| [ | Links: | | |
Gates of Day Tarot
| ] |
| [ | Welcome to Bop Apocabbalahlypso | | |
| ] |
| [ | The Ramblings of an Eclectic Mongrel | | |
| ] |
|
|
| Anarchy! |
[Apr. 15th, 2012|03:33 pm] |
“Anarchy!”
This is something that I often mock-shout at my girlfriend, as she crosses Main Street in Oldtown Salinas against the red light. Traffic is one-way, and she usually does it only when there’s no traffic coming, so there’s little chance of being run over. On this occasion, however, it is my girlfriend mock-yelling at me as I cross Salinas Street at East San Luis against the red light. No traffic coming in any direction. It helps somewhat that Salinas Street is also one-way, in the opposite direction of Main, a block over.
The incident sparks a conversation, prompted by my girlfriend’s curiosity, as to what I mean by anarchy when I make my mock protest against her actions.
There are those who believe that anarchy is the violent overthrow of government (including the editors of the dictionary that was cited in a discussion of the nature of anarchy in a Yahoo! club in which I was a member, who limited it to that; I haven’t been able to find it in my research on the subject). This definition does not sit well with me, for a couple of reasons. For one, I don’t think such an uprising necessarily needs to be violent (cf. Harlan Ellison’s Repent, Harlequin, Said the Ticktock Man). Secondly, by this definition, anarchy exists only as long as there is a centralized system to rebel against. Logically, this would mean that anarchy would cease once the system was overthrown. Whatever came next, even if it was more violence (and there would almost certainly be some), would not be anarchy. No system, no rebellion, no anarchy (by this definition of it).
( There are many self-proclaimed anarchists who preach violent uprising against the system... ) The anarchic system I have outlined would not give everybody everything they ever wanted. It might not even get them any closer to it than the hierarchal systems already in place. It certainly would not, as many seem to think that utopias and/or anarchies should, give anyone anything that they had not worked for and earned, nor would anyone plausibly feel that they should have something just because somebody else had one. People who do argue for these kinds of societies invariably seem to feel that they have worked hard enough describing (usually not very well) how such a system would work (again, there are often gaps in their thinking big enough to drive a solar system through), and they should be able to just kick back and reap the benefits of the labor of others once their system is in place. There’s already too much of that happening, in various ways, in the world as it is.
( Some definitions of anarchy that I found, other than the one I was looking for... )
(see also travel-net.com, nymphonics.com, diy-punk.org, zpub.com, bmeworld.com, cs.unm.edu, and liberatetheobsessed.tripod.com, for others' views on the subject (provided those links still work- I first wrote this in 2002, and actually I'm pretty sure I have it posted up here, but I didn't find it yet, wherever the original is...))
[edit: found it- it starts here, with links for each successive entry. end edit) |
|
|
| A few notes on the nature of dreams and dreaming |
[Jul. 19th, 2011|09:23 pm] |
[disclaimer of sorts: this is a matter of my own opinion based on my interpretation of various experiences]
Dreaming has at least 3 levels:
1: Dream
This most superficial level of dreaming is often quite as Freud describes it; all artifacts, entities, actions of the self or of others, i.e. the entire dream environment, are drawn from below the level of conscious thinking, in this case usually from the active but passive (in contrast to full consciousness) subconscious. Other dreams at this level, however, will be absolutely misinterpreted by a Freudian approach, as the dream materials arise from the unconscious rather than the subconscious, and so a Jungian or similar approach is needed to appreciate and apprehend their import fully. Jung had a better understanding of the active role the dreamer could take in setting up the scenario, casting characters, etc., but neither Freud nor Jung seem to have understood that dreaming might occur in a place in which other entities and energies external to the dreamer might exist and play parts according to their own natures and volitions.
2. Dreaming:
For the sake of not having to go into too much detail, the Dreaming level is quite similar in appearance and feel to the Dreamtime level, one major difference being that although actions, powers, etc., of other entities encountered may be modeled on knowledge of those entities' typical behavior and abilities, everything is still 'in the mind of' the dreamer... in other words, the dream may actually be occurring in the Dreamtime, as opposed to being merely a mental construct, but the level of involvement is still entirely internal to the dreamer and his/her thoughts and guidance. Do not be fooled; this does make Dreaming in one sense inferior to Dreamtime itself in full, but it also makes Dreaming an excellent training ground for full immersion in Dreamtime, as well as presenting the possibility (if one can avoid calling the other entity/ies to that place ahead of their desired time while doing so) of being able to stage rehearsals for activities which one plans to carry out in Dreamtime at some point but is not yet fully prepared for.
