Our Brain Hums When We Think

An essay on language.

2011-05-08T10:25:00.000-07:00

I wrote this essay for my theory module at the university of plymouth.

To what extent does language play a role in contemporary international relations?

The essay has a linear argument tracing language as a body of knowledge onto the power/knowledge relationship; this is brought into play and made important via language’s relationship to reality. The argument of language’s relationship to reality merits a discussion of ideology, hegemony and struggle, which are closely interlinked. This is all for the effect of showing the role language plays in international relations. Language is the very framework for our understanding and in this essay it is understood in its most basic components as a semiotic system, or a system of signification with an ever present emphasis on social practise. Contemporary international relations is assumed to be the outcome of an amalgamation of individual actors, their beliefs and values, institutions, regimes and differing social structures. Additionally, international relations can only be understood, interpreted and represented through language, in this way, language plays a chief role in international relations and the elucidation of its mechanisms is key.

When considering language as knowledge we understand this to be the shared ideas or norms of an actor, therefore knowledge relates to the broader linguistic structure within which it is embedded. Constructivism assumes actors are social, that ‘identities and interests… are constructed by these shared ideas’ (Wendt 1999:1). Thus, Wendt assumes language as the bedrock of identity. Importantly it can ‘frame international situations’ (Wendt 1999:141), acting as a perspective and is ‘any belief an actor takes to be true’ (Wendt 1999:140). In international relations, every actor’s identity is constituted within a linguistic structure shaped on the knowledge that they take to be true. What cannot be emphasised enough is that the knowledge of actors, their values and beliefs are assumed to be real, and so they act on them with conviction. This can explain the willingness of International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists to make policy prescriptions through their ‘“one size fits all” approach’, because they believed in their methods (Stiglitz 2002:34-35).

For Foucault there is an issue with this neutral status of knowledge, ‘power and knowledge directly imply one another’ (Foucault 1979:27), concerning actors, ‘it is transmitted by them and through them; it exerts pressure upon them’ (Foucault 1979:27).

Mcnay (1994:99) clarifies this articulation of biopower, the power/knowledge relationship as it is channelled through bodies ‘is fundamentally normalizing and regulatory’. For instance, the United Kingdom is both a subject and advocate of human rights regimes, for one of many examples of this see the European Human Rights convention (European Court of Human Rights 2010). Another example resides in the insight of Stiglitz (2002:34) and the discourses mobilizing the IMF’s ‘lack of detailed knowledge’ in making policy, mentioned in the previous paragraph. The relevance of believing these discursive regimes was recognised by Foucault, saying, ‘even the word of the law could no longer be authorised…except by a discourse of truth’ (trans. of Foucault 1979, by R. Young 1981:55 cited in Mcnay 1994:86). The belief in a discourse and its normality is an important dimension to knowledge, both legitimating and maintaining the power in knowledge mobilization and the social regulation of subjects in the wider context of international relations. This would suggest no ‘distribution of knowledge’ or ‘identity’ is neutral but is the product and the producer of ideational power relations. The importance of this power/knowledge relationship in conjunction with its normalizing and regulatory function becomes apparent when we consider the restriction of ontology on epistemology.

When actors talk, they wish their language reflects actual material reality (The Real). This seems an almost commonsensical notion, we want to describe what we see and what we feel, etcetera. We can only do this, however, through systems of signification and are ultimately torn from the Real by our inability to experience it before signification. There is a drive, Lacanian Desire, in that systems of signification are repeated ‘attempts to colonize and domesticate the real with reality, to represent the real in discourse’ (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:205). If the real is an objective state that we attempt to conceive of subjectively, through language, then all reality construction involves reifying categories for the purpose of truth, to somehow make it fit. However, truth and language are entangled by ontology and it is the structure of the discursive system that limits what we communicate, think and know. As Glynos puts it, there is an ‘epistemological barrier’ but ‘this barrier is ontologically constitutive’ (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:204). As an example of this we could understand the conflict between the West and Islamic fundamentalists as a conflict of ontology/reality. After all, freedom is closely associated, if not synonymous, with democracy and markets (for a view that propounds this explicitly, see, Fukuyama 1992), but for Sayyid Qutb democratic freedom is a ‘servitude of servants’ (Bergesen 2008:23). Ontology has the ‘potential for an infinite production of meaning’ (Mcnay 1994:86), allowing it to constitute new knowledge and practice. The validity of knowledge would be exclusive to reality rather than to the Real, it can only be verified with reference to many other signifiers. So, with the Real and reality as ‘axiomatically unbridgeable’ states (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:205) reality construction becomes an a priori power relation. Thus, it makes sense to omit a line from Barthes that reads ‘in the present state of history…’, and instead only acknowledge that: ‘all political writing can only confirm a police-universe, just as all intellectual writing can only produce para-literature which does not dare…tell its name’ (Barthes quoted in Marcuse 1964:84). This lays the foundations for considering language as the site of hegemony, ideology and struggle.

