheet there that's been cleared. Now what happens when a fiery and righteous man comes along with the same claim. Will he receive the lesser sentence? By their logic, he should.
The next one is in the UK. The odious member of the BNP was cleared of charges of race hate. Good guys lose, right? Well, not to their minds. They are considering changing the laws. I'm sure that the last time I read up on rule of law it was the exception that should repeal parts of the existing rules - not create new ones. The broader the reach of these laws that are on their very face based in subjective judgement, the scarier the power of the state becomes. Law should be as cold as possible. The fire belongs in the hearts of the juror and the minds of the trial lawyers. The people should bring the views to the laws. The laws are not the views of the people.
All around people react to extremism with more extremism. Too bad the moon isn't ready for tenants yet.
The first one that caught my eye was in Canada. Here a man unsuccessfully tried to get the high court to hear and appeal for the murder of his wife. His appeal was for a lesser charge based on the fact that she had insulted his honor. They refused. Happy ending you may think. But there is a devil in the details. They refused because of the fact that the man had had an affair and that having an affair was the very insult he claimed has sent him into the honor fueled rage. However, I see a great big hanging snow sheet there that's been cleared. Now what happens when a fiery and righteous man comes along with the same claim. Will he receive the lesser sentence? By their logic, he should.
The next one is in the UK. The odious member of the BNP was cleared of charges of race hate. Good guys lose, right? Well, not to their minds. They are considering changing the laws. I'm sure that the last time I read up on rule of law it was the exception that should repeal parts of the existing rules - not create new ones. The broader the reach of these laws that are on their very face based in subjective judgement, the scarier the power of the state becomes. Law should be as cold as possible. The fire belongs in the hearts of the juror and the minds of the trial lawyers. The people should bring the views to the laws. The laws are not the views of the people.
All around people react to extremism with more extremism. Too bad the moon isn't ready for tenants yet.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Man as the Instrument
I am reading Incompleteness. Right now we are making a survey of the positivists and their Vienna Cirle thoughts. I find myself in that hazy place again. It is positivist vs. Platonist; radical empirical vs. realist/idealist (depending on who you talk to). And I wonder where there is room for the common experience in either view? Of course, these are all men of ideas talking about ideas. So perhaps it's natural that they don't have much to say about the place of sweat, blood and tears.
But I always find myself taking the sociologist's view. These men would not be but for the sweat, blood and tears of people that live along with them in their time and countless generations before that. How then can they find themselves discussing what they would deem complete theories of "What Is"(TM) which discount that perspective? Am I too Marxist here? I don't know.
Fugazi says "we need an instrument". I agree. Math is the only thing which seems to come close, but even that we don't understand well enough yet. Our attempts are fumbling at best. Grandiose, beautiful, inspired fumbling - but fumbling none the less.
Of course, you add the lack of instrument to the lack of commonality in the intellectual debate and you get the whole reason religion thrives today long after so many of those intellectuals predicted its demise. God may indeed be dead (in the Nietzschian poetic sense), but the churches remain full regardless. Because the people don't understand the new prophets' words - they preach from high atop Babel.
In the end, religion and god and all those ancient concepts are just an attempt to grasp that instrument. I struggle to help my own children understand the world. It would be great to have an instrument where I could just put it all through a lens and show them. I know there is none. But many grasp and find the same one that has been refined from the assumptions of our forefathers. Ironically, though, in their attempt to make something so grand and all seeing they still inject themselves. The god is always somehow among or of or akin to us in mind or spirit or even body. Man is the instrument again. And there the failure lies...
But I always find myself taking the sociologist's view. These men would not be but for the sweat, blood and tears of people that live along with them in their time and countless generations before that. How then can they find themselves discussing what they would deem complete theories of "What Is"(TM) which discount that perspective? Am I too Marxist here? I don't know.
Fugazi says "we need an instrument". I agree. Math is the only thing which seems to come close, but even that we don't understand well enough yet. Our attempts are fumbling at best. Grandiose, beautiful, inspired fumbling - but fumbling none the less.
Of course, you add the lack of instrument to the lack of commonality in the intellectual debate and you get the whole reason religion thrives today long after so many of those intellectuals predicted its demise. God may indeed be dead (in the Nietzschian poetic sense), but the churches remain full regardless. Because the people don't understand the new prophets' words - they preach from high atop Babel.
