A short one methinks.
i really dislike Christmas...
If it's not the consumerism.
It's the obligation.
If it's not the Christian tones.
It's the fakeness.
No really, seriously, it strikes me as peculiar, the whole behaviour.
I want family. I want support. I want love.
I want us to realise the key rationalization that should occur (that there should even be a rationalization of our behaviour) is that we should be coming together for the better.
Not for products. Not for our behaviour to be central to capital.
Apologies for the dark tone.
But i'm sure you can agree on some points.
On the plus. It's bright, it's festive and it does bring people together.
Just, perhaps, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way!
LOVE TO ALL.
have a happy xmas.
Saturday 26 December 2009
Sunday 20 December 2009
More reasons to laugh at FarmVille or anti health reform astroturf
I recently discovered a post about an on-line about a scam on farmville!
Over in America where Health Reform is the current hot topic on the legislative agenda, the health insurance lobby is getting social gamers, like those of Mafia wars and the dreaded FARMVILLE, to contact their member of congress (an MP in the UK) and oppose health care reform in exchange for virtual currency...
Apart from horrifically misleading to lawmakers who are trying to help some 12million onto health insurance who don't have it, what does this tell us about the demographic of a Farmville/mafia wars or many other social games?
They're dumb. Unquestioning & passive.
They'd happily sell their country to the control of corporations.... for some fake money and a pig...
Oink.
Oink.
But that is a little unfair, if it was for supporting health care and i played that gaming stuff i probably would.
But the intent is clear, to mobilize individuals into opposing health reform and for this opposition to not appear corporate.
Shame really.
Very deceptive.
Over in America where Health Reform is the current hot topic on the legislative agenda, the health insurance lobby is getting social gamers, like those of Mafia wars and the dreaded FARMVILLE, to contact their member of congress (an MP in the UK) and oppose health care reform in exchange for virtual currency...
Apart from horrifically misleading to lawmakers who are trying to help some 12million onto health insurance who don't have it, what does this tell us about the demographic of a Farmville/mafia wars or many other social games?
They're dumb. Unquestioning & passive.
They'd happily sell their country to the control of corporations.... for some fake money and a pig...
Oink.
Oink.
But that is a little unfair, if it was for supporting health care and i played that gaming stuff i probably would.
But the intent is clear, to mobilize individuals into opposing health reform and for this opposition to not appear corporate.
Shame really.
Very deceptive.
Friday 4 December 2009
Did The Internet Cause The New Athiests?
A gentleman called Vorjack (assuming this gentle person is a man!) over at "Unreasonable Faith" points out that atheism has been around for a while but asks the question: why has this wave of atheism more successful than the last?
Vorjack has suggested that the anonymity of athiests over the internet has allowed much more expression and has closed gaps across countries.
I'd suggest that the current state of Atheism has been more successful for a number of reasons, an amalgamation of:
The internet: (i agree with Vorjack, but the internet has done so much more): The internet is a catalogue of ideas, it takes very little to realize the hyper plurality of believing in a god (which god!) and of not believing. The point here is knowledge on demand, just google: does god exist and there are may websites ready to verbally enlighten you.
On top of this, the growing multiculturalism of our society really does allow for challenges. I know Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and pagans and atheists and agnostics. Not only by their very existence but a dialogue between two of these is easier.
A huge difference i feel is a difference between what is right and what is faith. Many religious people now accept that they cannot readily defend their faith, it is faith, it is a belief. This is the view of fiedism..such a state of affairs could lead to an erosion of godly beliefs.
A funny point which i would like to stand, the growing visibility of Scientology... need i say more?
A view that has been suggested to me before, a growing conciousness of evil. whether it's "terrorism" or "hurricanes", the internet has allowed more effective news-gathering and telling. (i however find this a weak suggestion)
Another thing we must assess is: what is atheism? Do we mean people are more atheistic about the monotheistic Christian god? Or all gods?
And where does this atheism lead, without a god how do people account for many of the problems/miracles that occur, how do people account for the existence of the universe?
By this i am not suggesting one needs god to explain these, but what does one use to explain these, how close are some of the beliefs of an atheist to becoming a dogmatic religion!
I believe as well that the conventional approach to defining a religion or a religious person is extremely haphazard.
The actual name we can give to all these effects is a postmodern feel. This plurality of ideas, this breaking down of distance, this difficulty in definition, this modernity in identity.
Ahwell. I hope neither religion or atheism prevails both only talk of a belief in god. For me, i hope humanism prevails, whether people are religious or not - people are the most important.
Vorjack has suggested that the anonymity of athiests over the internet has allowed much more expression and has closed gaps across countries.
I'd suggest that the current state of Atheism has been more successful for a number of reasons, an amalgamation of:
The internet: (i agree with Vorjack, but the internet has done so much more): The internet is a catalogue of ideas, it takes very little to realize the hyper plurality of believing in a god (which god!) and of not believing. The point here is knowledge on demand, just google: does god exist and there are may websites ready to verbally enlighten you.
On top of this, the growing multiculturalism of our society really does allow for challenges. I know Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and pagans and atheists and agnostics. Not only by their very existence but a dialogue between two of these is easier.
A huge difference i feel is a difference between what is right and what is faith. Many religious people now accept that they cannot readily defend their faith, it is faith, it is a belief. This is the view of fiedism..such a state of affairs could lead to an erosion of godly beliefs.
A funny point which i would like to stand, the growing visibility of Scientology... need i say more?
A view that has been suggested to me before, a growing conciousness of evil. whether it's "terrorism" or "hurricanes", the internet has allowed more effective news-gathering and telling. (i however find this a weak suggestion)
Another thing we must assess is: what is atheism? Do we mean people are more atheistic about the monotheistic Christian god? Or all gods?
And where does this atheism lead, without a god how do people account for many of the problems/miracles that occur, how do people account for the existence of the universe?
By this i am not suggesting one needs god to explain these, but what does one use to explain these, how close are some of the beliefs of an atheist to becoming a dogmatic religion!
I believe as well that the conventional approach to defining a religion or a religious person is extremely haphazard.
The actual name we can give to all these effects is a postmodern feel. This plurality of ideas, this breaking down of distance, this difficulty in definition, this modernity in identity.
Ahwell. I hope neither religion or atheism prevails both only talk of a belief in god. For me, i hope humanism prevails, whether people are religious or not - people are the most important.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Iran and the IAEA
Holding the theme Iran here is a very new current issue.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has passed a resolution against Iran. But Iran calls this resolution "illegal"
So i looked at what the IAEA wants or "urges":
1. Iran should cease construction of it's Qom site. (the one it hid)
2. Give information of the Qom site.
3. Ensure the international community that they are not going to/planning to build more sites (just like Qom).
4. Iran should live up to it's agreements/requirements and obligations.
So... Illegal?
Not really.
I'm very interested to see where this might lead, the international community must ensure that Iran is not proliferating nuclear weapons and that they are respecting the authority of the UN. These must be secured, it's really a question of how.
Other factors that may come into play soon are, Israel - they may chose to respond to the threat that Iran is posing (considering it's anti-Israel stance). and the sailors, it may be the case that their arrest is used for political leverage. (it must be noted however, the sailors were arrested on purely legitimate grounds).
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has passed a resolution against Iran. But Iran calls this resolution "illegal"
So i looked at what the IAEA wants or "urges":
1. Iran should cease construction of it's Qom site. (the one it hid)
2. Give information of the Qom site.
3. Ensure the international community that they are not going to/planning to build more sites (just like Qom).
4. Iran should live up to it's agreements/requirements and obligations.
So... Illegal?
Not really.
I'm very interested to see where this might lead, the international community must ensure that Iran is not proliferating nuclear weapons and that they are respecting the authority of the UN. These must be secured, it's really a question of how.
Other factors that may come into play soon are, Israel - they may chose to respond to the threat that Iran is posing (considering it's anti-Israel stance). and the sailors, it may be the case that their arrest is used for political leverage. (it must be noted however, the sailors were arrested on purely legitimate grounds).
Sunday 29 November 2009
Iran and its Nukes
I'd like to lightly draw an outline of Iran and the future.
and why im a little frightened.
Iran and the Uk/Us have gone back oh so 35ish years - my history sucks.
The current focus is very much on Iran and nuclear energy, it has been for around a decade.
The main states at the UN will not allow Iran to enrich nuclear material because of their fear it could lead to more nukes.
Iran says it wants to use nuclear energy as a more efficient fuel and for research.
You see these two sets of ideas about things cause friction and even tension.
So, the secret facilities in Iran has been brewing an even more serious tension. More so with the UN having to order them shown.
But the whole logical cohesion is crazy:
Why cannot Iran make these nuclear fuels?
Why do they want to?
What do they want the fuel for?
Who is the international community to deny them autonomy?
It's a series of questions for which there is no clear and delineating answer. I'd suggest (and i know little on the subject)
I suspect Iran is both like the child who does the opposite of what he's told, and like the defenceless ant, small, proud, but not without confidence, when considering how they are perceived and how they have been treated by the Bush administration.
(and i'll provide no more references to the Bush administration's actions, just search google.)
They have been marginalised by the international community and nuclear energy certainly represents a milestone. Not to mention their lack of real defence against military superpowers like Russia and the US (in terms of the nukes).
The most reasonable answer i believe is the west: an overbearing parent.
Iran is a state and like most states has a vested interest in it's state. Why the international community denies and sanctions Iran on nukes is immaterial, they are ignoring it, they have interests to further.
(As for why I'm getting bad feelings... )
I do not think it of little relevance to point out the Iranian government's harsh criticism and attacks at the west and Zionism (from the Ayotollah Iran's supreme religous/political leader and from Ahmedinejad Iran's PM)
also the history of Iran & western relations: from when the Iranians took hostage US citizens. the UK/US invasion of middle east and an extremely suspicious and dictatorial re-election of Ahmedinejad...
the re-election was considered rigged. It is interesting to note how candidates for PM secure their candidacy, that they must be accepted by the Grand Ayotollah. As such Iran can be considered a religious government.
The most poignant issue to date, sparking my real fears is Iran's continued dismissal of UN resolutions:
They still can't build nuclear sites. (although we know they have)
THEY ARE PLANNING TEN.
and, as a form of disclaimer let us not forget the rose tinted glasses we have of our own country.