Hegemony, for this essay, is the state of fixed meaning in its totality, an ontological consensus, or ‘an exhaustive representation’ (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:204) but as has been discussed, we cannot know the Real, only attempt to make sense of it through signification. It is because ‘discourse is in a constant state of tension’ (Glnos & Stavrakakis 2004:204) by virtue of its impossibility ‘to reach an exhaustive representation of the world’ (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:204) that the concept of hegemony is more a theoretical potential, or ontological mistake, there is not and never will be total consensus. If this is true, ideology should be the analytical level where the centrifugal state of hegemony is played out. Ideology is a system of ideas with some semblance of semiotic closure, thus we can attribute the concept of knowledge an ideological flavour. It has the effect of ‘fixing the… process of signification’ (Eagleton 1991:196), but still, with recourse to the ‘unbridgeable’ Real (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:205), ‘ideology is always a field of struggle’ (Zizek 2009:37). Examples of this have already been given: IMF policy, European human rights and democratic freedom; these are all ideological constructions, none have total consensus. Our drive to ‘colonize and domesticate the real with reality’ (Glynos & Stavrakakis 2004:205), becomes the practice of ‘hegemonization’: an attempt to ‘fix the meaning of social relations’ (Critchely 2004:113) through language. The drive towards semiotic ‘closure’ (Eagleton 1991:196), is therefore inscribed into the logics of language. An interesting parallel exists with Marcuse’s operationalization: ‘to make the concept synonymous with the…operations’ (1964:86) for the effect that ‘thought is stopped at barriers which appear as the limits of Reason itself’ (1964:14). Thus ideology as a state of fixed meaning has the effect of abridging other meanings and ways of thinking. (One should self-consciously refer back to the divergence of ontology between Qutb and Fukuyama.) Humorously, UK national security strategy highlights ‘ideology as a driver of instability’ best tackled by a commitment to promote ‘justice, tolerance and the rule of law’ (Cabinet Office 2009:13) while they, the UK government are an open champion of the ‘liberal, market-oriented vision of a free society’ (Cabinet Office 2009:8). Indeed, the ‘denial of ideology only provides the ultimate proof that we are more than ever embedded in ideology’ and that as ‘ideology is blind’ (Zizek 2009:37) -ontologically, of any other reality- so too is knowledge blind. This has strong implications for language, and international relations, if is to be meaningful, language must have some semiotic closure, thus reality (the linguistic construction of the real) is an ideological construction. The closure in this essay therefore implicates the role of language as necessarily ideological, exclusionary, regulative and thought-abridging. In international relations, the question becomes magnified. It is not, where is ideology, or, what is ideology, but, which ideology? What is excluded; what regimes are upon our bodies; what thoughts are omitted?

In conclusion and tracing the argument, the system of language aptly accounts for our cultural proclivities, providing a foundation for our knowledge, which in turn provides an identity that is acted upon. Belief in this knowledge is an important dimension, and through the power/knowledge relationship we see how language has a regulative function on the body, but also, that identity and knowledge are not neutral. This point is reinforced when we consider how language cannot reflect the Real, but must constitute itself a reality through which it perceives the Real. This brings us to the relevance of ontology on our knowledge claims, and we see, due to the separation of the Real from reality, ontology defines the extent and validity of what we can know. With these points in mind, language and representation in international relations must construct itself with some closure to be communicative; the effect is that reality construction is ideological and so necessarily regulative, exclusionary and thought-abridging.

Word Count: 1555

The references will follow.

However let me take a moment to continue. This essay is essentially asking us to forgive our constant fear of 'ideology' and accept that ideology is the very basis for reality construction - to be, is to be: ideological. We cannot stray far from that, this is the very logic of langauge. However, contentions do exist for me.

The essay treats humans as merely textual objects, caught up in a web of signification, willing to signify. Yet this very approach, that ontology defines epistemology, is a false dichotomy - if Derrida taught us anything, it is suspision of binary opposites; who serve to obfuscate thinking. Epistemolgy, our knowledge is certainly largely down to ontology (our symbolic categories - if you will) yet it misses the very state of humans - we are not pure textual beings. We have a rich adaptive history in biology and neurology that suggests more than text. Additionally, look to animals who differetiate between objects in the Lacanian real. How is it that this is done? We are forced to contemplate them having a textual base, or that there is something more. I have no concluding thoughts yet.

When we mix these two ideas, the neccessity of ideology in reality and the potential for a non-textual (perhaps neuro-biological) infuence, then the questions remains whether an ideology can have positive effects on the human condition, something akin to the ideas of Liberal thought, or the Hegelian master/slave dialectic. And what of the laws of thermodynamics, for there is much evidence that even in signification, that things tend towards entropy (chaos/disorder) - does this make us all the hegemon!? Perhaps we shall fixate ourselves with these 'progressive' ideas of 'purpose' and nobility, or we admit that living life 'confirms a police-universe'. Which police-universe, then, should we allow? And how can we answer, considering any attempt to give one will be reliant on our current normative concepts and ideas, it will be constructed from our already active ideas of truth, justice and right and wrong. Thus, we judge our future through thier past, and it is difficult to do otherwise.

References:

Bergesen, A. J. The Sayyid Qutb Reader, selected writings on politics religion and society, 2008, UK, Routledge

Cabinet Office (2009) The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: update 2009, Security for the next generation, Available at,

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm75/7590/7590.pdf (Accessed: 21/02/2011, 12:00)

Critchley, S. (2004) ‘Is there a normative deficit in the theory of hegemony’, in Critchley, S & Marchart, O. (eds) Laclau: a critical reader, New York, Routledge, pp. 113-123

Eagleton, T. (1991) Ideology: an introduction, Finland, Verso

European Court of Human Rights (2010) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Available at, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf (Accessed: 29/01/2011 15:00)

Foucault, M. (1975), Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, trans by, Alan Sheridan (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, UK, Peregrine Books

Foucault, M. (1981) The order of discourse, trans. of ‘L’ordre du discourse’ (1979) by Young, R. in, Mcnay, L. (1994) ‘Foucault: A Critical Introduction’, Cornwall, Polity Press

Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, England, Penguin books

Glynos & Stavrakakis (2004) ‘Encounters of the real kind: sussing out the limits of Laclau’s embrace of Lacan’, in Critchley, S & Marchart, O. (eds), Laclau: a critical reader, New York, Routledge, pp. 201-217

Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man, Reading, ARK

Mcnay, L. (1994) Foucault: A Critical Introduction, Cornwall, Polity Press

Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its discontents, Great Britain, Penguin Books

Wendt, A. (1999) Social theory of international politics, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press

Zizek, S. (2009) First as tragedy then as farce, US, Verso

On Reading

2010-09-06T17:03:00.000-07:00

This is a small note on my experience of reading.

No matter what i read, I'll gain some sense of it. Even if this "sense" is not in the spirit of what is written, what the author intends. The open ended nature of textual discourse, -the phenomenon of the subjective- means that no matter what is read it is full of meanings- intended or not. I read passages and even when i don't understand, the thoughts that come of it are meaningful, they lead on into different thoughts and etcetera. Much of the breadth that occurs in reading is this phenomena.