In the end, religion and god and all those ancient concepts are just an attempt to grasp that instrument. I struggle to help my own children understand the world. It would be great to have an instrument where I could just put it all through a lens and show them. I know there is none. But many grasp and find the same one that has been refined from the assumptions of our forefathers. Ironically, though, in their attempt to make something so grand and all seeing they still inject themselves. The god is always somehow among or of or akin to us in mind or spirit or even body. Man is the instrument again. And there the failure lies...
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
tunnel
Someone said to me "I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel", and I answered:
There is no light. Learn to love the tunnel. That is the only way. To look for the light is to find oneself stuck forever in becoming and never in being. It is to always try to be somewhere, something else - never to be here and what you are. It is as Yoda says, "Do, or do not. There is no try." It is the tunnel for you, and me, and everyone else. Learn to like the pulsing lights. Learn to love the speed and hugging the sides for speed. Be in the tunnel, or stop. There is no light.
=] I do mean that in a positive way, I assure you. I love my tunnel (most every day).
There is no light. Learn to love the tunnel. That is the only way. To look for the light is to find oneself stuck forever in becoming and never in being. It is to always try to be somewhere, something else - never to be here and what you are. It is as Yoda says, "Do, or do not. There is no try." It is the tunnel for you, and me, and everyone else. Learn to like the pulsing lights. Learn to love the speed and hugging the sides for speed. Be in the tunnel, or stop. There is no light.
=] I do mean that in a positive way, I assure you. I love my tunnel (most every day).
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
groovy
NOTE: quoting myself from here.
seed magazine: prime numbers get hitched
Short summary of the article - Mathematicians say to physicists: "We give you all these great tools, you give us nothing. When are you going to pull your weight?" Physicists reply: "We're working on it, but how can physics, which is about reality, contribute to the pure ideal world of math?" Enter one very brave physicist who notes there is a similarity between the patterns in prime numbers and the patters in electron states in atoms. Primes have always been known to show up in patterns. Anyone who has been through high school physics since 1960 know electrons orbit in "shells" (states) where they sit in relation to the nucleus (center) of the atom and that it takes energy (given or taken) to switch from one "shell" to another. Well, it seems that they have been able to use what they know about electrons to make actual verifiable predictions about prime numbers.
Why is this SOOOOOOOOO cool that it makes me tingle every time I say it????
Well, I bet many of you have heard of things like the "golden ratio". It's basically a pattern that you can use to show how things like a conch shell or sunflower will grow. But it was found in nature, and then analyzed. So nature showed this to us and then we brought it into math to analyze. In other words, nothing new was brought to math by it's discovery. The tools of math were just used to describe it.
With these primes and the atomic states, we actually have reality informing us on a completely, until now, abstract issue. Prime numbers have always thought to be something wholly unrelated to anything but the confines of math. If you recall the movie Contact, they are convinced that the message is from an intelligent life-form because it uses primes, and primes are something only intelligence could have used because it has no bearing on anything but the ideal constructs of mathematics - so says the scientists in the movie. But here we have a staggering connection showing that reality may connect to this prime concept in a very deep way.
Were we innately in touch with some deep part of the universe when we discovered, described and manipulated primes? Do we now start looking at all the "pure abstractions" and wondering if they are really just reflections of things we have not yet realized in the world around us? Does this point to a day when we see every thought ever had as part of the natural order because they are all entwined with phenomena at all levels of reality?
Maybe one or all of those questions are completely insane, but before this they were nonsense and now they may just have some standing.
What do you think?
seed magazine: prime numbers get hitched
Short summary of the article - Mathematicians say to physicists: "We give you all these great tools, you give us nothing. When are you going to pull your weight?" Physicists reply: "We're working on it, but how can physics, which is about reality, contribute to the pure ideal world of math?" Enter one very brave physicist who notes there is a similarity between the patterns in prime numbers and the patters in electron states in atoms. Primes have always been known to show up in patterns. Anyone who has been through high school physics since 1960 know electrons orbit in "shells" (states) where they sit in relation to the nucleus (center) of the atom and that it takes energy (given or taken) to switch from one "shell" to another. Well, it seems that they have been able to use what they know about electrons to make actual verifiable predictions about prime numbers.
Why is this SOOOOOOOOO cool that it makes me tingle every time I say it????