It just seems to me that a lot is and will happen surrounding Iran over the next 4 years, something is up and it is something we should all have at the forefront of our minds. Time is certainly running out.
Saturday 28 November 2009
... I don't know right now.
Oh!
look!
Right there, in the corner!
is it a message?
A reply?
A comment!
three facebook notifications?!
ftw.
What trash.
Wow. An application...
An application...
An
A-P-P-P-P-LICATION-TION-TION!
COMB-BO-BO BREAKER!
look!
Right there, in the corner!
is it a message?
A reply?
A comment!
three facebook notifications?!
ftw.
What trash.
Wow. An application...
An application...
An
A-P-P-P-P-LICATION-TION-TION!
COMB-BO-BO BREAKER!
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Examples: The Ethics Of Capital
Or rather, the lack of ethics in corporations.
I have mentioned this problem once or twice before, but it is abstract - longer than an arms reach. I saw an article today on the Al Jazeera News Network, and it has prompted me to show you example of this "lack of ethics".
The times, Al Jazeera... Both mention it. The Guardian points it out.
Trafigura, the company, in 2002 polluted a part of Africa and the Africans are still waiting for the money to pay for the damage to their bodies.
Actually look at the lesions on the child's arm. Sulphur.
I hate to be emotive, but really, it feels like this is the only way people take stuff on board these days.
Notice the word i'm using: the africans have to pay for this healthcare. The child needs money for the help.
Why did this corporation leave waste?
simply answer, i'd be pissed if you didn't know it .
IT CHEAPER.
You can make more.........PROFIT. from that, at least.
Let me articulate it in the way a business law website did:
"Probo Koala... attempted to discharge this waste at the port of Amsterdam, but the port service would not accept the waste without an additional handling charge because of the waste’s alleged toxicity. " So they knew about it.
"...After the waste from the ship was discharged in Abidjan, people living near the discharge sites began to suffer from a range of illnesses ... Sixteen people have died, allegedly from exposure to this waste, and more than 100,000 have sought medical attention."
Two final things to point out. Does the company, Probo Koala (used by Trafigura) get shut down? Its executives fired? no.
Who do you think has the best lawyer(s) (yeah, plural!) on the case...
Why do they have the best lawyer(s)... money...
Seriously. Wake up and smell the Sulphur.
(oh... and the company also tried to silence the news... do you think they've tried that before? do you think they have succeeded? Dare i say yes for you. Can money silence the news!? DARE I SAY YES AGAIN?)
I have mentioned this problem once or twice before, but it is abstract - longer than an arms reach. I saw an article today on the Al Jazeera News Network, and it has prompted me to show you example of this "lack of ethics".
The times, Al Jazeera... Both mention it. The Guardian points it out.
Trafigura, the company, in 2002 polluted a part of Africa and the Africans are still waiting for the money to pay for the damage to their bodies.
Actually look at the lesions on the child's arm. Sulphur.
I hate to be emotive, but really, it feels like this is the only way people take stuff on board these days.
Notice the word i'm using: the africans have to pay for this healthcare. The child needs money for the help.
Why did this corporation leave waste?
simply answer, i'd be pissed if you didn't know it .
IT CHEAPER.
You can make more.........PROFIT. from that, at least.
Let me articulate it in the way a business law website did:
"Probo Koala... attempted to discharge this waste at the port of Amsterdam, but the port service would not accept the waste without an additional handling charge because of the waste’s alleged toxicity. " So they knew about it.
"...After the waste from the ship was discharged in Abidjan, people living near the discharge sites began to suffer from a range of illnesses ... Sixteen people have died, allegedly from exposure to this waste, and more than 100,000 have sought medical attention."
Two final things to point out. Does the company, Probo Koala (used by Trafigura) get shut down? Its executives fired? no.
Who do you think has the best lawyer(s) (yeah, plural!) on the case...
Why do they have the best lawyer(s)... money...
Seriously. Wake up and smell the Sulphur.
(oh... and the company also tried to silence the news... do you think they've tried that before? do you think they have succeeded? Dare i say yes for you. Can money silence the news!? DARE I SAY YES AGAIN?)
Sunday 8 November 2009
A li'l problem with the internet...
You know, I've always praised the internet as a glorious technological innovation. I hail it as passing to us knowledge and information that cannot be surpassed by anything. It is beautiful in that respect, freedom for the mind.
However,
What is the damn point if we keep on using places like WIKIPEDIA and ANSWERS.com to give us our knowledge.
According to wikipedia, at some point, (now if i choose)- A British person is a:
"Highly underdeveloped fruit-bat incapable of abstract reasoning or any remotely serious expression other than "this tea tastes like guacamole". "
So really. Really, really.
It only takes one of those "underdeveloped fruit-bats" to use wikipedia to justify pouring vodka in their eye to cure hangovers and rectal disfigurements.
Yes, rectal.
Disfigurements.
(your face)
Tsk.
However,
What is the damn point if we keep on using places like WIKIPEDIA and ANSWERS.com to give us our knowledge.
According to wikipedia, at some point, (now if i choose)- A British person is a:
"Highly underdeveloped fruit-bat incapable of abstract reasoning or any remotely serious expression other than "this tea tastes like guacamole". "
So really. Really, really.
It only takes one of those "underdeveloped fruit-bats" to use wikipedia to justify pouring vodka in their eye to cure hangovers and rectal disfigurements.
Yes, rectal.
Disfigurements.
(your face)
Tsk.
The Meaning Of Life - Condensed
Really, i look on past posts and i'm like: why is that so long...
So, in what i believe to be the meaning of life solved, i'm going to re-write my argument in a shorter format.
Here goes.
What is the meaning of life?
To answer this, we need to give credit to human nature.
I would argue:
Human nature, is an imperfect nature.
To say, "i'm only human" is to say: "i'm not perfect"
This is because:
All other species, through evolution have found ways of functioning to ensure their survival.
A simple example is reproduction.
Another would be processing food.
Basic instinctive functions that ensure their survival.
Concerning humans:
Humans do not necessarily reproduce, some via choice. Some via a homosexual nature.
Some humans will choose not to eat, for symbolic reasons, for cultural reasons.
If our nature was the same as other animals, then the meaning of life would follow as "to reproduce"
If we were perfect, i would argue, then the meaning of life would be clear and all consuming.
We are, however, not.
In our imperfect nature, the only assertion we can make about this "meaning of life" is an individualist assertion.
The search, your search is for your meaning of life.
It must be subjective and relative for it to follow our imperfection.
(noting subjective and relative, we can disregard both these ideas and make a case for each person "meaning" being both true and untrue at the same time with my "quantum ethics" argument.)
So, in what i believe to be the meaning of life solved, i'm going to re-write my argument in a shorter format.
Here goes.
What is the meaning of life?
To answer this, we need to give credit to human nature.
I would argue:
Human nature, is an imperfect nature.
To say, "i'm only human" is to say: "i'm not perfect"
This is because:
All other species, through evolution have found ways of functioning to ensure their survival.
A simple example is reproduction.
Another would be processing food.
Basic instinctive functions that ensure their survival.
Concerning humans:
Humans do not necessarily reproduce, some via choice. Some via a homosexual nature.
Some humans will choose not to eat, for symbolic reasons, for cultural reasons.
If our nature was the same as other animals, then the meaning of life would follow as "to reproduce"
If we were perfect, i would argue, then the meaning of life would be clear and all consuming.
We are, however, not.
In our imperfect nature, the only assertion we can make about this "meaning of life" is an individualist assertion.
The search, your search is for your meaning of life.
It must be subjective and relative for it to follow our imperfection.
(noting subjective and relative, we can disregard both these ideas and make a case for each person "meaning" being both true and untrue at the same time with my "quantum ethics" argument.)
Saturday 7 November 2009
Quantum logic/ethics - a simplistic overview.
My friend jim has articulated the quantum ethics in a way much simpler to my long post.
consider the following as a reassertion:
The glass that is filled halfway.
The optimist response: it is half full.
the pessimist response: it is half empty.
These two responses are the frameworks/points of reference i was mentioning.
Both assertions are correct. (by virtue of the assumptions: optimism/pessimism)
however when we step back to consider the responses. both are correct/incorrect by virtue of just recognising the two contrary frameworks.
this is quantum ethics.
consider the following as a reassertion:
The glass that is filled halfway.
The optimist response: it is half full.
the pessimist response: it is half empty.
These two responses are the frameworks/points of reference i was mentioning.
Both assertions are correct. (by virtue of the assumptions: optimism/pessimism)
however when we step back to consider the responses. both are correct/incorrect by virtue of just recognising the two contrary frameworks.
this is quantum ethics.
Thursday 5 November 2009
Quantum Mechanics and it's implications for logic: QM: Restating Relativistic logic
I love long titles.
Quantum mechanics, the study of quantum physics, and logic, our reasoning can be used together to come up with a new way of thinking about logic.
I will run over QM and logic briefly.
Logic. The way in which we rationalize, we look at two things and connect them. (in laymans terms) the dictionary says:
Please take note of, 1 and 2. "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" the way in which we "join up" our points, to "infer" a conclusion (in more laymanic terms) and "a particular method of reasoning" a method of reasoning.
We use logic all the time to discuss points of view, to come up with "correct" ideas.
Quantum Mechanics is slightly harder to
articulate. I have read a lot into such a branch and the wikipedia page does articulate it in an appropriate and true manner.
I shall briefly outline the parts of quantum mechanics relevant. We are used to the planetary model of an atom, an electron moving around the centre like a particle. In quantum mechanics, the electron is both a particle and a wave at the same time, or we say it has "wave-particle duality".
Wikipedia expresses it like this
"These descriptions [of atomic matter] include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behaviour of both matter[1] and radiation[2] ("wave–particle duality").
A wave and a particle... That's contradicting right?
Ok.. That was our First Big Step!
We cannot measure, exactly, this wave-particle. Viewing it, distorts the results. (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
So scientists use Probability Densities to say where things are "likely" to be. The red blurry pictures on the side illistrate wht i'm trying to say: the lighter the higher the probability.