3. Dreamtime:
The Big mojo. What Dream and Dreaming would wish they were if they were conscious that there is a difference. Beware: Dreamtime is wherefrom comes the admonition that dreaming of dying can cause actual death of the dreamer. Dreamtime is not a hallucination. Dreamtime is another, separate level of reality which most of us can access, if at all, only with the conscious mind out of the way. Dreamtime is true chaos out of which may be formed anything* if one has the will for it... it is, 'unfortunately', due to the requirements of will and energy, for the most part temporary in nature, shifting back to formless with the departure of the dreamer. Time runs at different speeds, a 2-minute conversation can take hours to get through, or a journey of several days, with all the details thereof, might be carried out in an eyeblink... you can die here, you can be wounded in ways which may or may not show physically in 'waking reality'... it has its upside, you can also love, laugh, be healed, but I focus on the negatives because they are so easy to invoke by accident, without intention...
*other than, as should be obvious, the creation of anything more powerful than oneself |
|
|
| Writer's Block: A novel idea |
[Jul. 19th, 2011|09:21 pm] |
At first, I was thinking maybe Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series- could be interesting if they didn't screw it up... but on second thought, I am not coming up with any way that the gameplay might deviate substantially from the storyline of the books, which actually would be rather boring to go through again and again, unless maybe that's the kind of thing you're into... |
|
|
| ipsiqodl |
[Jul. 18th, 2011|10:42 pm] |
n., v.
there is a theory that the word is somehow derived from a combination of the Latin phrases 'ipso facto' and 'quod erat demonstradum', but this linkage has not been proven, nor does it seem to bear much merit considering the meanings of the phrases and the meaning of the word supposedly derived from them
'To ipsiqodl' is a) to attempt to manipulate or force a particular outcome for an event or series of events in a particular 'desired' direction in such a way that the actual outcome is substantially different ('undesired') from the 'desired' outcome b) particularly when the actual outcome is diametrically opposite, or nearly so, to the 'desired' outcome, c) even more particularly when the attempted manipulator has a reputation for attempting such machinations and failing, d) especially when 'everybody else' can see that the actual outcome will be an 'undesired' outcome and the attempted manipulator is oblivious to this and will remain 'optimistically' persistent in maintaining a belief that their desired outcome will occur if an attempt is made to forewarn them
'iosiqodl' as a noun is the 'negative' and often predictable 'undesired' outcome of someone ipsiqodling
'desired' and 'undesired' are in quotes in part because after someone has ipsiqodled enough times, it seems that it would stand to reason that they would become aware of the futility of their machinations and cease, and yet they persist, so the question arises as to whether their stated intentions are actually their actual intentions, if the actual results are not actually the results they were trying to achieve, etc. ... |
|
|
| On Old Souls and Related Delusions |
[Jul. 13th, 2011|03:57 pm] |
I have met up with a few people here and there who have cheerfully proclaimed to me that they are an 'old soul', one who has not only been reincarnated a number of times, but also has some carryover of memory from some or all of those times- and that I am, contrarywise, a 'young soul'- one who is here for the first time, or at least for a lesser number of times than they have been, and without the requisite retained knowledge... so far I have yet to see anything close to hard evidence for reincarnation itself, much less that of memory retention across lifetimes- and most of these people have a hard enough time remembering what they said in conversation 15 minutes ago, as it is!
Without positing that I am necessarily therefore an old soul myself, I would posit that these are actually young souls who feel unimportant, unloved, uncared-for, with no one granting them the attention they seek and would at least like to believe that they deserve, merely as human beings, old soul or young... seeking some external validation for things which they believe or wish to believe to be true, for affirmation of their self-ness...
Given that, here are a few things that I can say about such young souls that in my opinion pretty much stands as evidence for their being young souls rather than old:
They are impatient. Everything needs to be now now now. A rather unusual outlook, imo, for someone who has been around a few times and should know by now that things do not always happen when we want them to nor exactly how we want them to.
They confuse randomness with spontaneity, and as far as that goes, they don't have a clue what true randomness is.
They confuse the ability to enforce their will on others with having a free will of their own (the classic 'I can prove that I have free will by murdering you (or whatever the stated action), for surely I would not even be able to think of it if I did not!'- also in reference to which, go ahead and prove then that that isn't something that's been planted into your head by an external agency- and- why is it that in such a case the 'free will' side of the argument is always a 'negative' action- wouldn't choosing not to murder me (likewise whatever) indicate free will equally well?).
Despite their proclaimed preoccupation with free will, they also seem to be fairly well on the side of predestination- things were destined to happen, they can't help their behavior, 'the devil made me do it'...