Well, I bet many of you have heard of things like the "golden ratio". It's basically a pattern that you can use to show how things like a conch shell or sunflower will grow. But it was found in nature, and then analyzed. So nature showed this to us and then we brought it into math to analyze. In other words, nothing new was brought to math by it's discovery. The tools of math were just used to describe it.
With these primes and the atomic states, we actually have reality informing us on a completely, until now, abstract issue. Prime numbers have always thought to be something wholly unrelated to anything but the confines of math. If you recall the movie Contact, they are convinced that the message is from an intelligent life-form because it uses primes, and primes are something only intelligence could have used because it has no bearing on anything but the ideal constructs of mathematics - so says the scientists in the movie. But here we have a staggering connection showing that reality may connect to this prime concept in a very deep way.
Were we innately in touch with some deep part of the universe when we discovered, described and manipulated primes? Do we now start looking at all the "pure abstractions" and wondering if they are really just reflections of things we have not yet realized in the world around us? Does this point to a day when we see every thought ever had as part of the natural order because they are all entwined with phenomena at all levels of reality?
Maybe one or all of those questions are completely insane, but before this they were nonsense and now they may just have some standing.
What do you think?
Sunday, May 22, 2005
So many things it hurts
So it's been a while. I'm playing hooky from church today. It's a combined service with no religious ed for Sophie, which means 40 minutes struggling to keep her from exploding or making me explode... =] No fun for anyone to be had in that - no good either.
Again, it's been a long while since I've posted. No one seems to know this exists. Of course, I've told no one. So how would they? I still feel I'm missing something about this whole blogging thing.
I've been bursting with ideas lately. Nothing new - meaning the ideas are ones I've mostly has before. I've never written them down. I hope to do some of that here. But I have not yet. Time, time, time, time is always slipping away.
So many things pulse through my mind - mostly about mind. It started when I was reading about Roger Penrose's thoughts on the role quantum mechanics may have in the mind. It makes so much sense to me. The basic idea, which is a result of a wider statement about the role gravity has in the quantum process, says that the scale human thought plays out at may be exactly the range where quantum effects mingle with the macroscopic universe. His idea is that something at small scales can play the quantum games (being in more than one place at once, popping into and out of existence, etc.) because gravity holds no sway at those tiny mass levels. But, it is said, as soon as gravity can hold sway, the multitude of possibilities coalesce into one actuality. I think this would have made Einstein smile. It's so simple. It feels true to me. Penrose goes on to say that this does not rule out quantum effects in things larger than we usually expect. Hence, perhaps quantum probability and hijinks can help explain the mechanics of choice - perchance even free will.
It's a massively appealing idea. Google it and you'll see how many people are buzzing with it. I can't say I've dug into it too much, but it simply feels true. It echos the emergence and multi-layered ideas of mind I've always thought would lead to truth. It also appeals to me because it gives me joy to see that my materialism - materialism that never looked like what most materialists say theirs does - could indeed be right. I've always thought there could be a physics based explanation of mind. I've always believed mind was material - as I believe everything is material. But I have never thought we held all the cards in material's deck before. I still don't think we do. But we have great minds getting closer.
Again, it's been a long while since I've posted. No one seems to know this exists. Of course, I've told no one. So how would they? I still feel I'm missing something about this whole blogging thing.
I've been bursting with ideas lately. Nothing new - meaning the ideas are ones I've mostly has before. I've never written them down. I hope to do some of that here. But I have not yet. Time, time, time, time is always slipping away.
So many things pulse through my mind - mostly about mind. It started when I was reading about Roger Penrose's thoughts on the role quantum mechanics may have in the mind. It makes so much sense to me. The basic idea, which is a result of a wider statement about the role gravity has in the quantum process, says that the scale human thought plays out at may be exactly the range where quantum effects mingle with the macroscopic universe. His idea is that something at small scales can play the quantum games (being in more than one place at once, popping into and out of existence, etc.) because gravity holds no sway at those tiny mass levels. But, it is said, as soon as gravity can hold sway, the multitude of possibilities coalesce into one actuality. I think this would have made Einstein smile. It's so simple. It feels true to me. Penrose goes on to say that this does not rule out quantum effects in things larger than we usually expect. Hence, perhaps quantum probability and hijinks can help explain the mechanics of choice - perchance even free will.