What i'd like to take from this, is the idea of probability.
We cannot know.
I'd like to take the basic tenets of QM and apply it to logic, practical logic, nothing fancy.
The case I'd like to make, is one of uncertainty, and certainty, of right and wrong.
All our ideas and logical links, are correct (all of them!) but only in the sense that they are incorrect.
To postulate any idea as incorrect, one must have a sense of what is correct, to draw the line.
I will apply this idea, so we can make more sense of it.
Consider the ethical assertion "killing is wrong".
Under this idea of logic the statement is both wrong and right. WHY?
Ok.
the statement is incorrect because:
"killing is unavoidable"
"killing may be permissible sometimes."
and
it the statement is correct because
"life has value"
"The bible says so" (haha. I like this one, it is very helpful for my case)
I am sure you will be able to come up with your own reasons to prove and disprove the statement.
The reason that the statement "killing is wrong" is both correct and incorrect at the same time is because when we say "the statement 'killing is wrong' is incorrect" we are usually justifying it in some way like "killing is right given the circumstances". We are applying a reasoning method that presupposes that it is correct, otherwise our judgement would be nullified.
Basically to say anything is right or wrong, we have to assume that the methods we use to reason those statements are right. The methods of reasoning, of justifying a position is a framework because we have to assume or reasoning is right.
It may be more helpful to replace framework and say it is a frame of reference.
Most people have their own frame of reference/ way of seeing things.
Fact is, within the framework, our reasoning method is correct by virtue of the assumptions. However outside the framework this is not the case, a reasoning method outside of it's framework does not need to be right. My bible comment helps here, "killing is wrong" because (notice the word "because" is the start of our reasoning method "the bible said so". So, thus, if you agree with the bible (your current frame of reference) then killing is wrong!
Once we separate ourselves from that frame of reference, and assert a new one then killing "may be permissible sometimes".
If we do not consider either framework, then nothing is exclusively right. They are all assertion which we know originate from a framework.
Do you see my point.
All judgements are correct and incorrect at the same time, by virtue of ignoring the framework that they originate from! It is the framework that defines the correctness of statements, not the statement themselves. Thus, uncertainty is a function of all ethical assertions.
Quantum mechanics, the study of quantum physics, and logic, our reasoning can be used together to come up with a new way of thinking about logic.
I will run over QM and logic briefly.
Logic. The way in which we rationalize, we look at two things and connect them. (in laymans terms) the dictionary says:
| 1. | the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. |
| 2. | a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. |
| 3. | the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. |
| 4. | reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. |
Please take note of, 1 and 2. "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" the way in which we "join up" our points, to "infer" a conclusion (in more laymanic terms) and "a particular method of reasoning" a method of reasoning.
We use logic all the time to discuss points of view, to come up with "correct" ideas.
Quantum Mechanics is slightly harder to
articulate. I have read a lot into such a branch and the wikipedia page does articulate it in an appropriate and true manner.
I shall briefly outline the parts of quantum mechanics relevant. We are used to the planetary model of an atom, an electron moving around the centre like a particle. In quantum mechanics, the electron is both a particle and a wave at the same time, or we say it has "wave-particle duality".
Wikipedia expresses it like this
"These descriptions [of atomic matter] include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behaviour of both matter[1] and radiation[2] ("wave–particle duality").
A wave and a particle... That's contradicting right?
Ok.. That was our First Big Step!
We cannot measure, exactly, this wave-particle. Viewing it, distorts the results. (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
So scientists use Probability Densities to say where things are "likely" to be. The red blurry pictures on the side illistrate wht i'm trying to say: the lighter the higher the probability.
What i'd like to take from this, is the idea of probability.
We cannot know.
I'd like to take the basic tenets of QM and apply it to logic, practical logic, nothing fancy.
The case I'd like to make, is one of uncertainty, and certainty, of right and wrong.
All our ideas and logical links, are correct (all of them!) but only in the sense that they are incorrect.
To postulate any idea as incorrect, one must have a sense of what is correct, to draw the line.
I will apply this idea, so we can make more sense of it.
Consider the ethical assertion "killing is wrong".
Under this idea of logic the statement is both wrong and right. WHY?
Ok.
the statement is incorrect because:
"killing is unavoidable"
"killing may be permissible sometimes."
and
it the statement is correct because
"life has value"
"The bible says so" (haha. I like this one, it is very helpful for my case)
I am sure you will be able to come up with your own reasons to prove and disprove the statement.
The reason that the statement "killing is wrong" is both correct and incorrect at the same time is because when we say "the statement 'killing is wrong' is incorrect" we are usually justifying it in some way like "killing is right given the circumstances". We are applying a reasoning method that presupposes that it is correct, otherwise our judgement would be nullified.
Basically to say anything is right or wrong, we have to assume that the methods we use to reason those statements are right. The methods of reasoning, of justifying a position is a framework because we have to assume or reasoning is right.
It may be more helpful to replace framework and say it is a frame of reference.
Most people have their own frame of reference/ way of seeing things.
Fact is, within the framework, our reasoning method is correct by virtue of the assumptions. However outside the framework this is not the case, a reasoning method outside of it's framework does not need to be right. My bible comment helps here, "killing is wrong" because (notice the word "because" is the start of our reasoning method "the bible said so". So, thus, if you agree with the bible (your current frame of reference) then killing is wrong!
Once we separate ourselves from that frame of reference, and assert a new one then killing "may be permissible sometimes".
If we do not consider either framework, then nothing is exclusively right. They are all assertion which we know originate from a framework.
Do you see my point.
All judgements are correct and incorrect at the same time, by virtue of ignoring the framework that they originate from! It is the framework that defines the correctness of statements, not the statement themselves. Thus, uncertainty is a function of all ethical assertions.
Thursday 29 October 2009
Beware Social Networking!
Haha, the title. Like "beware of the dog"... of terrorism... of paedophilia.
I don't really mean it. Well, i don't mean it like that, of course i mean it- i wrote it.
Anyway.
Facebook, twitter, skype, bebo, myspace or what have you. Those sites where users connecting using their details, often as themselves. I'd beware them.
For two reasons.
I'll express the first as a maxim:
"the greater the integration of a persons authentic profile into a social networking domain, the higher the potential for a 'big brother'"
What i mean to say is that, the more people on social networking sites the greater the ability for people to be seen by anyone anonymous...
By anonymous, im lying.
If the government just took all it's files and shoved their names into these sites, many a thing could be done! For those with little imagination: terrorist profiling (something i noticed the Americans are doing), catch tax frauds, find out those who are committing benefit fraud, under age drinkers, track your friends (so if they commit crime you may be indited) and the list will go on.
A point to note: Xbox will provide facebook, twitter and last fm. It will soon occur through other mediums, television?
The second point, with the looming "big brother" as the first,
Corporate profiling. It occurs now, it's not harmful, corps. with a product need to find their target audience.You like stuff... Your friends also like stuff, and their friends friends like stuff.
Corps wanna sell you stuff.
Effective profiling may be achieved by marking, social groups, genders, geography, schools affiliation, event affiliation - to sell you a product.
I have my problems with this, namely that i don't like the current scheme of consumerism... i think that may relate to my angers over money, and i don't think our current ecological climate can cope- who knows.
Case and point. I think my main worry is the use of social networking information by the police. I want them to catch murders, rapists, tax evaders (but do i? Considering that the gov't put greater tax on people earning 50K than they do on corporations on 50mil...) I do not however agree with many of the laws that exist or the method we use on "criminals".
have a nice day =)
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Culture as a vacum.
This post is quite short. I hope only to convey a short expression.
Culture, those ideas, values, beliefs and behaviours of a community or nation act as a vacum for real knowledge and thought.
What i mean to say is that within our culture the knowledge that we have is more or less self propagated. Ideas and values held as correct are culturally related e.g. capitalism, monogamy, democracy, freedom, abortion, vegetarianism or what have you...
So any comment that has the advocacy of the "culture" will be positively reinforced.
Radical ideas that are not within the confines of that culture are more or less disregarded, like catholics thinking about allowing abortion, capitalism thinking about communism...
In many ways culture is an assumption. Our metal process, our rational thought quite often is underpinned and justified by those assumptions.
sorry i'm being abstract, it'd take a while to articulate the very examples that I myself am subject to, and thus find them difficult to question.
Culture, those ideas, values, beliefs and behaviours of a community or nation act as a vacum for real knowledge and thought.
What i mean to say is that within our culture the knowledge that we have is more or less self propagated. Ideas and values held as correct are culturally related e.g. capitalism, monogamy, democracy, freedom, abortion, vegetarianism or what have you...
So any comment that has the advocacy of the "culture" will be positively reinforced.
Radical ideas that are not within the confines of that culture are more or less disregarded, like catholics thinking about allowing abortion, capitalism thinking about communism...
In many ways culture is an assumption. Our metal process, our rational thought quite often is underpinned and justified by those assumptions.
sorry i'm being abstract, it'd take a while to articulate the very examples that I myself am subject to, and thus find them difficult to question.
Friday 23 October 2009
The Omnipotence Of Capital: Godly Money
Capital is money... Omnipotence is all powerful.
The question is why. Why is money an all powerful substance and what effect does this have?
Money has a "use value" with that we must purchase certain goods, food, water, electricity, , housing and the list goes on. Not only does it have a use value for "goods" but also for services: education, workforce, maintenance, construction. The utility of money therefore is a necessary mechanism for "doing stuff" and social mobility. To clarify this, if you want utility (in anything) you need money.
Recognising the need for money to do anything (mobilize utility) is a fundamental aspect of this argument.
Profit and competition are other concepts that need to be recognised. An individual, a company, a nation - all need to make a profit.
Recognising the "use value" of money spoken above, that profit=more money, more money means more "use value". This is circular, the more "use value" the more one can invest in activities that produce profit.
It is from these key concepts we can spread outwards. Why is capital omnipotent.
The profit motive illustrates a self-interested mechanism of capitalism. Competition also shows itself at the level of the individual, the company, the nation, all are competing at different levels for their gain.
At the level of the individual there is a desire to make profit,
higher wages and lower prices of goods.
Profit is a desire for companies, lower worker wages and higher prices of goods.
