7.28.2008

Sitting there, alone yet utterly accompanied, I wondered to myself if everyone ends up this way--ends up fractured, glued, crumbled, reformed--and how if they did, it isn't so bad--the process, that is. It's the difference between a painting and a mosaic. Or perhaps between a mosaic and a collage. Or perhaps between a collage and a montage.

Sitting there, eyeing her and him and her and him and her and him and her (and her eyeing him and him eyeing her), it never occurred to me that they were doing the same and that I was watching their doing the same just as they were watching my doing the same. And that's the theory of relativity he said--and that's the theory of co/rrelation I said.

Try to transgress it and you'll find yourself trying to transgress a paradigm of paradigms--an infinite regression. Try not to fight it--try to accept the situation--and there will be no need to transgress. How can you transgress what will cease to be?

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, " Francis Bacon said--the primacy of existence. The primacy of reality. The primacy of reason.

7.13.2008

broken570: ufos, aliens, all that crap. what do you think? do aliens exist? have they been studying us or flying around? what do we make of all the ufo sightings and such?

newmanMU:
I suppose it's a matter of credibility for me. It seems very possible to me that our universe contains intelligent life. (A near infinite amount of stars and planets, etc.) But it does not seem plausible to me that they would visit us on such secretive/quasi-freakin'-weird missions. So far, I haven't seen any--what I consider to be--credible evidence suggesting that aliens have visited us. But once an idea like that is planted in someone's head, there is a tendency to see every unexplained occurrence as a possible "UFO." I just want some credible evidence. I'm not inclined to believe in anything--God, aliens, "scrinnies," etc.--without some reasonable evidence.

broken570: certainly. how much research have you done on the subject though?

newmanMU: Granted, not a ton. I've watched some fun shows on the History Channel. And I'm certainly open to being persuaded--as I have already stated that I think it's possible.

broken570: sure, it just seems like recently i have seen a lot of freaky shit on the news and have watched some admittedly not credible videos on youtube
some history channel videos
and a lot of the stories collaborate surprisingly well

broken570: there was even a story in a newspaper from 1897 about the same kind of craft
seen in 2008

newmanMU: But think of how well the "lore" is ingrained in our psyche. Little gray men with big black eyes in a ship that can travel in an out of eye site without seconds. To me, it's like applying a Freudian analysis to a book. Sure, in RARE cases it could be valid, but often it's not...and when you turn down that road, it's nearly impossible to see it as anything else.

broken570: crashing...and a charred pilot that didn't seem human

broken570: sure, i'm aware of that, but i also realize that the folklore originates somewhere

newmanMU: Indeed. (That's another thing, by the way, that has always confused me. These super intelligent beings travel from God-know's-where to "podunk" Earth with this amazing technology then crash? That doesn't make a lot of sense.)

broken570: haha. it hit a windmill. it was flying too low, i guess?

newmanMU: Super space flight technology. Came in too low.

broken570: hahaha...hey, maybe they're ditzy

newmanMU: No instrument for that?

broken570: nope. they don't have windmills in space

newmanMU: Someone said to me: "Maybe they're sending their teenagers here to learn how to drive."

newmanMU: (But they must have....tall things.)

broken570: maybe not. haha

newmanMU: (They must understand the concept of don't hit shit with the car.)

broken570: maybe they are so cocky they think that can ram into our weak shit with their ships and send it flying, but then our sturdy windmills surprise them

newmanMU: Super awesome space travel technology. metals that can withstand speeds that we can't even comprehend. Stopped by a hippie windmill?

broken570: a hippie windmill FROM TEXAS

newmanMU: Who the hell are these people that they're thwarted by windmills? A race of Don Quixotes!?

broken570: so i realize there are many issues with just accepting the alien theory, but i'm curious what you think the explanations are

broken570: hahaha. i bet that was written as an allegory for aliens

7.06.2008

several things

Foremost, I never intended this blog to become a political forum, a daily rant session, or something other than an electronic space to sort through my various random thoughts--most of which make little sense without concretization and analysis. As of late, I've had several political or semi-political posts that I regret only because I use them (and I know I use them) to evade thoughts that I don't want to examine. (It's not that political affairs don't bother me. They just have a different place on my intellectual hierarchy.)

Nonetheless, that door (can of worms, hatch) has been opened and I feel compelled to respond accordingly--and those to whom I respond should feel open to responding accordingly, etc., etc., etc. My opening paragraph was not meant to imply that I want to stifle any current debates, but I don't want this writing space to become a solely political forum--which, I reiterate, has only happened because of me...I blame no one else.