This is more obvious, and intended, in some respects, with fiction. However, for non-fiction the experience is the same. If you read, and you don't understand, the thought processes that ensue are as valuable as the intended meaning of what is written.

That is all i have to say.

On the End of Capitalism (and Humanity)

2010-08-20T08:03:00.000-07:00

This post is intended to point out what seems to me to be an obvious yet highly unknown fact. Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself. As a Marxist I am inclined to argue that this will be done via revolutionary uprising by the Working Class. However, I believe this is one of only a few scenarios that may bring about an end to Capitalism. I will now discuss what I believe to be the next most likely cause to the end of Capitalism.

The Environment! Of all the stupidity and ignorance that exists within this system is the pure fact that it is damaging the environment and therefore us! Most disregard Global Warming, Climate Change and Pollution as I quote 'a conspiracy of the Left'. Granted this was said by Nick Griffin (leader of the far right British National Party), which for obvious reasons should not really be considered in any worthwhile argument. However the apparent lack of response to the environment issue (I.e. most recently the absolute failure of the Copenhagen Conference) from major countries such as USA and China or even the ever rising power block that is the EU.

Are we so ignorant enough to the scientific facts which I know are disputed by many to not understand that destroying out planet means we will inevitably destroy ourselves. Just because the causes of the rise in carbon dioxide levels are disputed, does not mean its not happening. We are with out a doubt polluting the Earth's Ozone Layer, which is letting in more rays of sunlight, which is warming up the planet. This in turn is causing the Ice caps to melt which is making the oceans have less salt water and more fresh water. This effects the temperature and current of the oceans which completely obstructs the Earths Eco systems. They can become hotter or colder, cause either a Minni Ice Age or mass droughts and ever expanding deserts as James Lovelock argues in his book 'The Revenge of Gaia'.

So how you may ask will this lead to an end to Capitalism. Its simple, messing around with our Eco systems will lead to problems with our food supplies. Which means less food for humanity, which means a lot of humans will die (as there are now in places like Africa but starvation will become a global phenomena). This would inevitably lead to a breakdown in society, I.e. War over the last of the Earths resources, mass riots, social collapse and eventually the collapse of civilisation as we know it. (Obviously there are other examples of the sort of consequences that are envisaged by scientists). Hence the collapse of Capitalism and quite possibly the end of Humanity. But don't worry this is just left wing propaganda created by the poor to scare the rich into giving up some of there money and change their lifestyle.

The Idea of an Alternative

2010-08-18T12:01:00.000-07:00

I’ve always flirted with the idea of existing in a totally new way. Zizek has pointed out that there is no real, visible alternative to global capitalism and that “There is a real possibility that the main victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself, insofar as its inability to offer a viable global alternative”. It is of huge importance that there is not a palpable opposition to capitalism. It is not as though the current framework for existence was planned with any precision; it is mostly arbitrary and damaging. So we can’t just sit here and assume that this is the way we should live, or that it can, “on its own” get better. But I don’t think there can be a unified response, a unified “viable global alternative”, a cogent agreement between strands of thought and people; there are disagreements at all levels.

I feel as some of these obstacles stem from the problem of language, that is, there is no necessary relationship between the words we use and the phenomena it describes- its truth. So we can say what we like, red is green, and nothing apart from reason (in this example) can tell the difference. The left, or whoever, can lay down their narratives on how to create the best society, and we are none the wiser that it’ll work, or that what they say describes reality at all. This is typically a problem for the Idea of communism- we’ll never know ‘till we try.

If we expand this idea, this “Problem of Language”, we get a much wider scope of the notion of cultural hegemony. The discourses that shape and weave our lives together are just one “package” (you could say) of a description of events and have no necessary correlation to what is going on. In this way we are blinded of the alternative version. For instance, gay marriage and Islamic law- one enables marriage as a viable option for two consenting couples, while Islamic Law rejects the notion of homosexuality. Cultural hegemony via the problem of language is manifested the discourses we use by virtue of their complete ignorance to truth. This means we don’t need some grand socio-political propaganda machine like the media, we are it. Not to play down the media’s role, after all they do a lot to sustain current discourses. It is from cultural hegemony that we should understand the prevalence of a lack of a "viable... alternative". And this plays out clearly when it concerns a unified response.

Another issue which in many ways is embedded in the problem of language but expresses itself differently, are the conceptions we have of the scope or area of change, or the institutions by which it could be precipitated or, in the more likely sense, negotiated. “The Government”, be it democratic or authoritarian is just one example of an idolized concept in politics and a failed institution to arbitrate national, regional and global politics. It some how, though, remains and would likely be the institution that would invoke this so called “viable global alternative” and it raises the issue of our inability to autonomously determine the answers to questions that tear at our most fundamental assumptions of how to conduct our political space or how to run an economy. Indeed, another example would be money, this concept, when articulating alternatives, is likely to embed itself as a useful part of our current framework. How would a unified response occur if the discourses used to construct such an alternative are flawed.

That which works to undermine our treasured discourses is sidelined or seldom even mentioned. There is a point where we can say that the lack of a "viable... alternative" is not so much sidelined or purposely not mentioned: there are to few alternative discourses to choose from in the public conciousness or space. This resonates the new-speak of 1984, how would one know they were oppressed if they had no concept or word for freedom. People don't have alternatives discourses at hand to re-evaluate their lives or the global political space. And therein lies the greater problem, the greatest barrier to change in a huge, revolutionary way, is our selves; not that we openly accept that or that we are conscious of it, or that we care.

As I said before, the hegemony we experience (the prevailing discourses we use to describe our reality) is subject to the Problem of language: no internal reference point for truth. Not only does this make the choice of discourse rather arbitrary, additionally, prevailing discourses, by virtue of them prevailing, sustain themselves in our use of them. This is a problem when we understand that the Viable Alternative must appear as a discourse, it must appear in public conciousness and fight to stay. When it appears, it will do so in an oppositional stance, on these terms how would a discourse sustain itself, if it speaks out and against our current framework from where does it receive it's strength?