It's a massively appealing idea. Google it and you'll see how many people are buzzing with it. I can't say I've dug into it too much, but it simply feels true. It echos the emergence and multi-layered ideas of mind I've always thought would lead to truth. It also appeals to me because it gives me joy to see that my materialism - materialism that never looked like what most materialists say theirs does - could indeed be right. I've always thought there could be a physics based explanation of mind. I've always believed mind was material - as I believe everything is material. But I have never thought we held all the cards in material's deck before. I still don't think we do. But we have great minds getting closer.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Restart
So I went to Puerto Rico. I remembered that vacations are fun. I remembered that it is good to be in a pool with kids. I remembered that I like to drink a coke in the sun at a poolside bar.
I met an artist and we talked about how her art was like language. I got my wife completely confused between the two gay men in my department of the company, and they don't look all that much alike.
I heard the song of the Coqui, a little frog that is the only one in the world that sings.
I recharged.
It was quite nice. More later...
I met an artist and we talked about how her art was like language. I got my wife completely confused between the two gay men in my department of the company, and they don't look all that much alike.
I heard the song of the Coqui, a little frog that is the only one in the world that sings.
I recharged.
It was quite nice. More later...
Friday, February 04, 2005
On Math and Things Real
i is odd, no doubt. For the uninitiated, that is not bad grammar. In this context, 'i' is the grandma of all complex numbers - the square root of -1. Why is that number special? Well, think back to your basic math and you'll recall that any time you multiply a negative by a negative, you get a positive. i.e. -1 x -4 = 4. Now, a square root is the number that, when multiplied by itself, gives you the number being rooted. So the square root of 4 is 2, because 2 x 2 = 4. If you took the case of -2 x -2 you would find that is also 4, positive 4. (The natural question is: does that mean 2 and -2 can both be considered proper square roots of 4? An answer which I don't have, but intuit from context when needed in my readings... most of the time =] )
None of that tells me (directly) why i (the square root of -1) is so special. You see, finding the square root implies that you've found a number that, when multiplied by itself (2 x 2), equals some other number (4). And that square root (2) is then the solution to the question "what is the square root of this (4)?" But if the number you want to find the square root of is -1 (or any negative number, in fact), it can't have a proper square root because you can't have a negative result when you multiply two negative numbers. You can't get a negative by using one negative and one positive, either; because the definition of squaring a number is multiplying the same number by itself (2 x 2 not 2 x -2). So -1 can't have a square root. Well, it can't under the normal rules we're used to. In comes a concept, invented for this very purpose, which allows there to be roots for negative numbers. Or, at least, a root for -1. That number is called 'i'. There is no "number" for it like "5", "7.987374576576", "789/27" or even "π(pi)". Once you have a square root for -1 (and I'll hope you trust me on this), you can have square roots worked out for any negative number.
There is a catch to having all this power, though. You can have your square root for any negative number, but you can never get rid of i. i becomes a basis for a whole set of numbers called "complex numbers" that tend to look like "23.8678678 + 445.766i". Note the presence of i in the number. You'll get that every time. It's because i is something you can't break down. You can manipulate it, though. That's the whole reason it's around. Math dudes needed a way to get around equations that ran into negative roots. So they dreamt up (actually, rigorously proved) the meaning and existence of i (mathematically speaking). What that allowed them to do is do math with these quantities. So if you run into a negative square root in an equation, you simply get it to factor out (which means making it disappear in the mathematical sense) using i (if you can) and then move on. When it was just a negative square root with no context you couldn't do that.
So WHAT??? =]
All this got me to thinking about how it related to things I see in software. I was just training on new products we have (new to me anyway), and we ran into an odd thing. The product can retrieve the structure of queries running in a database; this code is called SQL - Structured Query Language. Well, this SQL code can get quite odd and databases made by IBM don't have the same flavor of oddness as databases made by Microsoft or whomever. We were running the tool against Microsoft's Database (SQL Server 2000 sp3a for the curious), and I got different (incorrect) results than the trainer. After a moments thought, she said "Oh yes, you need to change a setting to get SQL with double quote(") characters in it".
Later on, sitting on this airplane, I was reading about the Riemann Hypothesis (a major mathematical theory). And the author was doing what all good pop-sci and pop-math authors do by giving a refresher for those of us who are not math professionals. He went over the different number families (real numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers, etc.). And he gave a good explanation of i (somewhat abridged here). What struck me was that he said that i was invented out of need for people to get past restrictions in some equations dealing with negative numbers needing to have square roots. Well, that seemed very like my problem with the software.