They think that they already know the right way to do anything, and the one right way to do it, or the one right answer to the question, or however else this would apply to the particular situation- again, an attitude I find odd for someone who has purportedly been here several times and remembers at least parts of it- because even in just this one lifetime, I already know that there is usually more than just one way to do something right, and by that I mean right right, not bullshit with cutting corners and not getting it quite right and so forth... the attendant problem, and what I suspect that they are trying to address with their attitude, is that while there may be more than one way to do a thing right, there are a near-infinite number of non-right ways to do it wrong, many of them wrong enough to cause injury or death- they wish to reduce the possibility of negative incident by forbidding all ways but their own 'right way', even though there may still perhaps be a 'right' way to do it that is better than theirs (by whatever definition other sacrifice of quality) (and never minding any ego issues which may also be present)...
Perhaps because I deliberately and intentionally refuse to absolutely equate perception with reality (and perception therefore questionable), when I encounter these young-souls-who-wish-to-be-regarded-as-old-souls, they tend or appear to think that they know more, or at least better, than I do, because their belief in what they believe to be true appears to them surer; nevertheless, I have so far always been left feeling with some certainty that they know neither more nor better, that if by some chance in a particular incidence they might know better, it is still for me to discover the same truth on my own rather than merely take their word for it, and further, what I know, in addition to anything else, is that I'm NOT DONE YET.
index, cross-reference, correlation, synthesis, recognition & callout of pattern & anomaly, just the facts, ma'am, extrapolate only where absolutely necessary, assume as much as possible nothing |
|
|
| Calypsagain.... |
[Jun. 7th, 2011|06:06 pm] |
edit/update of the opening portion of Calypso de los Todos Santos del Mundo...
What we believe that we know is more often what we believe we know than what we truly know, and most of that is based not on our own experiences, but on our understanding of what has been passed down to us by others. Learn to tell the difference. I don't have a problem with you believing what you believe (as long as it has no negative effect on me or mine), as long as you are aware that you believe it rather than believing that you know it- and as long as you don't continue in a line that says that I should believe it, too, in either case, whether I want to or not or ELSE.
Rule: All statements are arguments for or against the truth of themselves, of another statement, or both.
Rule: Any statement not proven true must be regarded as false insofar as its capability for use in support of or disproval of another statement.
Rule: No statement can logically stand as proof of its own truth.
Rule: If the premise of an argument is false, then the conclusion of that argument must also be considered false, regardless of the factuality of any of the evidence given in support of the argument between the premise and the conclusion.
Rule: If any of the evidence presented for an argument is false, the conclusion of the argument must necessarily be considered false, regardless of the truth of any other piece(s) of evidence presented in support of the premise.
(NB: The conclusion of the argument may be proven true by a separate argument which has a valid premise and valid evidence, but this does not validate the argument that has been shown to be false.)
(Restated later in independently-generated notes as: The conclusion presented as the resolution of an argument thus shown to be false may in fact itself be true; this is not the relevant point here, which is: that that conclusion cannot be supported by that particular argument.)
Rule: Any question to which the querent believes he already has the answer is a disguised statement. Rephrase as such.
Rule: All data must be taken into account. You may not pick and choose to select only that data which supports the conclusion to the argument that you favor.
[edit: added 2011 07 11] Rule: To be considered true, an argument must be taken to its ultimate conclusion. All consciously knowable ramifications must be taken into consideration beforehand, and all other ramifications discovered in process must be acknowledged. Another way of saying this would be that all conditional statements must be made as part of the premise (or as part of the evidence, if applicable) at the time of presentation of the argument, that is to say, not 'shoehorned' in along the way, although provided that it is acknowledged as such, a corrected argument with further conditional statements may be presented in place of the original argument (i.e., because I have seen people make attempts at this before, a corrected argument found to be true cannot be taken to prove that the original argument is likewise true).
Rule: That one argument which one has made has been proven true does not prove true any other argument which one has made, unless it can demonstrably stand as proof for that other argument (i.e. the proving itself of one argument does not prove the other as well- there is probably a technical term for this). [/edit]
Rule: All data is suspect.
Rule: All conclusions are suspect and must be tested; the process which I prefer for doing so tests first against my own ability to build a counterargument, then against my friends' ability to construct a counterargument, and then (this must be done with some care so as to not skew the results through an enemy's understanding of what I am trying to accomplish) against my enemies' ability to construct a counter argument.
An argument which passes all of these tests and remains intact is not necessarily truth, but arguments which pass all three levels of testing are more likely to be true than those which do not.
Rule: Assume nothing.
Since it is not truly practicable to assume nothing (doing so would require that you start each day absolutely as a blank slate, having to relearn everything that you ever knew or thought you knew), what I actually do is to maintain a set of what I call 'reasonable assumptions', and then try to be aware of when I am assuming something, and why. It is not an easy discipline. There are assumptions built into the very structure of the language- of any language, not English alone- which can be very difficult to perceive, much less maneuver around; and I am fairly certain that I am not aware of all of them yet myself.