It should be a huge concilation to many that despite these structural barriers i have listed we still have the idea of change- at least, some of us do. The agreement we should make is not the form of political organization that takes us away from capitalism, not the end result: after capitalism but the idea of change itself. The form of political organisation that precipitates "after" is one of many. As i have suggested, we cannot engineer a society because of the multiplicity of ideas but we can try to begin anew. This is not the end and not the best form of organization, but it's an attempt. It represents, in a very real way (although i'd like to say, symbolically) our self determination.

Here i am trying to reflect in simpler terms Zizeks notion of the Communist Idea- "one should 'begin from the beginning' not from the peak one may have successfully reached in the previous effort" echoing Lenin. Or, Badiou's Communist hypothesis; that we should "help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis come into being". Yet i would erase from this passage the words "communism" and read again. The "idea", the "hypothesis" is what we should hold onto and manifest into a locomotive for change.

If there is no possibility in a unified response, as i feel, then there semi autonomous groups attempting to carve out alternatives and we must wait for the "idea/hypothesis" some public consciousness, awareness and i hope a yearning, for change.

Capitalism: Murder, Slavery and Vandalism.

2010-07-15T15:44:00.000-07:00

I have a problem understanding the moral outrage at murder, slavery and vandalism- but the blindness to structural processes of capitalism. aka: what's pretty much built in. To not draw issue with these processes is typically picking and choosing what to care about and what to ignore. These processes influence, produce and regulate our actions.

The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?

The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.

Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.

The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)

By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.

I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.

Post-Capitalism

2010-07-12T01:10:00.000-07:00

Beyond Capitalism?
Could we exist in a world that had forgotten money? a world where value takes on a role only as a reference to a specific cultural conception, specific, again, in history? or a world, at least, which has chosen to organise itself. (so unlike the world today).
It could happen several ways. I mean, we could always choose to exist on a relational level other than via a transactional network of inherently unequal relations - it would however require the equal consent of the many land owners and engineers (etc) to happen. Or we can pay for this form of organisation (painfully, at that) by setting up sustainable infrastructure but, again, developing a set of relational networks that do not use money is required.

The trick to post capitalism, that is, the trick to achieve it, is rather relieving in simplicity. The current profit motive provides an ample framework for people to be driven ; the same way we are driven to work everyday - for MONEY, to want a post capital order. To have low costs on the essentials of life is to free people from work.
If governments, or the private sector can provide key aspects of existence for next to no cost the goal is in sight. Housing, water and food are the most important parts of this, to provide these next to cost is integral to a way of achieving post capitalism. None, in their current dimension are adequate, the housing market, for instance, is subject to rent seeking and more importantly, the current architectural design and environmental relationship is flawed. I.e. housing is monolithic, expensive, inappropriate. Really, it does not reflect the mobile and communitarian nature of people. Food is centralised, subsidised, and prosthetic. It needs to be grown and sustained and reproduced (in excess) by people on a decentralised basis. etcetcetcetc.
The idea is to make the fundamentals of existence replicable via social, rather than capitalist means.

There is no inherent reason why this has not been achieved. What barriers are there to this? I do not take answers such as labelling essential ideas of humans, i.e. we are greedy/stupid. It is apparent, and we can reconfigure this many times in different ways, that social existence can be and could be constructed in many different ways. Our social practises can be reconstructed at any moment. We are not subject to them, they are subject to us.
Apparently this is not so.
When the Banks failed, we bailed them out. For some reason no one was patiently sat there, waiting, poised, a symbol reflecting that repetitious volatility of capitalism and our self awareness of that fact. No one, for some obscene reason, was ready. But when they failed a "select group of people", because "we" certain didn't, poured lots of public ("our") money "saving" the banks. This was done to "save us" from the economy.
now why not just say, "oh." We have a system that we have little, passive, control over. We don't control our productivity, it does. (note the job losses and lower company profits since the meltdown) Our life, the apparent stability of it, is reliant on the economy being stable. NOW WHY DO WE DELEGATE THE POWER TO HAVE A STABLE LIFE INTO DISEMBODIED, UNSTABLE "ECONOMY".

It is an interesting state of affairs that we have the communication to achieve the post capitalist end... but don't.
I hope this post draws attention to the aims of post capitalism, the relative ease (in theory, apparently) of achieving it; the reconfigurable nature of social relations; the happy connection between the profit motive and it's stimulation of post capitalism (namely, that people want to avoid spending money); and the redundancy of now.

Capitalism and Freedom

2010-07-07T06:56:00.000-07:00

There is little connection, if any, to these two words acting as a title. Capitalism, does not necessitate, freedom. Both Fukuyama and Milton Friedman figured that capitalist markets are the purest expression of freedom - at least, as far as we can deduce. Friedman for his defence of a free market in promoting freedom, and Fukuyama for a market as an End State to humanity.

I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.

When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.

One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.

This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.

We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.

It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.

In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.

My analysis of football (on wine)

2010-06-26T14:51:00.000-07:00

A terrible travesty, if there ever was one, to have burdened the earth and poisoned our minds... Unlike wine.

I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."

then i giggled...

Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.

Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:

1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.

2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.

i wish it did.

3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.

4. It's boring.

i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just

GET OVER IT.

the wineage is calling.

Language and educational performance.

2010-06-11T06:45:00.001-07:00

I almost misspelt and published "performance" missing the N. We'd have a case of perfor-mace, like i could spray it in your eyes and, yes, i do believe you performance would be lowered. Sadly this post is not about macing people, although i think that might a be a fun topic.

This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.

A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.

i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.

Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.

Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.

But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.

Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.

But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.

A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.

Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.

The Eras of History

2010-06-08T02:13:00.000-07:00

The aim of this blog is to give people a better understanding of what it is historians actually do and how varied their area of study can be. It is also worth noting that its not just era historians tend to specialise in but also geography, historical school (historiography) and the type of history as well. For example I would class myself as a Late Modern/Contemporary Marxist Historian of European Socio-Political History, with a main focus on Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I also often look into the 'Great Man theory' of history. Indeed, a historian is very specific and never general about what he/she studies unless they work within the Annals School of history.

Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age

- Bronze Age

- Iron Age

Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.

Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:

- Ancient Egypt

- Ancient Rome

- Ancient Greece

- Persian Empire

and many others.

Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:

- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)

- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad

- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)

Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:

- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)

- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)

- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)

Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.

Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.

The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.

Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.

- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.

Competitative Markets, A Fault In Design?

2010-06-07T10:58:00.000-07:00

This idea is not mine and although i haven't read any literature about it, no doubt someone has been able to illustrate this faaaaar clearer than me:

In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.

This was a Facebook post.

The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.

Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.

You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.

Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!

Why?

People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.

In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.

An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).

Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.

The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.

The status quo is an IQ near 100.

A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).

And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.

The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.

Not really a good thing.

Historical Periodisation (the events that lead to the next stage)

2010-05-20T04:27:00.000-07:00

The aim of this blog is to present the Marxist theory on history up until the present day. I will not go beyond Capitalism because the next epoch is yet to happen and history is not about predicition. It is about facts and how we analyse and speculate these facts.

The current identified epochs of history within the Marxist framework are:

Primitive Communism: Humanity organised itself into tribes. At roughly 10 000 BC mankind experiences the agricultural revolution. Somewhere between 10 000 BC and 5500 BC private property and urban societies begin to emerge. From here the first Human civilisation begins to emerge. We know it as Mesopotamia. Thus begins the period of the slave society.

Slave Society: This period begins with the emergence of Mesopotamia. From here other civilisations emerge. Most notably Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. (Others include the ancient civilisations of South America and Asia.) Between 320 ad and 340 ad Rome coverts to Christianity. Thus begins the period of Feudalism.

Feudalism: With the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire, Smaller Kingdoms begin to fill the power vacuum. Landowners or the Aristocracy own the means of production, which in Federalism are farms, which is known as an agrarian economy. With the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of the 'Merchant Classes' the economy began to change into a consumer society and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution and this began Capitalism.

Capitalism: With the emergence of the merchant class, so consumerism began to emerge in society. With increase in demand, new methods of production were required. (there was an increase in demand because of the Black Death which killed half of the British population. As a result of this the Aristocracy no longer had a hold over the peasants. This was because with so few labourers peasants began to charge a lot of money for their services. As a result of this the market for consumer goods grew exponentially). The Capitalist classes begin to emerge. The Aristocracy begin to lose power and therefore fight for it. This leads to the English Civil War. Capitalist's back the Parliamentarians and the Aristocracy back the Royalists. Parliament wins and so does Capitalism over Feudalism. The Industrial Revolution begins and the Aristocracy is slowly wiped out and the Working class begins to emerge.

Who knows whats next? There are many theories and this one is the Marxist one. However as this blog is not about Marxism in general I will no go into predictions as I only wish to present the current social epochs of history.

Alternative business models for the media industry?

2010-05-18T05:27:00.001-07:00

With the rise of p2p networking, pirate bay, bit torrent, the media industry fears a loss of profits. The old business model of making films, music and ideas scarce is coming to a CLOSE.

So what next?

I don't pretend to be an entrapeneur or any good at "business", but i have a few ideas. Although some stand alone, or are incompatable with eachother, some go together. (such as sponsorship/advertising with all of them)

I like the idea of using public viewing arenas, open areas with a viewing screen to attract people. Such an event would be ample to gain recognition for creativity, sell merchanidise, advertise and perhaps have pay per...something. The reason this would be useful, hopefully, is the quality of service. For instance where a good film exists, it is usually made better by good audio/visual equipment: best found at the venue.

An advertising model has already been discussed. It may also include (rather than just advertising) the use of codes for consumers to get discount, which also gains the venue (where the consumer recieved the code) income from the advertiser.

Generating an emphsis on public sponsorship of the events and advertisers is also important.

I think an awesome idea, you might disagree, is actors doing re dramatizations of films, either in a lower budget or through a play. Essentially inverting the original format for something different.

For muscicians i believe the best model, and i think it's used. Is to link the conciouness of social networking with live gigs. In short, play where you are wanted. The same could work for film. This has a greater chance of being a good investment due to the receptivness and personal input of the consumer/audience, you are more likley to have people buy merchandise and sponsor.

With the gaming industry, which is growing ridiculously fast, open sourcing their codes is the best way to get the most out of games. Indeed, i actually believe that open sourcing gaming will make the medium far more powerful and innovative. (hah, and cheaper)

When it comes down to it, media is social so we should tune into that.

Anarchist Communism (an attempted theory to unify the Far Left in a response to Capitalism)

2010-05-12T14:46:00.000-07:00

This is a response to KC's blog on how there can not be a 'viable alternative to global capitalism'. I say there can! The problem is everyone wants there alternative to be perfect. This is indeed impossible, there has to be a compromise. If the Far Left unify then Capitalism can at last have a viable alternative. (I use the term far left because the left I.e. Social Democracy, Social Liberalism, Centrism etc, seeks to exist alongside capitalism. This isn't an answer to Capitalism! The only acceptable alternative can be the complete abolition of Capitalism.)

The aim of this blog is to not offer a a unified response from the Far Left with out any faults, indeed this would be impossible. The aim is to provide a foundation which can be built upon in order to establish an effective response and replacement to Capitalism. As a Marxist this seems like a good place to start.

Anarchist Communism is the theory that argues for the abolition of the state, private property and Capitalism. It is in favour of; common ownership of the means of production, a horizontal network of voluntary associations and 'workers councils'. It also argues for direct democracy.

It therefore envisions a society that is; democratic, has no state, common ownership of the means of production, and that there is no hierarchy as everyone is equal and at the same level of society. It is a stateless, classes, and equal society, with decisions made directly by the people who either operate independently or belong to voluntary associations such as small communities.

The way it is envisaged for this society to come about is via violent revolution. It has been argued that this would be achieved by people organising themselves into their own revolutionary movements that is equally controlled by everyone in them. These groups would eventually unify internationally (into a united international working class) and bring about the long needed revolution.