I needed to have the software get the SQL from the database. The mathematicians needed to have their equations get the solutions at certain values. In the software problem, there was a condition in the database (the use of the double quotes) which requires the invention of a novel and narrowly applicable solution (the setting in our software) to get over the condition. In the math world, they invent a new number, i, to allow them to deal with the limit in the numbers they have in the context of the equations they'd like to solve. In the software case, the whole thing is a situation wholly invented by people. Math (and the following point is certainly debated but I give my own bias here) is a tool that describes the ideal forms of the world around us - the reduced world. The interesting question for me (and the point of this diatribe) is this:
In other words, is i just a handy way of dealing with something that is too messy to treat properly? I tend to think in a systems view. Math, the software, the world are all systems. Those systems are different in details for sure, but, as they are all systems, share some general properties with all systems. Whenever we invent some great leap of faith, or sum up some complex idea with a small symbol, are we just shoving some complexity into a neat hidey-hole so we needn't see it anymore instead of tackling head on? Now, to be fair, there have been many man-years spent trying to tackle the nature of i (all puns welcome). My question is more to the nature of solutions that are there merely to be a pass through. No mathematician actually deals with i. They just use it to get rid of something they don't like and get rid of it (i) in the process. It would be as if, finding a quality I didn't like in my dog, I simply trained my dog not to have that quality through using it against the dog (I teach him not to howl at the moon by playing tapes of his howling at the moon to him on a 24 hour loop until he stops). Those solutions don't deal with how the problem arises in the first place.
It doesn't get at the root of the issue (puns again, sorry).
What is the way one deals with these persistent and seemingly unsolvable problems? Don't they point to some lack of deeper understanding? Or are they the sign that our blind grasping at the bounds of knowledge are making contact with the walls in the dark? Are we feeling our way around the room we're bound inside by our minds and senses; only knowing we've struck the wall when these problems hit? And, of course, all we can do is repel off the wall using it's own strength so we can float about the middle of the room again to await the next time we hit a wall. What if we punched the wall all the harder? Or is that a metaphorical number i, trying to solve this issue by simply using mysticism against a mystery? hmmm...
None of that tells me (directly) why i (the square root of -1) is so special. You see, finding the square root implies that you've found a number that, when multiplied by itself (2 x 2), equals some other number (4). And that square root (2) is then the solution to the question "what is the square root of this (4)?" But if the number you want to find the square root of is -1 (or any negative number, in fact), it can't have a proper square root because you can't have a negative result when you multiply two negative numbers. You can't get a negative by using one negative and one positive, either; because the definition of squaring a number is multiplying the same number by itself (2 x 2 not 2 x -2). So -1 can't have a square root. Well, it can't under the normal rules we're used to. In comes a concept, invented for this very purpose, which allows there to be roots for negative numbers. Or, at least, a root for -1. That number is called 'i'. There is no "number" for it like "5", "7.987374576576", "789/27" or even "π(pi)". Once you have a square root for -1 (and I'll hope you trust me on this), you can have square roots worked out for any negative number.
There is a catch to having all this power, though. You can have your square root for any negative number, but you can never get rid of i. i becomes a basis for a whole set of numbers called "complex numbers" that tend to look like "23.8678678 + 445.766i". Note the presence of i in the number. You'll get that every time. It's because i is something you can't break down. You can manipulate it, though. That's the whole reason it's around. Math dudes needed a way to get around equations that ran into negative roots. So they dreamt up (actually, rigorously proved) the meaning and existence of i (mathematically speaking). What that allowed them to do is do math with these quantities. So if you run into a negative square root in an equation, you simply get it to factor out (which means making it disappear in the mathematical sense) using i (if you can) and then move on. When it was just a negative square root with no context you couldn't do that.
So WHAT??? =]
All this got me to thinking about how it related to things I see in software. I was just training on new products we have (new to me anyway), and we ran into an odd thing. The product can retrieve the structure of queries running in a database; this code is called SQL - Structured Query Language. Well, this SQL code can get quite odd and databases made by IBM don't have the same flavor of oddness as databases made by Microsoft or whomever. We were running the tool against Microsoft's Database (SQL Server 2000 sp3a for the curious), and I got different (incorrect) results than the trainer. After a moments thought, she said "Oh yes, you need to change a setting to get SQL with double quote(") characters in it".