Addressing the comments on the last post in chronological order:

looseyfur: I absolutely concede one of your points. I was out of line when I said, "I believe this." The implication of my statement was that I hold said belief on some emotional, irrational grounds supported only by a thin layer of pseudo-patriotism and blind faith. I would like to revise my statement as such: "I do not believe this. I know it. It is a fact just as A=A is a fact." Like you I am leery of faith-based belief. And when I said that I believed that statement to be truth, I did not mean "believe" as in "I believe in God." I meant it as in "I believe 2+2=4."

In the same way, the fact is not negated by people's refusal to believe it. Because families are not sitting around their dinner tables realizing they would be better off in America does not negate my statement. At one point in history, every person on the planet--sans one--believed (in the faith-based sense of the word) that the Earth was flat. Their belief did not make it so. Evasion of reality is not a negation of reality.

Similarly, I cannot support the claim that America is the only moral country in history without presenting an argument to prove it. Thousands of pages have been written on this topic and I would be remiss to think I could do justice to the arguments here. What I can do, though, is present on the most compelling points, in my opinion, and direct you to more detailed defenses here, here, and here--though I would venture to guess that the author's name alone will stop you from reading them (though it is only a guess...a belief, if you will, perpetuated by the fact that most everyone to whom I recommend her work scoffs at the idea of reading such a "fascist," "pseudo-philosopher").

The one argument I wish to present here is that America was the first country in the history of the world to be founded on a philosophy, a belief espoused first in the Declaration of Independence and again and again in several other documents--most notably our incredibly unique Constitution. That is all.

Finally, I want to address your comment that there seems to be nothing noble about capitalism. I find it interesting that you can think of nothing noble about an economic system which I consider to be the only noble economic system ever created. (Conversely, I cannot think of one noble thing about any other economic philosophy.) Every other economic philosophy in history has been based on the concept of altruism--which I discussed briefly in a previous post--an ideal which I consider to be one of the few roots of everything that is wrong with the world. (And when I speak of capitalism, I do not mean Enron-omics. I do not mean negotiating at the point of a gun. I do not mean theft. Theft is theft. Capitalism, by which I mean laissez-faire capitalism, is not theft. (And to say that laissez-faire capitalism is impossible because of "public goods" like roads, defense, etc. is to misunderstand the term.))

And, yes, people often misconstrue confidence for arrogance. Again, that doesn't mean they're right. One of my favorite quotes:

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." - from Demian by Hermann Hesse

Message me sometime. We'll video chat with our awesome Macs--brought to you by: Capitalism. ;)

broken570: We're not Rome, but we can have a similar fate if we're not careful.

I concede to you that, as we stray from our founding principles, we become weaker as a nation. I imagine, though, that we disagree on what those founding principles actually are. For instance, I would argue that as we become more and more socialist, wacko-environmentalist, and generally collectivist, our country--and, ultimately, the world--suffers. We used to have lots of great principles and beliefs. There used to be something called "the American dream." Very few people believe in it any more--not because it's not possible but because they've been told that hard work is no longer necessary for success: "The government will take care of you. Society will take care of you. Someone will take care of you. Under no circumstances should you ever be expected to take care of yourself."

One of the many other concepts we used to believe was that America was a melting pot, that we had a unique American culture based on the mixing of so many populations. But somewhere along the line the melting pot turned into a salad bowl and we were taught to "celebrate diversity," to "be multicultural" while simultaneously denouncing any action that separated us by the arbitrary boundaries of skin pigmentation--except affirmative action, that is. These are just two distinct examples, but I think you get my point.

Certainly, our country, as it was founded, was not perfect. And I'm certainly no reactionary--which most people believe is spelled "c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e." And I would never say that you, or anyone else, could not be happy living somewhere else. But I could not be happy any place else. The politics and philosophy of the rest of the world are such that, for me, the United States is the only country left that is good. No country can achieve perfection, in the normative sense, but this country has come closest.

The new Batman movies suck. Bring back Tim Burton.

Tim Burton '08.

"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival [...] Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind."

DTR

7.04.2008

"And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there."

Sometimes I wonder if the flag will still be there. Though I suppose an unfortunate percent of the country wouldn't mind. It's just a symbol of imperialistic oppression anyway.

"I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world."

I believe this.

7.02.2008

I'm pretty good at achieving things I should want. If only I could be as good at achieving things I do want.

(Insert tongue into cheek: And whose fault is it that I lack such abilities? I could blame my mother for faulty genes; my family for an imperfect nurturing environment; my community for not providing the needed "village"; my state for not providing more leadership programs; my government for not pumping more money into the nanny-state education system; my world for not uniting to save every child; evolution for "doing it wrong"; reality for not bending to my every whim; or God for creating imperfection in the first place. I could blame any/all of these people/things/deities. Right? Nothing could possibly be my own fault? No, surely not, no.)

"Know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

"Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality."

"Hypocrisy is the lens through which I view my life."