It is interesting to note how these two profit motives are at odds with each other, and from here we can understand where Karl Marx was coming from when he suggested the term, exploitative.
Competition acts as a regulating mechanism, several companies means several wages provided therefore individuals choose the highest. Several companies means several products, so individuals choose the lowest. Respective of companies, they must provide higher wages to attract the workers and lower prices of goods to attract consumers. From this point of view free market capitalism makes sense, theoretically.
At the level of the nation, where omnipotence and it's effects really converge: nations politically entertaining their own self interest to compete and grow on an global scale and people doing the same for profit, shapes the contours of the global economy.
Nations want companies to create jobs for people so people get money. This way the nation economy grows , usually at a rate of about 2% a year, (in the uk since the economic crash it is 0.5%) that is on all lending 2% interest is paid. The nation gets more "use value" building more schools, hospitals, roads and can import foreign things.
so now we have a global economy, competition and cooperation between countries for investment (this has the effect of enlarging companies and creating jobs and profit thus growth), jobs (money for individuals & growth) and companies (these equal: profit, growth, investment and jobs) .
If these are economically inaccurate, i apologise. I'm trying to paint the picture where we both understand that people, companies and nations need money and that concerning the idea of a global economy, nations need companies for their jobs and their growth.
The implications of this can be devastating
The state of affairs exist now where nations need companies in their country. They want them for the profit, they want them so their people have jobs, they want them to keep unemployment down, they want them because the greater the nations profit, jobs and employment the better the gov't look.
Many companies are so large they are not hindered by a country, they are so rich they can just leave, these are transnational corporations.
Let me just illustrate my point by analogy- a country thinks they need to protect their workers and their environment, this means (for instance) the minimal wage and waste dumping restrictions. A corporation will just leave for another country with minimum regulations. That's fine right? nooo. As i said, gov't NEED companies. So why would they pursue such policies!?
Corporations can play one gov't off with another for the smallest regulation and greater subsidiaries (welfare benefits for companies) .
E.g. A company will look at a governements plans and say "Your planning on using an environmental tax cap" (taxing companies if they go over a certain amount of emissions) or "using waste dumping restrictions " (implying the company will need to pay to remove waste they make)
They will frown at the countries government and give a sideays glance at some third world countries or some low regulation countries - teasing to go and invest over there...
So what can the governemnt do!? Stick to their guns and use those enviro policies? that'll look great won't it... at the end of their term looking for re-election and standing by a chart that shows greater unemployment and very little economic growth.... (i thinks that's called political suicide)
Well, they either don't pursue those policies or give tax cuts to the corp and be like " come over here, we'll give you money to help you dispose of all that pesky waste!"
I hope this expresses how the political and the economic are so tied up.
As a general problem, exercised by the nature of the material and profit and wealth.
Money transcends ethics.
I vital aspect of it's omnipotence is the limited restriction it has ethically. Money does not chose right and wrong, it chooses profit and loss.
On the occasion that it appears that money has become ethical, whether this is better allocation of resources or services the move is likely to be generated or permeated politically.
In many ways the ground we are fighting on has already been taken. It is much easier to criticise the capitalist system from "outside of the box". When i say this, i want the people following me this far to understand that the "box" is the social world (our identity, practises, understandings, frames of reference and basic ideologies) articulated by capitalism. In many ways, the fight is already over.
A response to the question, "why in a world controlled by money, do we accept that." really a question, why in a world unequal, racked by poverty and exploitation do we accept it's mechanism.... Really... Do we even question it. Is the above common knowledge?
No.
It isn't as though a country can just "not work this way". Money is use value, and that is an almost universal. If these countries have no money then they can't do anything. This does not then follow, as i'm sure few will point out: that money mechanics are therefore right.. Surely the problem is money itself.
There are many people poor on this planet. This means they do not have access to food, water, shelter, warmth - even, god forbid- the internet!
The driver of this problem, namely being poor is defined in itself- no money.
But what can money get us?
Consent?
Do all your friends get into a frothing mouthed frenzy when they hear of money... no..
Do you teachers?
Parents?
The news?
Tv programmes?
Magazines?
advertisments?
no.. i don't think so.
There isn't really that great horde of dissenting voices...
This isn't exactly a simple subject.
Money is not bad of itself, in wanting all forms of things i'm sure it's a great method of reward, a check on efficiency, a method of allocation.
The problem, as i've been trying to articulate, is the current money mechanic.
Money defines and therefore limits: action and use. It holds us back.
Cheers.
The question is why. Why is money an all powerful substance and what effect does this have?
Money has a "use value" with that we must purchase certain goods, food, water, electricity, , housing and the list goes on. Not only does it have a use value for "goods" but also for services: education, workforce, maintenance, construction. The utility of money therefore is a necessary mechanism for "doing stuff" and social mobility. To clarify this, if you want utility (in anything) you need money.
Recognising the need for money to do anything (mobilize utility) is a fundamental aspect of this argument.
Profit and competition are other concepts that need to be recognised. An individual, a company, a nation - all need to make a profit.
Recognising the "use value" of money spoken above, that profit=more money, more money means more "use value". This is circular, the more "use value" the more one can invest in activities that produce profit.
It is from these key concepts we can spread outwards. Why is capital omnipotent.
The profit motive illustrates a self-interested mechanism of capitalism. Competition also shows itself at the level of the individual, the company, the nation, all are competing at different levels for their gain.
At the level of the individual there is a desire to make profit,
higher wages and lower prices of goods.
Profit is a desire for companies, lower worker wages and higher prices of goods.
It is interesting to note how these two profit motives are at odds with each other, and from here we can understand where Karl Marx was coming from when he suggested the term, exploitative.
Competition acts as a regulating mechanism, several companies means several wages provided therefore individuals choose the highest. Several companies means several products, so individuals choose the lowest. Respective of companies, they must provide higher wages to attract the workers and lower prices of goods to attract consumers. From this point of view free market capitalism makes sense, theoretically.
At the level of the nation, where omnipotence and it's effects really converge: nations politically entertaining their own self interest to compete and grow on an global scale and people doing the same for profit, shapes the contours of the global economy.
Nations want companies to create jobs for people so people get money. This way the nation economy grows , usually at a rate of about 2% a year, (in the uk since the economic crash it is 0.5%) that is on all lending 2% interest is paid. The nation gets more "use value" building more schools, hospitals, roads and can import foreign things.
so now we have a global economy, competition and cooperation between countries for investment (this has the effect of enlarging companies and creating jobs and profit thus growth), jobs (money for individuals & growth) and companies (these equal: profit, growth, investment and jobs) .
If these are economically inaccurate, i apologise. I'm trying to paint the picture where we both understand that people, companies and nations need money and that concerning the idea of a global economy, nations need companies for their jobs and their growth.
The implications of this can be devastating
The state of affairs exist now where nations need companies in their country. They want them for the profit, they want them so their people have jobs, they want them to keep unemployment down, they want them because the greater the nations profit, jobs and employment the better the gov't look.
Many companies are so large they are not hindered by a country, they are so rich they can just leave, these are transnational corporations.
Let me just illustrate my point by analogy- a country thinks they need to protect their workers and their environment, this means (for instance) the minimal wage and waste dumping restrictions. A corporation will just leave for another country with minimum regulations. That's fine right? nooo. As i said, gov't NEED companies. So why would they pursue such policies!?
Corporations can play one gov't off with another for the smallest regulation and greater subsidiaries (welfare benefits for companies) .
E.g. A company will look at a governements plans and say "Your planning on using an environmental tax cap" (taxing companies if they go over a certain amount of emissions) or "using waste dumping restrictions " (implying the company will need to pay to remove waste they make)
They will frown at the countries government and give a sideays glance at some third world countries or some low regulation countries - teasing to go and invest over there...
So what can the governemnt do!? Stick to their guns and use those enviro policies? that'll look great won't it... at the end of their term looking for re-election and standing by a chart that shows greater unemployment and very little economic growth.... (i thinks that's called political suicide)
Well, they either don't pursue those policies or give tax cuts to the corp and be like " come over here, we'll give you money to help you dispose of all that pesky waste!"
I hope this expresses how the political and the economic are so tied up.
As a general problem, exercised by the nature of the material and profit and wealth.
Money transcends ethics.
I vital aspect of it's omnipotence is the limited restriction it has ethically. Money does not chose right and wrong, it chooses profit and loss.
On the occasion that it appears that money has become ethical, whether this is better allocation of resources or services the move is likely to be generated or permeated politically.
In many ways the ground we are fighting on has already been taken. It is much easier to criticise the capitalist system from "outside of the box". When i say this, i want the people following me this far to understand that the "box" is the social world (our identity, practises, understandings, frames of reference and basic ideologies) articulated by capitalism. In many ways, the fight is already over.
A response to the question, "why in a world controlled by money, do we accept that." really a question, why in a world unequal, racked by poverty and exploitation do we accept it's mechanism.... Really... Do we even question it. Is the above common knowledge?
No.
It isn't as though a country can just "not work this way". Money is use value, and that is an almost universal. If these countries have no money then they can't do anything. This does not then follow, as i'm sure few will point out: that money mechanics are therefore right.. Surely the problem is money itself.
There are many people poor on this planet. This means they do not have access to food, water, shelter, warmth - even, god forbid- the internet!
The driver of this problem, namely being poor is defined in itself- no money.
But what can money get us?
Consent?
Do all your friends get into a frothing mouthed frenzy when they hear of money... no..
Do you teachers?
Parents?
The news?
Tv programmes?
Magazines?
advertisments?
no.. i don't think so.
There isn't really that great horde of dissenting voices...
This isn't exactly a simple subject.
Money is not bad of itself, in wanting all forms of things i'm sure it's a great method of reward, a check on efficiency, a method of allocation.
The problem, as i've been trying to articulate, is the current money mechanic.
Money defines and therefore limits: action and use. It holds us back.
Cheers.
Tuesday 29 September 2009
Musings in the Night.
Dark, it is, outside now. I would guess that it is also quiet but my music is playing, so i can't. It's two minutes past twelve according to my clock and the yellow lamplight is illuminating some of my streets more "economical" (poor peoples) cars, theres a peugot 106 and some blue cars and some red cars. I can't actually name that many cars, my skill(z) actually extend to 106, 206, 306... and yellow car (punch in the arm) and convertable (another punch) and nissan (is that even a car).