Society and everyone one in it will thus become free and see the end of Capitalism.

There are however some problems with this theory. The first is that without a state there can be no law and no law enforcement. That is why there would still be some sort of authority in place. An Open Sourced Network would be at the heart of this society. This Network would be controlled only by the people using a direct democratic system. This system would only have power over those who wished to be apart of it. Anyone who was part of it would also be able to leave it at anytime. This system would therefore act as a safe barrier from criminals such as rapists and murderers. It would also stop one community violently invading another to try and form a new state or expand its power by exploiting others. This system would also ensure that capitalism could not return.

The second problem would be the situation where there was a lack of work done by the people. That is why this society would be better suited in a more advanced era were automation was common and self sustaining. This would mean that jobs such as frequent maintenance to public works were constantly being done by machines.

The network would also aid in gathering hands for projects such as the maintenance of infrastructure such as the building of new transport systems. For example a commune who wished to develop a transport system would request help on the OSN. It can be assumed that engineers, planners etc and labour forces would aid in doing this as they to would require benefit from a transport system. They would also benefit helping others as others would then be more likely to aid them. For example if an engineer required food, or housing, the commune he/she was helping could provide this. In organising this it would most likely be the Trade Unions and/or Workers Councils as in this society, organised labour would be at the heart of everything. This sort of arrangement would also be much easier in an advanced automated, self sustaining society.

Communities would also likely have their own local laws which if anyone did not agree with they could leave the community. The open source network would in theory be the closest thing to a world government with which participation was voluntary. The open sourced network would also likely only allow laws to be made that were aimed at preventing people from harming each other. The OSN would also play a role in monitoring and regulating welfare services such as health care and energy demand. Again however in a more automated society this to would have little problems as machines would have access to all of humanities information via the Internet and could be programmed to function in a way that responded to the needs of the people.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of Anarchist Communism is its ability to get rid of Capitalism. By this it is meant that Communists (be they Marxist or other) should ally with the Anarchists across the world in order to work together in bringing about revolution. After all the both Communists and Anarchists have similar ends which allows them to achieve their goals with out opposing each others ideologies. It therefore seems that the choice is either wait for society to become more technologically advanced and be highly automated and abolish the state quickly through a quick spontaneous revolution or for the entire working class of the world to unite and implement an organised revolution and enter into the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In doing this the ruling working class can place focus on creating this; technologically advanced, automated society more quickly and then abolish the state, thus entering into Communism and also allowing Anarchist to implement their form of society within their own independent communes.
The other possibility would be for the Anarchists and the Communists to have mutually agreed to not interfere with each other and agree to revolt using revolutionary methods at the same time and once Capitalism is overthrown negotiate on achieving the end by compromising on the means of achieving this end. It does therefore seem that the only way revolution could be successful would be a joint attack from Anarchist Insurrectionary forces (using methods proposed in the coming insurrection) and mobilising Communist labour organisations (such as Trade Unions and Workers Councils) (as stated in the Communist Manifesto) and also using Leninist Revolutionary Vanguard Political Parties to seize power. After all there is strength in numbers.

I am aware that some groups of Anarchists and Communist would find it difficult to work together as certain aspects of the two ideologies oppose each other. This is why a compromise would need to be met as unless the Far Left unite then Capitalism will forever remain. This is due to the fact that at present, there appears to be no agreeable alternative to Capitalism.

In the words of Otto Von Bismarck 'Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!'

Note: It must be noted that while most of these theories tend to be Communist answers, Anarchist still have a place within this society. This is due to the fact that everyone is free to live apart from the system, which means Anarchist could live within their own communes and be left alone by the Communists and live in a way that is acceptable to their ideology.

Again, it must be stressed that for those that disagreed with the Communist way of living (such as the examples given earlier) would also be free to live in a way they see fit. However the biggest problem would be when two communes came into conflict with each other. I.e. claim over land or resources. The problem would be the same problem we have now with the Nation States that exist now, there would be war. To avoid this, the OSN would be used to mobilise a peacekeeping force. This 'armed force' could be used to prevent conflicts between communes or prevent a commune from turning into a nation state. This sounds impractical, however it does work as this method was successfully used by the Spanish Republic and its supporting factions during the Spanish Civil War. All communes would be free from all laws set down by the OSN (with the exception of people not being able to harm one another or claim authority over one another). Again to many this would sound impractical, but it was done with a degree of success by the Spanish. It only failed because other Nation States existed and the Spanish Republic received little help from the outside world in dealing with the Fascists (who had help from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). It therefore leads me to conclude that in order for Communism and Anarchism to work, the effect would have to be global and be monitored by a minimal 'Nightwatchmen State' (the OSN) in order to be protected.

An immature experience of Zen.

2010-04-06T22:14:00.001-07:00

I don't want this to come off as religious. i use the word zen because i was reading koans before i thought of writing this.

The Idea is to disregard everything. Just for a moment, but seriously and honestly. A thought might not just cut it. It requires us to completely let go of the floor we are sitting on.

I mean, honestly, you're sitting on it, but what does that mean? to what point does it satisfy to consider it.
at what point does it satisfy to consider anything. Really, why is it so necessary?

We can either reject reality. or accept it. It really makes no odds.

If we do, then what, the world is in your head.

If we don't and this means accepting investigations into reality such as physics or biology, then a world is out that we are in.

It really does not matter. Nor does my correctness to that situation.

We all talk about the things "here", about all the "stuff" - Eastenders, Easter, cornflakes and politics.
But it's really all of the "things". There is nothing, essentially, we made these ideas and these arguments. We constructed the dress code and the etiquette, we built the "nation" and the connotations of colour.
We act around each other, along with our beliefs in these odd "things". This is what we do, and we do it all the time.

Through time, whole peoples have not forgotten them. It's managed to spawn religions, beliefs, tribalism, South Park and Dorritos.

Forget it. There's just you and me.
We are pretty much all there is.
We've got to put behind us the ways that we think just to recognise this.
If we did recognise each other -and just that brute fact- we would be able to accomplish so much more.

