Life comes in waves.
That's what I've found, with starfish.
Like particular spectacles of web matter.
Today you are up.
Tomorrow you are down.
Luckily, tomorrow is a day away.
July 16, 2013
December 16, 2010
Creationism and The Simulation Argument: The Truth is Out There. Probably.
Responding to this article on yet another religious nutjob who thinks evolution is "just a theory" but in this case feels he has faced nutty discrimination for a job at the University of Kentucky.
There's an intriguing theory penned a few years ago by Nick Bostrom at Oxford University titled "The Simulation Argument" which posits that we're living in a Matrix-type reality. It has been discussed widely on the web and appeared on MSNBC. It's a theory batted around by philosophers all the time, e.g. are we brains in vats? Or in this permutation, are we living in The Sims? To me, this is essentially a Creationist argument with a downside: God is a gamer.
(Didn't you sort of suspect it all this time??)
Point is, it remains a compelling logical syllogism that gives a 99.9~% chance of probability if you follow the narrative. How might spiritualists 2000 years ago try to explain this insight without a useful technological metaphor?
Not to fall victim to the fallacy of probably - that just because something has a high probability of happening it did - but the same can be said for other theories of how we got here. The truth is out there. Perhaps WAY out there. We don't have to agree with each other to have reasoned and spirited debates. I like to imagine that if indeed we are living in an ancestor simulation that we're not provided that fact because it would seriously affect the already chaotic variables in the complex adaptive system we call human civilization.
But it doesn't matter now because the whole shebang is shutting down on December 21, 2012. At least according to the Mayans. Better hurry and level up, folks.
As I recall, Ph.D. means Doctor of Philosophy. We all need to defend the academy against dogma in whatever form and encourage our right to noodle on deep questions. Just because it isn't your primary field does not mean you cannot weigh in. Same for everyone else (though PLEASE cite your sources!) Personally, I find evolution compelling by what to my mind is overwhelming evidence, but we'll only be able to rigorously repeat the experiment when we have more powerful simulation technology and us "sims" are allowed to think for ourselves.
Or take the blue pill. Your choice. It's still a free country, right? [Could someone kindly help me with this citation? Someone not from U. of Kentucky?]
So if you're celebrating the birth of the world's most famous liberal Jew this season, praise Him for not making us have to code.
There's an intriguing theory penned a few years ago by Nick Bostrom at Oxford University titled "The Simulation Argument" which posits that we're living in a Matrix-type reality. It has been discussed widely on the web and appeared on MSNBC. It's a theory batted around by philosophers all the time, e.g. are we brains in vats? Or in this permutation, are we living in The Sims? To me, this is essentially a Creationist argument with a downside: God is a gamer.
(Didn't you sort of suspect it all this time??)
Point is, it remains a compelling logical syllogism that gives a 99.9~% chance of probability if you follow the narrative. How might spiritualists 2000 years ago try to explain this insight without a useful technological metaphor?
Not to fall victim to the fallacy of probably - that just because something has a high probability of happening it did - but the same can be said for other theories of how we got here. The truth is out there. Perhaps WAY out there. We don't have to agree with each other to have reasoned and spirited debates. I like to imagine that if indeed we are living in an ancestor simulation that we're not provided that fact because it would seriously affect the already chaotic variables in the complex adaptive system we call human civilization.
But it doesn't matter now because the whole shebang is shutting down on December 21, 2012. At least according to the Mayans. Better hurry and level up, folks.
As I recall, Ph.D. means Doctor of Philosophy. We all need to defend the academy against dogma in whatever form and encourage our right to noodle on deep questions. Just because it isn't your primary field does not mean you cannot weigh in. Same for everyone else (though PLEASE cite your sources!) Personally, I find evolution compelling by what to my mind is overwhelming evidence, but we'll only be able to rigorously repeat the experiment when we have more powerful simulation technology and us "sims" are allowed to think for ourselves.
Or take the blue pill. Your choice. It's still a free country, right? [Could someone kindly help me with this citation? Someone not from U. of Kentucky?]
So if you're celebrating the birth of the world's most famous liberal Jew this season, praise Him for not making us have to code.
September 9, 2010
A Third Party?
This is in response from a woman who disagrees with the idea of a third party.
My response.
"Hi [name deleted], well, it's interesting. I was just at a happy hour at Mango Mike's in Alexandria talking to a guy who has a company in double-digits. Now that isn't a big company, but he's looking to double next year. He and I agree that there are a lot of people who feel that this "middle of the road" crap is bullshit. Let's have a third party: fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The libertarians are a strange bunch, but I think they'd be amenable to switching over - as would a lot of democrats and republicans. We're about self-reliance, conscientious leadership, and community. Make every decision at the local level unless there is conflict, then bump it up to the state or county. Flat organization, flat country, flat earth."