I've had a pretty uneventful day.
Then again.
For it to be eventful something really eventful would need to happen... like...
I don't know, a disaster of some sorts including flying ants or naked women.
Hurracances...
and cows with megaphones.
All this i imagine just outside of the school gates: around 1000 males screaming and running. Thier green blazzers flapping about, being trodden on under the stampede...little children still attached to them.
But i'll digress from the darker sides of my fantasy.
This post, unlike all the ones before, has no real or unreal meaning. Which means, really, that i get free reign with things that i'd usually fomalize for "appearances" like...
1 g3t t0 t41k l1k3 th15 2 u. 1 1nder h0w 1ong 1 c4n 3xt3nd my u|3|3er p0w3rs 4.
1 4m th3 m45t3r 0f d3c3pt1on.
1 c4n p14y w1th th3 f0rm:
th3n wh4t3v3r
1 typ3
c4n
b3 411
0v3r
d4
p14c3.
Ah well. I really can't be bothered with that vocation anymore.
But it was fun while it lasted.
I'll finish with a poem im making up on the spot =)
there once was a dilema
that met a girl called emma.
on a phone
they answered or hungup
on the same rings
broke the same things
twice.
would write incomparitavley, convolouted and convexing sentances
that missed the rythm
or the message.
But both found happiness, in that thier names would rhyme.
dilema
and emma
would be first in line.
but packages get crossed (with similar names) and words that hurt were slung.
neither had the option, dil rung emma
emma rung dil.
again, still, one hung up.
the other answered,
and had to shout. hard. at the recorder.
Hope you enjoyed my midnight musing. =) it's 12:32 now... and i'm signing off.
I've had a pretty uneventful day.
Then again.
For it to be eventful something really eventful would need to happen... like...
I don't know, a disaster of some sorts including flying ants or naked women.
Hurracances...
and cows with megaphones.
All this i imagine just outside of the school gates: around 1000 males screaming and running. Thier green blazzers flapping about, being trodden on under the stampede...little children still attached to them.
But i'll digress from the darker sides of my fantasy.
This post, unlike all the ones before, has no real or unreal meaning. Which means, really, that i get free reign with things that i'd usually fomalize for "appearances" like...
1 g3t t0 t41k l1k3 th15 2 u. 1 1nder h0w 1ong 1 c4n 3xt3nd my u|3|3er p0w3rs 4.
1 4m th3 m45t3r 0f d3c3pt1on.
1 c4n p14y w1th th3 f0rm:
th3n wh4t3v3r
1 typ3
c4n
b3 411
0v3r
d4
p14c3.
Ah well. I really can't be bothered with that vocation anymore.
But it was fun while it lasted.
I'll finish with a poem im making up on the spot =)
there once was a dilema
that met a girl called emma.
on a phone
they answered or hungup
on the same rings
broke the same things
twice.
would write incomparitavley, convolouted and convexing sentances
that missed the rythm
or the message.
But both found happiness, in that thier names would rhyme.
dilema
and emma
would be first in line.
but packages get crossed (with similar names) and words that hurt were slung.
neither had the option, dil rung emma
emma rung dil.
again, still, one hung up.
the other answered,
and had to shout. hard. at the recorder.
Hope you enjoyed my midnight musing. =) it's 12:32 now... and i'm signing off.
Wednesday 23 September 2009
A blog for my diagram!
Oh... Hello.
Old topic really, im sure we solved this a while back, you know.. the god thing.
But i don't think everyone understood what i was on about.
The blog can be found at Irreconsilable God and more playfully (i love it) at God exists!!?!11
but, no problem for thos who didn't understand...
I was listening to some mucis and reading a book... then...
bang. I visualized this diagram.
No really...
So. Quite simply i have tried to illistrate a few things:
God is both in and out of logic... (this is stupid)
The idea of God is very close to being falsified... and proved (which is stupid)
This is better shown by the "viewpoints of consideration" - depending on how you consider the concept of god (blue) and the argements (red) will god be proved.
In short -and this post is short, courtesy of jamie and james attention span- argueing over god is pointless because we all consider it differently.
Old topic really, im sure we solved this a while back, you know.. the god thing.
But i don't think everyone understood what i was on about.
The blog can be found at Irreconsilable God and more playfully (i love it) at God exists!!?!11
but, no problem for thos who didn't understand...
I was listening to some mucis and reading a book... then...
bang. I visualized this diagram.
No really...
So. Quite simply i have tried to illistrate a few things:
God is both in and out of logic... (this is stupid)
The idea of God is very close to being falsified... and proved (which is stupid)
This is better shown by the "viewpoints of consideration" - depending on how you consider the concept of god (blue) and the argements (red) will god be proved.
In short -and this post is short, courtesy of jamie and james attention span- argueing over god is pointless because we all consider it differently.
Tuesday 15 September 2009
The answer to human nature and the meaning of life.
What I seem to have stumbled across is an ontological argument of human nature.
Simply put, the question of human nature is the question what is man, his essence and purpose, his meaning. In fact the question of human nature is on the same par as the meaning of life.
So, what is the meaning of life? I say, the meaning of human life is itself a search for meaning. That may seem like, perhaps, a self evident answer, or a "cop out" but read on, there are real reasons at hand.
To be human, I put it, is to fall short of perfection. To try so hard and fail, the phrase could apply, “I’m only Human!” So, when asked as to the answer for what is human nature, it is simply to make mistakes, to not be perfect, but to strive. We as a race will strive for the objective truth of what is right what is meaningful, to search for that perfection. In essence human nature is an imperfect nature.
By perfection I mean to the extent that it fills its purpose The perfect hammer is that which hammers well.
This imperfection hasn’t arisen in animals because an animal’s nature is defined by its function and moreover, if a function it appears to not have, it lacks the consciousness to assert that – for that it is perfect within its own nature. Even within their imperfection, perhaps the plant doesn’t photosynthesize with the fullest efficiency; their function is as perfect as it can be over the evolutionary period (because that is its function). We, like the animals are driven to reproduce, to spread our genes as all biological organisms have as an intrinsic function. Yet we draw the line with that as a function, our nature as man may conflict with that idea, we step away from the mere reproductive mechanisms and search for meaning in that, a use and its possible repercussions. Again, even when we appear to have the option of asserting our nature as simply a reproductive one –to bypass all the issues- we as a race are able to shun it, question it.
You may have noticed that I am asserting man as a group, a collectivised species. Perhaps the issue is that to see ourselves as a group means we should have group agreements. Man as an individual, imperfect still, may find his purpose in meaning. Man in his quest for purpose asserts himself as an individual and frees himself from all other opinions and values. The nature of man again can be seen as one in search for meaning; it may just be that we cannot do it together. If the subjective nature of meaning is inherent, then embrace it as an individualist assertion and disregard all other ideas of meaning.
When we look at how human society has developed, with all our disagreements and variations it seems obvious that the subjectivity of right and wrong has wrought itself into our standards. Man’s search for meaning poses a poignant dilemma, how meaningful is something that no one else cares about. (a taste of imperfection there)
I care about knowledge, for me this is the most meaningful thing in all existence, ever; I cannot see anything else more great. However clearly many people would disagree, money seems like a meaningful substance. Sex, drugs, music (I’m going to avoid rock and roll) is all some thing people see as meaningful.
Man is an imperfect species, purely for the ability to question itself and thus search for other meaning and purpose; however, any meaning man asserts is imperfect in that not all agree. The perfection is lost.
Imperfection, sadly, seems to characterize all aspects of our life. They can be seen in the institutions of a society: Our education system which sees some children prosper and others fail. Our government, which, it is well known, can make bad laws and do the wrong thing. Our prison system is questionably a help or a hindrance, aiding to reform those criminalised or furthering their criminality.
But what is left after noting that we are imperfect, if all our actions are ultimately undermined by our nature? It seems that if we can discuss the idea of perfection, and in some cases attempt to carry out what we see as perfect, so we can see an ideal and aim for it, surely, then, we should be able to act to degrees of perfection. If we have the ability to strive, to assert and to question then we must have a degree of perfection, or at least perfection with a pinch of salt. It seems to be attainable that we should strive for the smallest degree of perfection, even if the dilemma still faces us that others disagree. If we embrace individualism and the search for meaning - we have human nature.
Monday 14 September 2009
Dearest Sprog.
Well. My good friend Sprog, I regret to inform of your recent obsession with blogging. My dear friend, Blogger to you is what Farmville is to those Facebookers that get somewhat
infatuated in the wonderful world of...
Virtual SHIT.
The only difference being the fact that blogging, is actually rather enjoyable, and some people may actually benefit from it, so im not going to rip you in this blog, maybe next time?
Seriously now though, Farmville. Please. Mother of all that is untainted with the impending catastrophe that is going to unfold if the viral spreads ever farther, forcing those nice people who own a REAL farm to trade it in for a VIRTUAL farm, inevitably leading to the destruction of mankind, stop notifying me everytime one of my several hundred friends 'moves on up' in Farmville.
Many thanks.
TheHolyTowel.
infatuated in the wonderful world of...
Virtual SHIT.
The only difference being the fact that blogging, is actually rather enjoyable, and some people may actually benefit from it, so im not going to rip you in this blog, maybe next time?
Seriously now though, Farmville. Please. Mother of all that is untainted with the impending catastrophe that is going to unfold if the viral spreads ever farther, forcing those nice people who own a REAL farm to trade it in for a VIRTUAL farm, inevitably leading to the destruction of mankind, stop notifying me everytime one of my several hundred friends 'moves on up' in Farmville.
Many thanks.
TheHolyTowel.
FUCK the FACEBOOK FARMING FARMVILLE fuck.
Please... I beg. i crawl on my knees. I sacrifice my self on the altar of all that is good in the world. Stop the farmville viral. For the love of jesus... for the love of krishna.... with respect to buddist karma...It's a game... facebook is a social networking site not...
"LOOK AT ALL THE ANIMALS I HAVE ACCUMULATED IN SUCH A SHORT SPACE OF TIME. LOL"
The voice i would mimic is the pig from shrek.