Think before you see, before you feel - think before you think.

2010-04-03T04:05:00.001-07:00

We're all doing it. We've done it for millennia.
We speak it, we act it, we live by it, in it, through it.

We can't help thinking like we do.

We build and construct, ideas, notions and feelings.

We see the world by them, and never without.

It's trapping us in a tiny box. It obscures what we can think about things.
Why do we need some starting point for thought, some framework of discourse?
Why does it take a set of preconceived ideas just to put the kettle on?

More importantly, why does it need those preconceived ideas just to say we should love each other?

Don't you want to shout. To scream. Say "STOP". And have it stop. To have it cease.

To see the world as it is, not as it should be, as it could be, as it will be, as it has been.
To see the world for what it is. To see it how it is.

Crystallize the world as though through a prism and we can all angles.

But it won't. It will not stop.

Everything here happens so fast. If you don't stop, it's not that you'll miss it, you will miss what we are all missing.

The Rhetoric of democracy

2010-03-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

i wrote this for politics magazine, but they rejected/ignored my request to write for them.

The Rhetoric of democracy

It seems quite right that after the last few, and I say few, I mean long, years of political stagnation that our major broadcasters propose live debates as seen in the US presidential run-up. The conservatives and the liberal democrats seem all up for the fight, but Gordon is holding back, causing some strife for labour and political ammunition for the opposition. The debates are a move that would allows us to see up close the views of each leader.

The face off we see at prime ministers question times is an old joke, Gordon and Cameron a swords length apart; supported by their party with bouts of laughter, pointing fingers and waving papers, all red-faced, suit-clad politicians. It is defence and parry, block and retaliate. But the whole act seems without prestige, without the greatness and popularity of presidential debates.

The opportunity here is obvious; with decline of voter turnout political parties finally have the opportunity to revamp their electorate, to ignite another flame like the near 85% turnout of the 50’s. Questions that have been avoided find a new place under the burning spotlight and piercing camera. People can ask: Will you implement electoral reform? How are you tackling the economy? And what is your position on foreign affairs, Iran and so forth.

Mr Brown’s shunning of televised debates is likely a political move seeing he is at a low in some opinion polls. Gordon thinks this means he is somehow impaired [insert reference to one eye here]. The voice in his head must be telling him the nation would be laughing at him. As of Cameron and Nick Clegg, David is on a high and wants use this advantage to snatch the polls up. It’s a win-win for him, if Brown goes in David will demolish him (as he does at question time) if he doesn’t then he’ll chide him (as usual). Clegg is likely seeing an opening where he can voice himself and show he is a valid party leader worth voting for.

The debates would manifest a new dimension to British politics, the air of accountability, scrutiny and democracy. But at what cost? I’d say rhetoric and superficiality. The winner of the debates will be the best speaker not the best politician, the person who can be ambiguous but seem precise, the person who can make a fool of the other, the best presented and most well spoken. Obviously this strikes Gordon right off the list and places Cameron on a pedestal; he is a very powerful debater against the government at question time. Not to mention the amount of ammo that an incoming leader would have: thirteen years of New Labour initiatives to ridicule. The next general election win seems more like a default than a choice.

is this a truthful doctrine?

2010-03-29T11:15:00.000-07:00

All social phenomena are a product of:

A= A persons existence (1)

B= Their environment (2)

(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*

*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.

Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,

It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:

X .a person’s perception of their existence within the environment

And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X

X. Social phenomena

Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.

This is my doctrine of existence.

The problem is that social phenomena (X) do not refer to themselves as subjective accounts. This difficulty is language, our perception (X) of reality doesn’t suggest subjectivity and thus our language doesn’t make that discrepancy. Language thus has no self referential gauge that points to words or ideas and indicates their validity to reality.

The outcome of this state of affairs, as our social evolution has progressed, is that our social phenomenon, our structures of organisation, morality and language do not take into account their foundations (A, B, X) and therefore their ultimately, restricted relationship with regards to actual reality.

It is as though progress has thought that there is an A and there is a B. The existence of X is negligible. Or we could say, and then a single perception (X) and it (X) is right. X somehow reflects some objective and tangible ideology or claim to truth.

The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.

It is essential that our accounts of reality (X) assert themselves as subjective accounts in B.

Foucault's bio power

2010-03-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Foucault writes of the “soul” as a reality which transcends the impermanent body. The body is subject to devises of power which target the soul as static state of being in one body to the next. This is bio power.

The reason for this, Foucault writes, is because:

“it is produced permanently around, on, within the body by the functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished…on those one supervises, trains and corrects,” and goes onto say “…the historical reality of this soul, which unlike the soul represented in Christian theology, is not born into sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision and constraint…it is the element in… effects of a certain type of power and the reference of a certain type of knowledge, the machinery by which the power relations give rise to a possible corpus of knowledge… on this reality reference, various concepts have been constructed and domains of analysis carved out: psyche, subjectivity, personality consciousness etc.”

The soul is focused on bodies, producing a self

“But let there be no misunderstanding: it is not that a real man, the object of knowledge… has been substituted for the soul…a ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him into existence”

Artefacts of bio power exist in the conditioning of the “self”, the “soul”, in social relations because of the machinery of power focusing on the soul. We as these permanent “selves” and permanent “identities” are solidified in time. Our whole social structures are base on constructed contracts of being and how we should be.

In example:

The contract of “friendship” assumes certain parameters of action which delineate the scope of action. “One”, that permanent “self”, must respect them, be a subject to them. He should not lie, under the assumption of the construction of honesty, which was agreed in this vice of “friendship”. We reproduce the same social relation again and again.

The teacher as a “teacher” assumes the “pupil” wants to learn while the pupil as a “pupil” is assumed to want to learn. The relationship is finite focusing on the self as a static identity. The whole education system lines up bodies and treats them the same, as though we had a soul.

We will continue to do this by our expansion of knowledge, of power. I feel as though this relates to my truth doctrine. It is not as though we have some real gauge of morality or of right, nor does our language even grasp reality. Any attempt at such a project leads to more canons of bio power constraining us, the doctrine shows that much.