Later on, sitting on this airplane, I was reading about the Riemann Hypothesis (a major mathematical theory). And the author was doing what all good pop-sci and pop-math authors do by giving a refresher for those of us who are not math professionals. He went over the different number families (real numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers, etc.). And he gave a good explanation of i (somewhat abridged here). What struck me was that he said that i was invented out of need for people to get past restrictions in some equations dealing with negative numbers needing to have square roots. Well, that seemed very like my problem with the software.
I needed to have the software get the SQL from the database. The mathematicians needed to have their equations get the solutions at certain values. In the software problem, there was a condition in the database (the use of the double quotes) which requires the invention of a novel and narrowly applicable solution (the setting in our software) to get over the condition. In the math world, they invent a new number, i, to allow them to deal with the limit in the numbers they have in the context of the equations they'd like to solve. In the software case, the whole thing is a situation wholly invented by people. Math (and the following point is certainly debated but I give my own bias here) is a tool that describes the ideal forms of the world around us - the reduced world. The interesting question for me (and the point of this diatribe) is this:
The software problem existed wholly due to the way the systems were built and approached and some fore-thought on either end would remove the need for the particular solution used. Could there be some more fundamental shift in thought hiding in the number i that would make the need for it go away as well?
In other words, is i just a handy way of dealing with something that is too messy to treat properly? I tend to think in a systems view. Math, the software, the world are all systems. Those systems are different in details for sure, but, as they are all systems, share some general properties with all systems. Whenever we invent some great leap of faith, or sum up some complex idea with a small symbol, are we just shoving some complexity into a neat hidey-hole so we needn't see it anymore instead of tackling head on? Now, to be fair, there have been many man-years spent trying to tackle the nature of i (all puns welcome). My question is more to the nature of solutions that are there merely to be a pass through. No mathematician actually deals with i. They just use it to get rid of something they don't like and get rid of it (i) in the process. It would be as if, finding a quality I didn't like in my dog, I simply trained my dog not to have that quality through using it against the dog (I teach him not to howl at the moon by playing tapes of his howling at the moon to him on a 24 hour loop until he stops). Those solutions don't deal with how the problem arises in the first place.
It doesn't get at the root of the issue (puns again, sorry).
What is the way one deals with these persistent and seemingly unsolvable problems? Don't they point to some lack of deeper understanding? Or are they the sign that our blind grasping at the bounds of knowledge are making contact with the walls in the dark? Are we feeling our way around the room we're bound inside by our minds and senses; only knowing we've struck the wall when these problems hit? And, of course, all we can do is repel off the wall using it's own strength so we can float about the middle of the room again to await the next time we hit a wall. What if we punched the wall all the harder? Or is that a metaphorical number i, trying to solve this issue by simply using mysticism against a mystery? hmmm...
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
third time's a charm
So I'm in San Fran for the third time. I really like it this time. Maybe it's just that it's been a fun trip, but I have not been impressed by it in the past.
I'm giving up on the topical crap - maybe. It is just silly. This is just really an experiment in ego. Why should I be concerned if people ever even see it? Certainly that should not matter.
I'm trying to stay on East Coast time out here. I've been up since 5am. Watching the sun rise has been very nice. The skyline here looks so clean. I don't know why, but NYC looks dingy by comparison. NYC still looks better, but the clean lines here and the bright colors have a different quality that's nice, too. This is an old city. The (hilarious) cabbie said that the cable cars alone are 130 years old. But it has a look of something that was put here just yesterday.
The cabbie is a story unto himself. German-born, and quite the character. We caught him by a chance - he had passed me by when hailing. But then he turned on his "for hire" light down the street and I ran down to get him. Mike from the UK sat in the cab while Joe from Boston had to be dragged down from the office. We wanted to get Mike a bit of a tour before he left. The cabbie took us to the waterfront and gave s several views of Alcatraz and the Golden Gate - both looked quite nice in the setting sun. He drove us down Lumbard Street (the curvy street) - even though cabs are supposed to be banned. The whole time he was full of jokes and stories. He spent a considerable time telling us how New Yorkers always ask for some ridiculous amount of money back - "They give you a five dollar bill for 3.75 and then ask for a quarter back... why??" We laughed the whole time. In the end, Mike gave him twice the meter. Of course, as he was about to pull away, I leaned in and asked him for a quarter. I could have planned a tour for weeks and it wouldn't have been a smidgen as fun as that was.