It's not that i don't want you to play the farmville game...
I just don't want to be updated every time you get sucked in. The effect is a viral... you masterbate over it... someone catches you.. and then they do the same.
Well stop..
Updating me.
Stop.
Titillating.
I got a message from a friend, on face book, "soso" likes you status. Which read like the above..
So i go on there to thank him, to praise him. I want to pat him on the back and be like, we're in this together..
BUT NO!
YOUR WITH THEM ARN'T YOU, YOU MAFIA WAR-ER-ER.
Tsk.
I don't want to help you find a camera... an fbi agent..or anything...virtual
I want you to find a brick and to plough it through you hardrive.
I want you to put your ecstacy fingers in lawnmower and then to paint a picture..
at least that's something i'd click "like" and comment:
Hey, that's a really impressive feat. You put those farmville/mafia people to shame.
if only.
But there aren't an martyrs for this one is there.
"LOOK AT ALL THE ANIMALS I HAVE ACCUMULATED IN SUCH A SHORT SPACE OF TIME. LOL"
The voice i would mimic is the pig from shrek.
It's not that i don't want you to play the farmville game...
I just don't want to be updated every time you get sucked in. The effect is a viral... you masterbate over it... someone catches you.. and then they do the same.
Well stop..
Updating me.
Stop.
Titillating.
I got a message from a friend, on face book, "soso" likes you status. Which read like the above..
So i go on there to thank him, to praise him. I want to pat him on the back and be like, we're in this together..
BUT NO!
YOUR WITH THEM ARN'T YOU, YOU MAFIA WAR-ER-ER.
Tsk.
I don't want to help you find a camera... an fbi agent..or anything...virtual
I want you to find a brick and to plough it through you hardrive.
I want you to put your ecstacy fingers in lawnmower and then to paint a picture..
at least that's something i'd click "like" and comment:
Hey, that's a really impressive feat. You put those farmville/mafia people to shame.
if only.
But there aren't an martyrs for this one is there.
Friday 11 September 2009
Irreconcilable God.
This post is very simple in it's aim.
I wish to show the inconsistencies of responses to the claim "god does not exist because of X attribute."
Any argument against god targets what is understood by god to formulate an argument against him existing.
Any response to that argument is based on what that person understands to be god, and what is understood to be being attacked.
There are potentially infinite arguments.
There are potentially infinite responses.
By responding one creates a finite set of attributes to god. E.g. he gives free will/he predestines us. he is all powerful/all knowing/all loving. he is timeless etc etc etc there are so many
The amount of attributes created are so great that they are not all mutually compatible. Over the years people have responded to the potential infinite arguments, they all come up with contrary or self defeating answers.
there are three answers to this
Maybe one person is right. (This would be self defeating because they are denying another persons faith for their own.) This is suggested by the many different religions.
At one point every attribute has been accepted. At one point every attribute has been denied.
This leads to. God does not exist, he is created by the people around us.
People, although they claim to, do not know what they believe in. (this is self defeating in terms of what a religion teaches)
The reason these arguments appear here is because the concept of god is constantly under change. Through argument attributes are ascribed to him, arbitrarily tagged and removed for the purpose of argument. So in this way the "features" of God at anyone time can change. This further the claim that through argument no true position can be met.
Thus the only position a believer can take, without denying someone else's god, or responding contrary to their beliefs: is fidiesm. a position where exclusively rely on faith.
For me, the burden of proof does not work. I do not need to try an prove god does not exist by argument (the burden of proof). As i have just shown with the above, it is pointless.
I wish to show the inconsistencies of responses to the claim "god does not exist because of X attribute."
Any argument against god targets what is understood by god to formulate an argument against him existing.
Any response to that argument is based on what that person understands to be god, and what is understood to be being attacked.
There are potentially infinite arguments.
There are potentially infinite responses.
By responding one creates a finite set of attributes to god. E.g. he gives free will/he predestines us. he is all powerful/all knowing/all loving. he is timeless etc etc etc there are so many
The amount of attributes created are so great that they are not all mutually compatible. Over the years people have responded to the potential infinite arguments, they all come up with contrary or self defeating answers.
there are three answers to this
Maybe one person is right. (This would be self defeating because they are denying another persons faith for their own.) This is suggested by the many different religions.
At one point every attribute has been accepted. At one point every attribute has been denied.
This leads to. God does not exist, he is created by the people around us.
People, although they claim to, do not know what they believe in. (this is self defeating in terms of what a religion teaches)
The reason these arguments appear here is because the concept of god is constantly under change. Through argument attributes are ascribed to him, arbitrarily tagged and removed for the purpose of argument. So in this way the "features" of God at anyone time can change. This further the claim that through argument no true position can be met.
Thus the only position a believer can take, without denying someone else's god, or responding contrary to their beliefs: is fidiesm. a position where exclusively rely on faith.
For me, the burden of proof does not work. I do not need to try an prove god does not exist by argument (the burden of proof). As i have just shown with the above, it is pointless.
Monday 7 September 2009
Sunday 6 September 2009
Our social vibe is not racist... It's race related.
KC:
i chose one with water
but seriously..
the block kid
the black kid?
is that really necessary
do we need a small black underdeveloped child to smile through water..
just to get people to click..
really?
James:
ahaha
i love it
he looks demonic almost
or she
i cant tell
arent they all bald in africa?
lmao. im so racist.
lol
sponsored by loreal. and theres a bald kid.
holy shit..
we should totally blog this
haha, set it up and we'll do it next time i come up
His teeth.. are waaaaaaayyyy to good.
he should be makin a charity for me..
and my teeth
they're beter that both of ours!
people will hate us after they read it you know.
it's like he has just polished them
do you think they use a model black kid....
or.. they just grabed one from a village without water... poured water on hs head
so he was
all
=)=)
i think we will be shot if we publish this.
nah
if there is a god were going to hell.
... if there is a god..then probably...
but... if black humour
and..
maybe a little sympathy
exists...
then we r givin water to the rich model black child ... in africa...
with white teeth.
i dont care. we will still be shot for this. atleast.
should we not support the water thing ?
maybe an anti gun charity?
in some ghetto
no we can, just not blog so nastily about the black kid with no water. isnt it sick how they say black kids have no water yet they are pouring water infront of his face into the ground and the kids grinning.
if we blog about it we should blog more about what the picture shows than black people themselves
yeah.. thats how i think they got such an imahhe
.. well dude..
ive done the blog.
no really.
llook at the draft.
lmao
im going bed.
dont change it.
thats class
we should just keep it like that.
that, my friend, we should embark on together.
nono..
format...
explanation
and some form of defence incase we get sued.
call u 2moro!
Disclaimer:
The two parties in this awesome blog, do not condone anything.
As we said earlier.
Its not racist, its race related.
i chose one with water
but seriously..
the block kid
the black kid?
is that really necessary
do we need a small black underdeveloped child to smile through water..
just to get people to click..
really?
James:
ahaha
i love it
he looks demonic almost
or she
i cant tell
arent they all bald in africa?
lmao. im so racist.
lol
sponsored by loreal. and theres a bald kid.
holy shit..
we should totally blog this
haha, set it up and we'll do it next time i come up
His teeth.. are waaaaaaayyyy to good.
he should be makin a charity for me..
and my teeth
they're beter that both of ours!
people will hate us after they read it you know.
it's like he has just polished them
do you think they use a model black kid....
or.. they just grabed one from a village without water... poured water on hs head
so he was
all
=)=)
i think we will be shot if we publish this.
nah
if there is a god were going to hell.
... if there is a god..then probably...
but... if black humour
and..
maybe a little sympathy
exists...
then we r givin water to the rich model black child ... in africa...
with white teeth.
i dont care. we will still be shot for this. atleast.
should we not support the water thing ?
maybe an anti gun charity?
in some ghetto
no we can, just not blog so nastily about the black kid with no water. isnt it sick how they say black kids have no water yet they are pouring water infront of his face into the ground and the kids grinning.
if we blog about it we should blog more about what the picture shows than black people themselves
yeah.. thats how i think they got such an imahhe
.. well dude..
ive done the blog.
no really.
llook at the draft.
lmao
im going bed.
dont change it.
thats class
we should just keep it like that.
that, my friend, we should embark on together.
nono..
format...
explanation
and some form of defence incase we get sued.
call u 2moro!
Disclaimer:
The two parties in this awesome blog, do not condone anything.
As we said earlier.
Its not racist, its race related.
I AM NOT YOUR FAN!!!1
No really, i'm a friend.
On facebook, the ever wondrous social networking site with an astounding array of applications using personal (private) information. Has finally caught me. I don't believe I've ever had the pleasure of pushing "allow access" for a facebook application to my personal stuff. But by the sounds of it I don't need to!
Recently i have been appearing all over my friends facebook accounts as a fan!
A fan!
on my friends...
facebook.
a fan.
a friends.
facebook.
Just by typing comments, viewing picture... etc.
Wikipedia tells me I'm "someone who has an intense, occasionally overwhelming liking and enthusiasm for a sporting club, person ..."
"intense, occasionally overwhelming liking" what, like an erection... like a stalker-ish suprise...
Maybe wikipedia and facebook didn't realise that half of the people im a "fan" of are women... (hehe or maybe they did) and i coincidentally commented on their profile recently saying, bluntly, you have penis envy... (a freudian joke)
But no. Very intense. Surely a real supporter.
dictionary.com sheds even more light... "fan2-noun" a "enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc."
thanks... im a devotee and a follower... im not devoted to them... im a devotee. Check that...
and finally..
just to rattle my cage a little more.
http://www.facebook.com/dictionarycom
They want me to become a fan.
On facebook, the ever wondrous social networking site with an astounding array of applications using personal (private) information. Has finally caught me. I don't believe I've ever had the pleasure of pushing "allow access" for a facebook application to my personal stuff. But by the sounds of it I don't need to!
Recently i have been appearing all over my friends facebook accounts as a fan!
A fan!
on my friends...
facebook.
a fan.
a friends.
facebook.
Just by typing comments, viewing picture... etc.