Quotes taken from: Foucault Discipline and punish - the birth of prisons PG: 29-30

Is God worthy of worship?

2010-03-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting question.

If someone believes god exists, surely they would conclude that god is not worthy of worship.
The gap between the way the world could be as opposed to how it is, is vast. Assuming that world is better than this world.

I'd conclude no.

A thought on ethical language

2010-02-12T11:53:00.000-08:00

I'd say ethical language is a complete accident.
We are able to use the words "right" and "wrong" in the sense of physical phenomena, whether relating to one another e.g. it is right that leaves come from trees/bushes etc. Or with objective observations- that when when you drop something gravity causes it to fall.

But the mistake is when we apply those words to concepts other than physical phenomena or objective observation.

Language has rules, but this distinction is not one of them.

Ethical language, therefore, will undoubtedly be a struggle of ideology.

This considered.

Culture, whether ours or others, is terribly blinding.

A FB convo on islam

2010-01-17T09:17:00.000-08:00

I think the UK gov't was wrong in not letting the danish MP show his documentary on Islam. The text is startling.The koran is the text to which it refers.

Her:

fuck islam! bunch o boming twats

6 hours ago ·

Me:

Not all muslims want to bomb people. don't be so narrow minded.
I'm going to show you here the issues.

Ireland for instance.
... See More
There are many groups who are considered terrorist all over the world. liberation army.. revoloutionary struggle.
mostly these are against capitalism, topdown organiszation, globalization (esp. corporate/economic)

Islam as a religion makes up just about a quarter of the worlds population & thier belief systems are very different.
Religion is the main issue, but it is very rooted in the culture, far more so than ours.

Plus mohammed as a prphet (unlike jesus) didn't teach us to be critical of law.
islam's laws thefore are considered tantamount to many muslims.

The other main issue comes from culture as well, look at what middle eastern countries have had to deal with over the last 100 years of foriegners declaring war and killing muslims... gulf, lebansese civil war invasion of iraq... and this is over the last 30 years... with constant western intervention.
aside from the military problems...there are economic issues
there have been repeated accusations of corporations taking advantage of lax social protection & exploiting the middle easts resources... which is thier main souce of natural wealth and what would allow them to become a power near ours (pending on how well they use it)

on top of that western banks have been imposing their will in forcing middle eastern countries to reform thier economies (FORCING)
E.G. on this sustainable economics website they point out:
"The World Banks and IMF’s interrelationship, financial opportunism, corporate mandate and US backing is best exemplified by their economic occupation of Iraq. Since the occupation began, Iraq’s entire economy has been fashioned by the IMF and World Bank to suit (mainly US) foreign investors and corporate interests."
source: http://www.stwr.org/imf-world-bank-trade/decommissioning-the-imf-world-bank-and-wto.html

Wake up and smell the hegemony.

We are manipulated and controlled by a predatory and ultimately destructive economy and a democracy with little real participation. (an oxymoron that is)

What is going on with terrorism is not so much justified... but understandable.
it represents a cry out for recognition that self determination is important.

Her:
yea i didnt read a word of that.
islam is a fucked up religion, they burn the women, the bomb every other fucker that dont agree with them, I hate them all and they get the fuck out of this country...

Me:

It sounds to me you'd rather be ignorant to save you narrow world-view.
>99% and above are not terrorists. Or misogynists to any reprehensible degree.

her:

yes i would rather be narrow minded than be on a plane with a paki and a big looking bag.

I think the issue of islam is much more complex than "a paki and a big looking bag" or "islam is a fucked up religion"

never mind.

I think the whole issue over in the middle east will really kick off soon.. maybe years though.

Xmas... nice.

2009-12-26T09:52:00.000-08:00

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.

More reasons to laugh at FarmVille or anti health reform astroturf

2009-12-20T09:12:00.001-08:00

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.

Did The Internet Cause The New Athiests?

2009-12-04T06:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Iran and the IAEA

2009-12-02T07:50:00.000-08:00

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).

Iran and its Nukes

2009-11-29T15:49:00.000-08:00

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.

... I don't know right now.

2009-11-28T13:30:00.000-08:00

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!

Examples: The Ethics Of Capital

2009-11-11T03:57:00.001-08:00

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?)

A li'l problem with the internet...

2009-11-08T08:01:00.000-08:00

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.

The Meaning Of Life - Condensed

2009-11-08T07:10:00.000-08:00

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.)

Quantum logic/ethics - a simplistic overview.

2009-11-07T17:59:00.000-08:00

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.

Quantum Mechanics and it's implications for logic: QM: Restating Relativistic logic

2009-11-05T05:02:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

Beware Social Networking!

2009-10-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

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 =)

Culture as a vacum.

2009-10-27T15:12:00.000-07:00

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.

The Omnipotence Of Capital: Godly Money

2009-10-23T07:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Musings in the Night.

2009-09-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

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.

A blog for my diagram!

2009-09-23T09:53:00.000-07:00

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.

The answer to human nature and the meaning of life.

2009-09-15T04:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Dearest Sprog.

2009-09-14T10:01:00.001-07:00

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.

FUCK the FACEBOOK FARMING FARMVILLE fuck.

2009-09-14T09:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Irreconcilable God.

2009-09-11T03:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Wow.

2009-09-07T15:44:00.001-07:00

Amen.

As featured in: http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/life-is-an-adventure/next?context=user

Our social vibe is not racist... It's race related.

2009-09-06T16:55:00.000-07:00

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 AM NOT YOUR FAN!!!1

2009-09-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

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.

Relativism and a slow changing world

2009-09-06T12:03:00.000-07:00

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.

God Exists?!!1

2009-08-28T18:17:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

My shame.

2009-08-27T14:09:00.000-07:00

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.

The Awesomeness of Spontaneity (and irony)

2009-08-25T17:07:00.001-07:00

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.

A lavish horde

2009-08-24T18:49:00.000-07:00

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.