So far so good. I've been writing in this thing often enough. Maybe I'll actually tell some people it's here soon.
I'm giving up on the topical crap - maybe. It is just silly. This is just really an experiment in ego. Why should I be concerned if people ever even see it? Certainly that should not matter.
I'm trying to stay on East Coast time out here. I've been up since 5am. Watching the sun rise has been very nice. The skyline here looks so clean. I don't know why, but NYC looks dingy by comparison. NYC still looks better, but the clean lines here and the bright colors have a different quality that's nice, too. This is an old city. The (hilarious) cabbie said that the cable cars alone are 130 years old. But it has a look of something that was put here just yesterday.
The cabbie is a story unto himself. German-born, and quite the character. We caught him by a chance - he had passed me by when hailing. But then he turned on his "for hire" light down the street and I ran down to get him. Mike from the UK sat in the cab while Joe from Boston had to be dragged down from the office. We wanted to get Mike a bit of a tour before he left. The cabbie took us to the waterfront and gave s several views of Alcatraz and the Golden Gate - both looked quite nice in the setting sun. He drove us down Lumbard Street (the curvy street) - even though cabs are supposed to be banned. The whole time he was full of jokes and stories. He spent a considerable time telling us how New Yorkers always ask for some ridiculous amount of money back - "They give you a five dollar bill for 3.75 and then ask for a quarter back... why??" We laughed the whole time. In the end, Mike gave him twice the meter. Of course, as he was about to pull away, I leaned in and asked him for a quarter. I could have planned a tour for weeks and it wouldn't have been a smidgen as fun as that was.
So far so good. I've been writing in this thing often enough. Maybe I'll actually tell some people it's here soon.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Give them something to talk about
So I'm just home from church and again no comments on the blog. I suppose I shouldn't have expected any in a mere 29 hours (give or take). Of course, one always feels that the minute you put something out there the masses will rush to admire and interact with it. That's the whole impulse which drives this blog thing, isn't it? Or maybe I have that wrong - or I've generalized something quite particular?
At church today we read an amazing passage. Of course, I found the text to it on someone else's blog :
To Worship
Parents are supposed to teach their kids, for sure. But where are the limits? I feel they are very tight. I feel that much need to be learned from the community at large. Many folks leave this to TV these days. I didn't want that. I wanted them to have a chance to see and hear what people think - what many other people think. In fact, as many other people as possible. Is that shirking? Is that right? Is that something else all together?
At church today we read an amazing passage. Of course, I found the text to it on someone else's blog :
To Worship
To worship is to stand in awe under a heaven of stars,
before a flower, a leaf in sunlight, or a grain of sand.
To worship is to be silent, receptive,
before a tree astir with the wind,
or the passing shadow of a cloud.
To worship is to work with dedication and with skill;
it is to pause from work and listen to a strain of music.
To worship is to sing with the singing beauty of the earth,
it is to listen through a storm to the still small voice within.
Worship is a loneliness seeking communion;
it is a thirsty land crying out for rain.
Worship is kindred fire within our hearts;
it moves through deeds of kindness and through acts of love.
Worship is the mystery within us reaching out to the mystery beyond. This is
It is an inarticulate silence yearning to speak;
it is the window of the moment open to the sky of the eternal.
--Jacob Trapp (#441 in Singing in the Living Tradition)
Parents are supposed to teach their kids, for sure. But where are the limits? I feel they are very tight. I feel that much need to be learned from the community at large. Many folks leave this to TV these days. I didn't want that. I wanted them to have a chance to see and hear what people think - what many other people think. In fact, as many other people as possible. Is that shirking? Is that right? Is that something else all together?
Saturday, January 29, 2005
An original thought
Well, the first thought here, anyway. So I'm 45 minutes away from yoga and sitting here in front of the computer not very sure why I'm starting a blog. The interface doesn't work very well here on my mac and I have nothing resembling an original thought to put out there. However, since this is all the rage, I figured I'd give it a try.
Should I bother?
Should anyone?
Should I bother?
Should anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