Wikipedia tells me I'm "someone who has an intense, occasionally overwhelming liking and enthusiasm for a sporting club, person ..."
"intense, occasionally overwhelming liking" what, like an erection... like a stalker-ish suprise...
Maybe wikipedia and facebook didn't realise that half of the people im a "fan" of are women... (hehe or maybe they did) and i coincidentally commented on their profile recently saying, bluntly, you have penis envy... (a freudian joke)
But no. Very intense. Surely a real supporter.
dictionary.com sheds even more light... "fan2-noun" a "enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc."
thanks... im a devotee and a follower... im not devoted to them... im a devotee. Check that...
and finally..
just to rattle my cage a little more.
http://www.facebook.com/dictionarycom
They want me to become a fan.
Relativism and a slow changing world
We live in systems. Not those naturally occurring, evolution, ecosystems, laws of physics, chemistry etc. We live within those we create around us, an infrastructure of schools, hospitals; social systems, our norms and values, our friends and our beliefs (be that generally or religiously) economic systems, political systems. Hierarchy.
The point I'd like to pose is that we as humans we are prone to conservatism - that is - our systems take a long time to radically change. This occurs in an era of radical individualism and thus inevitably relativism.
The absence of any radical change is implicitly bad. Our systems have not occurred because of systematic rigorous testing to achieve any optimal degree of perfection, but have been developed slowly overtime. As you will realise by the end of this - all social change is slow.
The other reason why this lack of radical change is bad lies in the point earlier of relativism, largely from individualism. We all have different beliefs and values, not all of these are in line with the current systems. However this is balanced by the idea that the system we live within shapes our culture, and so beliefs and values.
This essay insofar has suggested that people all have different experiences, values and beliefs. It has been implied that the systems we live in shape that individualism, thus our values - "culture" may apply here. As these are self reinforcing then radical change is going to be severely hampered. Moreover, the plurality of people, with their own beliefs people will find dislikes in a system or have preferential systems with which they regard as better, or they believe in more.
Support and reinforcement from what i am saying comes from the CIA library.
Chapter 2 looks to psychology for how our perceptions are established and sustained.
A quote from here says:
"Mind-sets tend to be quick to form but resistant to change."
This establishes the idea that once we form our beliefs, they are difficult to change.
Any change economically, socially and politically will be slow.
Change would largely be catered by these conditions:
(a) Not only must people recognise what is wrong with a system to correct it, but they must be willing to change it.
This point has problems, 1.many people are not able to clearly "see" or understand a system. 2.They are not able to create points that would improve it. 3.As they live within that system it is likely their willingness for change is small.
(b)As these three systems are plurality systems (by that i mean, they are systems that an enormously large amount of people use) so (a) must occur within more than one person. There must be enough people to bring about that change.
(c)They must have some form of similarity, agreement or recognition of problems. This is hindered by 2. and 3.
(a)and (b) and (c)are not likely to occur.
However this does not have to be the case.
If (a) occurs then (b) follows. I (a) and (b) it is likely (c) follows.
Knowing this, how do we incur radical change?
Before we begin... It might be prudent to say that generating change is as difficult as suggested above. More so when your trying to change the speed that things change.
The answer comes from looking at our formula. If we modify (a) and it's associated problems then (b) and (c) are more likely to follow.
The fastest way for (a) to change the economic and political world would be over the internet. On tap knowledge and views. Lighting fast technology and coordination.
Socially this is already achieved, the concept of memes largely transfers the idea of an evolutionary model into culture and what makes up the culture. Google it, it is a fascinating social science.
Politically there are more problems to address. Mostly, the western system is a representative democracy with a narrow remit taken over by an agenda which is often dominated by the prime minister (in the uk) or the president (as of the us) and large lobbying groups or interest groups. It is certainly the case in the UK and US that those political parties who gain power are unlikely to change it to a system where they lose it.
The biggest problem of radical political change aside from the above are the voters. Their inability to boycott the system or vote for parties that wish to cater change. Moreover (b) applies here especially in the context of 3.
In short, the current layout of those two systems does not favour change.
for the political system to embrace change a higher level of political awareness is needed from the public. And votes need to be proportional towards the power of parties. (however this should be approached with caution because of 1, and 3.) and parties need to be much more transparent with their objectives.
Either this form of proportional democracy allows for greater change or...
a direct democracy. The most powerful medium for expressing political views, choosing difficult decisions, building policy etc. is the internet. Unhampered open sourced policy created for and by the public on an easy and factually correct format.
Direct democracy can be realised through the internet.
lastly concerning the economic system.
A larger awareness is need of the economic system for (a) to ever happen.
As this system affects every one's life it must change within the political system t be legitimate. The economic systems must change due to informed representative decision making.
Again, this is limited by 1. and 3.
so in conclusion. ...and as im getting restless as usual..
The internet should be embraced for (a) to occur.
The point I'd like to pose is that we as humans we are prone to conservatism - that is - our systems take a long time to radically change. This occurs in an era of radical individualism and thus inevitably relativism.
The absence of any radical change is implicitly bad. Our systems have not occurred because of systematic rigorous testing to achieve any optimal degree of perfection, but have been developed slowly overtime. As you will realise by the end of this - all social change is slow.
The other reason why this lack of radical change is bad lies in the point earlier of relativism, largely from individualism. We all have different beliefs and values, not all of these are in line with the current systems. However this is balanced by the idea that the system we live within shapes our culture, and so beliefs and values.
This essay insofar has suggested that people all have different experiences, values and beliefs. It has been implied that the systems we live in shape that individualism, thus our values - "culture" may apply here. As these are self reinforcing then radical change is going to be severely hampered. Moreover, the plurality of people, with their own beliefs people will find dislikes in a system or have preferential systems with which they regard as better, or they believe in more.
Support and reinforcement from what i am saying comes from the CIA library.
Chapter 2 looks to psychology for how our perceptions are established and sustained.
A quote from here says:
"Mind-sets tend to be quick to form but resistant to change."
This establishes the idea that once we form our beliefs, they are difficult to change.
Any change economically, socially and politically will be slow.
Change would largely be catered by these conditions:
(a) Not only must people recognise what is wrong with a system to correct it, but they must be willing to change it.
This point has problems, 1.many people are not able to clearly "see" or understand a system. 2.They are not able to create points that would improve it. 3.As they live within that system it is likely their willingness for change is small.
(b)As these three systems are plurality systems (by that i mean, they are systems that an enormously large amount of people use) so (a) must occur within more than one person. There must be enough people to bring about that change.
(c)They must have some form of similarity, agreement or recognition of problems. This is hindered by 2. and 3.
(a)and (b) and (c)are not likely to occur.
However this does not have to be the case.
If (a) occurs then (b) follows. I (a) and (b) it is likely (c) follows.
Knowing this, how do we incur radical change?
Before we begin... It might be prudent to say that generating change is as difficult as suggested above. More so when your trying to change the speed that things change.
The answer comes from looking at our formula. If we modify (a) and it's associated problems then (b) and (c) are more likely to follow.
The fastest way for (a) to change the economic and political world would be over the internet. On tap knowledge and views. Lighting fast technology and coordination.
Socially this is already achieved, the concept of memes largely transfers the idea of an evolutionary model into culture and what makes up the culture. Google it, it is a fascinating social science.
Politically there are more problems to address. Mostly, the western system is a representative democracy with a narrow remit taken over by an agenda which is often dominated by the prime minister (in the uk) or the president (as of the us) and large lobbying groups or interest groups. It is certainly the case in the UK and US that those political parties who gain power are unlikely to change it to a system where they lose it.
The biggest problem of radical political change aside from the above are the voters. Their inability to boycott the system or vote for parties that wish to cater change. Moreover (b) applies here especially in the context of 3.
In short, the current layout of those two systems does not favour change.
for the political system to embrace change a higher level of political awareness is needed from the public. And votes need to be proportional towards the power of parties. (however this should be approached with caution because of 1, and 3.) and parties need to be much more transparent with their objectives.
Either this form of proportional democracy allows for greater change or...
a direct democracy. The most powerful medium for expressing political views, choosing difficult decisions, building policy etc. is the internet. Unhampered open sourced policy created for and by the public on an easy and factually correct format.
Direct democracy can be realised through the internet.
lastly concerning the economic system.
A larger awareness is need of the economic system for (a) to ever happen.
As this system affects every one's life it must change within the political system t be legitimate. The economic systems must change due to informed representative decision making.
Again, this is limited by 1. and 3.
so in conclusion. ...and as im getting restless as usual..
The internet should be embraced for (a) to occur.
Friday 28 August 2009
God Exists?!!1
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm ?
Seriously. This guy.
According to the use of Gibberish, God, exists.
At first glance, you'd think to yourself 'holy physical shit, is this guy serious?' Each and every proof, is infact - ridiculous. Codswallop.
1. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Mega Fail.
I disagree with this 'proof.' I don't mean to be offensive, (un)fortunately I will be. If you are religious or if the Transcendental Argument makes any sense to you, what-so-ever, you are are actually a moron. It is impossible to use reason to prove God. Infact i would like to see you try, i may even hold a competition with prizes for the winner, and the ones which make me laugh.
If you dont know how to start, examine the argument below. And prove it.
667 ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1. Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree/unfortunate being beautiful?
2. Only God could have made them so beautiful.
3. Therefore, God exists.
...
Can't do it? I thought as much.
Seriously. This guy.
According to the use of Gibberish, God, exists.
At first glance, you'd think to yourself 'holy physical shit, is this guy serious?' Each and every proof, is infact - ridiculous. Codswallop.
1. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Mega Fail.
I disagree with this 'proof.' I don't mean to be offensive, (un)fortunately I will be. If you are religious or if the Transcendental Argument makes any sense to you, what-so-ever, you are are actually a moron. It is impossible to use reason to prove God. Infact i would like to see you try, i may even hold a competition with prizes for the winner, and the ones which make me laugh.
If you dont know how to start, examine the argument below. And prove it.
667 ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1. Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree/unfortunate being beautiful?
2. Only God could have made them so beautiful.
3. Therefore, God exists.
...
Can't do it? I thought as much.
I don't know, am i missing something here?
ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
3. Like effects have like causes.
4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator. (the cause)
... really? are you sure this is the case...