The thing about it is, I was just the other day thinking the same thing. Here's from my email to the Chair of the Independence Party of America in Minnesota.
-----------------------------
Greetings,
I came to the conclusion that the U.S. needs a third, viable party, and came up with the Independence Party. Wrote the following to a friend:
"People can and should be able to say what they like. If they want to talk about bullshit, let's vote them out of office. But instead we're forced to choose between left bullshit and right bullshit instead of focusing on what needs to be done. Hence a viable third party that keeps the other two on their toes... or wins. I like 'the Independence' party - white as the color for truth (with a little t), self-reliance, and conscientious leadership. All the black people will wear white and all the white people, black, so that there's no confusion. And it's a bit of a joke because life isn't black and white like our red and blue parties like to suggest, but varying shades of grey."
Then I Google'd it and found you. Welcome to my club. Or me to yours. I agree with the principles though on specific issues there might be debate, but that's part of the process. I love debate. Was debate champ for three states as a youth.
------------------------------
Apologies for the expletives. But kids can't vote anyway.
Cheers,
-doc
P.S. Almost forgot to provide a set of links for you to all the states and grassroots sites that have adopted the Independence Party of America. You can get them _here_.
What's that? The link doesn't work? That's right it doesn't. Google it yourself. INDEPENDENCE. Get it? I'm not going to hold your hand. You little squirt.
My response.
"Hi [name deleted], well, it's interesting. I was just at a happy hour at Mango Mike's in Alexandria talking to a guy who has a company in double-digits. Now that isn't a big company, but he's looking to double next year. He and I agree that there are a lot of people who feel that this "middle of the road" crap is bullshit. Let's have a third party: fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The libertarians are a strange bunch, but I think they'd be amenable to switching over - as would a lot of democrats and republicans. We're about self-reliance, conscientious leadership, and community. Make every decision at the local level unless there is conflict, then bump it up to the state or county. Flat organization, flat country, flat earth."
The thing about it is, I was just the other day thinking the same thing. Here's from my email to the Chair of the Independence Party of America in Minnesota.
-----------------------------
Greetings,
I came to the conclusion that the U.S. needs a third, viable party, and came up with the Independence Party. Wrote the following to a friend:
"People can and should be able to say what they like. If they want to talk about bullshit, let's vote them out of office. But instead we're forced to choose between left bullshit and right bullshit instead of focusing on what needs to be done. Hence a viable third party that keeps the other two on their toes... or wins. I like 'the Independence' party - white as the color for truth (with a little t), self-reliance, and conscientious leadership. All the black people will wear white and all the white people, black, so that there's no confusion. And it's a bit of a joke because life isn't black and white like our red and blue parties like to suggest, but varying shades of grey."
Then I Google'd it and found you. Welcome to my club. Or me to yours. I agree with the principles though on specific issues there might be debate, but that's part of the process. I love debate. Was debate champ for three states as a youth.
------------------------------
Apologies for the expletives. But kids can't vote anyway.
Cheers,
-doc
P.S. Almost forgot to provide a set of links for you to all the states and grassroots sites that have adopted the Independence Party of America. You can get them _here_.
What's that? The link doesn't work? That's right it doesn't. Google it yourself. INDEPENDENCE. Get it? I'm not going to hold your hand. You little squirt.
June 1, 2010
On Objectification
Just as women don't want to be sex objects, men don't want to be relationship objects.
I said this about a decade ago, and while it still holds truth for me, the interpretation has changed a bit.
While on one hand it seems normal and natural to want sex and enjoy relating to a man or a woman, on another level we recognize that we are somehow fulfilling a role in the other person's scene. Applying a dramaturgical lens, we become mere "props" in another's creative artistry. We are the lesser. They the greater. But do we seek the staring role or do we wrestle for control?
Self-perception of one's role in one's own script and story is essential in becoming a self-aware, self-actualized actor in the world. "To act" - this is life's charge. We must do something with our lives or else we are nothing but blind and dumb organisms, consuming endlessly, unable to listen to the song of the universe or speak the name of the divine.
We must be more than that. But in the pursuit of human nobility we should not, as the moralists do, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sex is an expression of life and creation, if not a metaphor for the Creation. Thus it is both sacred and a gift to be enjoyed as wished. We must not reduce ourselves to the role; rather, we can use the role to enjoy our ability to participate fully in the human drama and create a new experience. And new life. A story that begets another story in the unfolding of human experience.
So I hesitate when asked, obliquely if not directly: "Do you want a relationship? Just sex?" Next time, I think I'll reply: "Let's throw out our scripts. Write a new story. One with a happy ending." WINK.