"we are so complicated, it's obvious were designed by some intelligent being."
Sorry for the sarcasm here.
It seems quite paradoxical that this intelligent being created such UNintelligent beings, especially those who babble crazy "intelligent design" ideas.
Go read a book or something.
On a more serious note.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page04.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html
Why would god create flawed beings with blind spots in their eye?
To put it another way:
God is ridiculously powerful.
Sick Shit Still Happens.
Let me rephrase that for those of you who missed the picture above..
God loves us all.
But damns to hell whatever arbitrary religion he isn't being advertised in.
Ontological arguement V.s. ... Youtube Reform
... urrr..
Finally, i thinks it's safe to say, if you believe in god you must surrender rationality or reason or "proof" as a defence... rely on faith and belief. In fact... all religious people aka theists should only be allowed to call themselves believers (as whatever they believe it seems obscure to me) or fideists.
**James looks at KC** Wow. God got pwn'ed.
Thursday 27 August 2009
My shame.
Nothing has disturbed me more throughout my life than obligation. The words, "have" to, you "must", "need" to. These words don't ring true in my liberal lexicon. I feel unsafe next to them, like they themselves are an obligation. I believe in the idea of, "want" to, you "can" and "should" do (which is a value judgement of obligation - we are all entitled to our own opinions).
I think we all like to believe we're free. In fact, apparently: we know we are free...
You know, we have spending power... we have a voice. We can leave the country. We have rights. We have "government by the people".
In fact, I'm sure I've heard the phrase "it's a free country"
As to the above, if you think that, i will not even present a coherent argument, your just STUPID.
I have choice, I wrote this. I'm looking at universities. I'm going to go out and do something tomorrow.
However, freedom comes at a price (pun). You must pay for it. You must buy your freedom. in fact, I'm quite sure it seems reasonable to say, you pay for a level of freedom. Thus, some people are more free than others.
It's important that we realise that we cannot escape our system of money. it's a climate, a climate that's changed. We are able to afford such a greater freedom than we could, both because of technology and widening availability of jobs.
Once it's sunk in. That we are sucked in.
Take a moment and wonder how the system works?
Or, using the greatest, most free and beautiful thing on this planet, (the internet,) research it.
In a blog, it isn't reasonable to mobilize a complicated and ideologically motivated argument. Nor is it possible to sit one down and explain everything, for clarity.
But there are two arguments, against the system of money which are only too easy to explain and too logical to follow. Thus it would be silly not to express them.
Within a society it is an absolute obligation, it is a necessity, that we have a division of labour.
Quite simply, we MUST have people at the bottom slaving away on low wages and we must have people at the top. E.g. in a car company, we have people helping assemble the car. They don't get paid much because their job isn't as complex. We also have people designing them, getting paid more because they're more specialized.
Do you see what i mean. Someone has to work somewhere.
the second point is much harder to reconcile.
Profit.
Interesting word. Funnily enough. Profit actually implies obligation. If all companies need profit to pay back their loans in interest... If all companies want to expand.
Profit is what drives our money system.
You could call it greed. But that's just semantics. Not to mention, rhetoric. Persuasive language.
The profit model is very efficient, it powers innovation and competition. When it gets sticky is where we ask... what about the ethical stuff.
So...
Briefly and logically because i'm getting restless. As you might be able to tell by the increasing speed by which i tap the enter key.
It does not suit profit to protect the environment. Fish and animals are profitable. it is cheaper to dump waste rather than store it. etc.
In healthcare (more so in the usa), it is more profitable to be faster than efficient. As the social engineer fresco put it, Does the doctor think i have a bad kidney, or does he need a new yacht.
Oh, just thought. Create a virus, and a cure. release the virus and then auction the cure.
Why?
profit.
why pay worker a high wage when it is more profitable for the company to pay a low wage.
Profit
Asian sweatshops are an example of this.
The modern history of man depicts his attempt, through politics, to make money ethical.
I hope we grow up one day.
I think we all like to believe we're free. In fact, apparently: we know we are free...
You know, we have spending power... we have a voice. We can leave the country. We have rights. We have "government by the people".
In fact, I'm sure I've heard the phrase "it's a free country"
As to the above, if you think that, i will not even present a coherent argument, your just STUPID.
I have choice, I wrote this. I'm looking at universities. I'm going to go out and do something tomorrow.
However, freedom comes at a price (pun). You must pay for it. You must buy your freedom. in fact, I'm quite sure it seems reasonable to say, you pay for a level of freedom. Thus, some people are more free than others.
It's important that we realise that we cannot escape our system of money. it's a climate, a climate that's changed. We are able to afford such a greater freedom than we could, both because of technology and widening availability of jobs.
Once it's sunk in. That we are sucked in.
Take a moment and wonder how the system works?
Or, using the greatest, most free and beautiful thing on this planet, (the internet,) research it.
In a blog, it isn't reasonable to mobilize a complicated and ideologically motivated argument. Nor is it possible to sit one down and explain everything, for clarity.
But there are two arguments, against the system of money which are only too easy to explain and too logical to follow. Thus it would be silly not to express them.
Within a society it is an absolute obligation, it is a necessity, that we have a division of labour.
Quite simply, we MUST have people at the bottom slaving away on low wages and we must have people at the top. E.g. in a car company, we have people helping assemble the car. They don't get paid much because their job isn't as complex. We also have people designing them, getting paid more because they're more specialized.
Do you see what i mean. Someone has to work somewhere.
the second point is much harder to reconcile.
Profit.
Interesting word. Funnily enough. Profit actually implies obligation. If all companies need profit to pay back their loans in interest... If all companies want to expand.
Profit is what drives our money system.
You could call it greed. But that's just semantics. Not to mention, rhetoric. Persuasive language.
The profit model is very efficient, it powers innovation and competition. When it gets sticky is where we ask... what about the ethical stuff.
So...
Briefly and logically because i'm getting restless. As you might be able to tell by the increasing speed by which i tap the enter key.
It does not suit profit to protect the environment. Fish and animals are profitable. it is cheaper to dump waste rather than store it. etc.
In healthcare (more so in the usa), it is more profitable to be faster than efficient. As the social engineer fresco put it, Does the doctor think i have a bad kidney, or does he need a new yacht.
Oh, just thought. Create a virus, and a cure. release the virus and then auction the cure.
Why?
profit.
why pay worker a high wage when it is more profitable for the company to pay a low wage.
Profit
Asian sweatshops are an example of this.
The modern history of man depicts his attempt, through politics, to make money ethical.
I hope we grow up one day.
Tuesday 25 August 2009
The Awesomeness of Spontaneity (and irony)
So you wake up one day and decide "i want to write about life!" or whatever preference your creative tendencies have.
You have your individualized drink, may it be tea, coffee or coke.. (god forbid). Any other commodity which seems to extend your concentration, or susceptibility to "the creative aura" and sit there, taut, pressed up against the screen, fingers nimble at the keyboard.
But Alas.
You have nothing to write.
It is an awfully beautiful irony, when you want to write but cant. When you try to write you can't. But when you just take it easy, open your mind - it hits you. Anything.
This for instance, is purely written because Mr Holy Towel a.k.a James, in front of me just can't pull it off.
He wants to. The boy huffs, flicks his head and slaps on the keyboard in frustration. Shame.
And it almost makes grin to say, ironically, again, his apparent "creative block" is my inspiration.
Haha. Loser.
*note: If a post appears above this one, then e has got his act together.
You have your individualized drink, may it be tea, coffee or coke.. (god forbid). Any other commodity which seems to extend your concentration, or susceptibility to "the creative aura" and sit there, taut, pressed up against the screen, fingers nimble at the keyboard.
But Alas.
You have nothing to write.
It is an awfully beautiful irony, when you want to write but cant. When you try to write you can't. But when you just take it easy, open your mind - it hits you. Anything.
This for instance, is purely written because Mr Holy Towel a.k.a James, in front of me just can't pull it off.
He wants to. The boy huffs, flicks his head and slaps on the keyboard in frustration. Shame.
And it almost makes grin to say, ironically, again, his apparent "creative block" is my inspiration.
Haha. Loser.
*note: If a post appears above this one, then e has got his act together.
Monday 24 August 2009
A lavish horde
Ok, so the Bar Lavish is having an "end of summer" party (is party the right word?).
These hyperactive promotions over face book have resulted in currently "488" maybe attending and "771" awaiting reply and "1007" confirmed guests... Let me please put this into perspective. However nice lavish is, very nice colours and an authentic feel -the situation is about as feasible as pushing an egg, or "1007 eggs" through a small sieve. If this metaphor confuses you, the egg may as well be trying to permeate the walls of lavish by osmosis.
I'm attending, i'll be the one on the table, squashed against the wall with my hand in the air trying to get served amid a horde of students.
I'm only 5"6
and that translates as FTW!
The words: Critical Mass
come to mind-
In fact,
If I fall over, I would possibly dissaperate (yes, like they do in the magical world of harry potter).
... and i need I.D..
Just to top it off.
Look forward to the event - see you guys there.
All of you..
All possible 2000 odd.
Wait, so if the total amount of sent invites exceeds 2000... then the people who organised it were relying on a low response rate!? I think they should have done their homework.
Only kidding.
These hyperactive promotions over face book have resulted in currently "488" maybe attending and "771" awaiting reply and "1007" confirmed guests... Let me please put this into perspective. However nice lavish is, very nice colours and an authentic feel -the situation is about as feasible as pushing an egg, or "1007 eggs" through a small sieve. If this metaphor confuses you, the egg may as well be trying to permeate the walls of lavish by osmosis.
I'm attending, i'll be the one on the table, squashed against the wall with my hand in the air trying to get served amid a horde of students.
I'm only 5"6
and that translates as FTW!
The words: Critical Mass
come to mind-
In fact,
If I fall over, I would possibly dissaperate (yes, like they do in the magical world of harry potter).
... and i need I.D..
Just to top it off.
Look forward to the event - see you guys there.
All of you..
All possible 2000 odd.
Wait, so if the total amount of sent invites exceeds 2000... then the people who organised it were relying on a low response rate!? I think they should have done their homework.
Only kidding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)