I said this about a decade ago, and while it still holds truth for me, the interpretation has changed a bit.
While on one hand it seems normal and natural to want sex and enjoy relating to a man or a woman, on another level we recognize that we are somehow fulfilling a role in the other person's scene. Applying a dramaturgical lens, we become mere "props" in another's creative artistry. We are the lesser. They the greater. But do we seek the staring role or do we wrestle for control?
Self-perception of one's role in one's own script and story is essential in becoming a self-aware, self-actualized actor in the world. "To act" - this is life's charge. We must do something with our lives or else we are nothing but blind and dumb organisms, consuming endlessly, unable to listen to the song of the universe or speak the name of the divine.
We must be more than that. But in the pursuit of human nobility we should not, as the moralists do, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sex is an expression of life and creation, if not a metaphor for the Creation. Thus it is both sacred and a gift to be enjoyed as wished. We must not reduce ourselves to the role; rather, we can use the role to enjoy our ability to participate fully in the human drama and create a new experience. And new life. A story that begets another story in the unfolding of human experience.
So I hesitate when asked, obliquely if not directly: "Do you want a relationship? Just sex?" Next time, I think I'll reply: "Let's throw out our scripts. Write a new story. One with a happy ending." WINK.
May 16, 2010
On Relationship Commitments
A child is a commitment. A relationship is complicated. Don't confuse the two.
April 27, 2010
Three Spiritual Principles
I saw a spiritualist on cable talking about a year ago. He offered three spiritual principles that I wanted to share. Wish I could remember who it was. He said:
1. "You are not what you do."
My take:
Too many of us get so wrapped around our titles. What is good for the ego is not necessarily good for the spirit. I have a little technique that helps get people out of this mindset. Next time you meet someone, ask them: "What do you do?" Recognize that you are asking for an action verb, not a noun. Often people reply, "I'm a _____." They've responded to your query for a verb with a noun. This is self-limiting.
2. "You are not what you have."
My take:
People need to feel special about themselves. Sometimes we let materialism interfere with our ability to find inner self-worth. Do something meaningful. If an artifact represents an experience that created meaning in your life, that's a thing worth holding on to. Keep things that trigger memories and experiences: that is real value.
3. "You are not your reputation."
My take:
In the game of life, we often struggle to find purpose through our work reputations. That's fine, but don't let it become a negative force. Suicide is never the right answer. You can find new purpose even when others censure you. Let go of relations that harm the spirit and nurture those that vitalize and amplify your talents and values. Always represent yourself positively. You are perfect the way you are. If people do not appreciate you, find other people to work with.
Do not seek to find your passion. Live and work with passion.
1. "You are not what you do."
My take:
Too many of us get so wrapped around our titles. What is good for the ego is not necessarily good for the spirit. I have a little technique that helps get people out of this mindset. Next time you meet someone, ask them: "What do you do?" Recognize that you are asking for an action verb, not a noun. Often people reply, "I'm a _____." They've responded to your query for a verb with a noun. This is self-limiting.
2. "You are not what you have."
My take:
People need to feel special about themselves. Sometimes we let materialism interfere with our ability to find inner self-worth. Do something meaningful. If an artifact represents an experience that created meaning in your life, that's a thing worth holding on to. Keep things that trigger memories and experiences: that is real value.
3. "You are not your reputation."
My take:
In the game of life, we often struggle to find purpose through our work reputations. That's fine, but don't let it become a negative force. Suicide is never the right answer. You can find new purpose even when others censure you. Let go of relations that harm the spirit and nurture those that vitalize and amplify your talents and values. Always represent yourself positively. You are perfect the way you are. If people do not appreciate you, find other people to work with.
Do not seek to find your passion. Live and work with passion.
April 21, 2010
The Golden Rules of Power and Influence
Many years ago I wrote an article, inspired by Dr. Peter Vaill at George Washington University at the time. I can't find the whole text but thought my audience would enjoy the gist of it:
Golden Rule #1: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You.
I believe this is Biblical and just good sense.
Golden Rule #2: Do Unto Others As Others Would Have You Do Unto Them.
This recognizes that people are different and want different things.
Golden Rule #3: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto Others.
In other words, lead by example.
As we move toward flatter, more democratic organizations and institutions, I hope these three Golden Rules will serve you well. Please post or link stories here where you have found resonance in these principles.
Golden Rule #1: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You.
I believe this is Biblical and just good sense.
Golden Rule #2: Do Unto Others As Others Would Have You Do Unto Them.
This recognizes that people are different and want different things.
Golden Rule #3: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto Others.
In other words, lead by example.
As we move toward flatter, more democratic organizations and institutions, I hope these three Golden Rules will serve you well. Please post or link stories here where you have found resonance in these principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