Other:
The fact of experience is the fact of the occurrence of an event. The actual nature of the event, however, is open to interpretation, and, therefore, distortion. Anecdotal evidence, therefore, strictly speaking, is not.
Consensus reality [see further notes] is not necessarily real reality. Just because 50,000,000 people agree with you doesn't mean that any of you are right.
If you feel a deep-seated revulsion toward something, it is much more likely that that is the product of conditioning than that it is due to instinct. Instinct causes us to flee if possible, or to fight or to submit if fleeing is not possible or is decided against. Nausea is generally the result of something else. (Note: Instinct may also be terribly exaggerated by conditioning, if anyone cares to argue that point.)
***
Alright... something like that...
[edit 2012 01 24] An argument which is interrupted in progress by another argument which is proven true is not proven true by the interrupting argument, and still requires its own proof. The attempt to 'prove' an argument through the use of an interpolated separately proven argument is a bait and switch tactic of which I am well aware and am constantly vigilant against. Don't even try it. I'm on to you. [/edit] |
|
|
| Theory of Bodhisattva |
[Apr. 2nd, 2011|03:58 pm] |
(If you don't know what a 'bodhisattva' is, go look at bodhisattva wiki; I am specifically referring to bodhisattva of the 3rd path listed in the 'In Mahāyāna Buddhism' section (shepherd-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood).)
If the Theory of Bodhisattvas holds true*, eventually the last previously-unenlightened soul would shuffle off to Nirvana, and all we would have left would be a small population** composed entirely of bodhisattvas-
Now, as far as my knowledge of the subject goes, one is not necessarily born with an awareness of being a reincarnated bodhisattva, so some of these people might not be aware that they were bodhisattvas themselves, not having attained the necessary level of enlightenment in this life to gain this awareness yet, and others around them might be equally unaware of these persons' true states even if they were aware of their own bodhisattvahood...
So what I wonder is, how long does it take everyone to get on the same page then, or would they ever?- would you still have bodhisattvas dying, reincarnating, coming back to help others along the wheel, not realizing at first that they were one of those who needed no additional assistance and that the same was true of each around them, or would each while between-lives realize what was going on and not return... 'til you at last have one lonely bodhisattva wandering around wondering what the fuck until he or she dies and gets clued in... *blink*
*obviously, we have a long way to go, numerically, before it's worrisome
**compared to the total high-score population |
|
|
| Writer's Block: Technology & My Future |
[Aug. 27th, 2009|07:38 pm] |
Which technology?And are we talking about predictable technology, aspired-for technology, or technology that comes out of the woodwork and possibly bites our asses, singular or collective? We can reasonably figure that computer/digital technology will continue apace. It is already apparent, with RFID on the one hand and Microsoft's, the RIAA's, & the MPAA's, sometimes quasi-legal efforts to enforce their aims, not to mention Google analytics and other adware and spyware and cookie schemes, that some level of monitoring of our daily lives, never mind just our Web-browsing habits, is going to be a fact. It may be sold as beneficial to society as a whole- do you mean you don't want to catch those child pornographers, Mrs. Smith?- it may be decried as violating basic human liberties, but there is so much money and power involved in it that it's unlikely that we're going to be rid of it entirely now that anybody has thought that it was a good idea in the first place. We could, theoretically, tear out all the old html and start afresh, and who knows- something like that might happen as a private venture, somebody with a lot of time & money on their hands, but there's little chance that anyone invested in html now would be willing to stick their neck out to make something new that did the same thing without (or so we would hope, because that would be the point) the defects that have been found in html. And that's just one example- for another, what do you do, how do you use the information, if everybody has a chip implanted which monitors a number of body functions, dietary intake, toxin intake, etc. .... what impact does that have on their lives re buying insurance, getting medical treatment, finding employment? I'm hoping that nanotechnology, whether mechanical, biological, or both, will realize its promise in the realm of correction of faulty genes, though I do have one stipulation- if my myopia is somehow genetically linked to my intelligence, I don't want it corrected- I'd rather see things in a sort of a haze the rest of my life than to have 20/20 vision at the cost of being not quite so bright. I'm not the first to point this out, but no matter how far back in human history you go, there are very few technologies that have done or been used for exactly what their inventor had in mind and that only, from the wheel to the tracking cookie, and it's not likely that anything that we come up with in the future will not suffer the same fate... |
|
|
| dreamlog 20080225 |
[Feb. 7th, 2009|06:30 pm] |
(the parts I remember)
I am at a naval training center. I am under the impression that I am military, not civilian, that I enlisted or was drafted, but I am in civilian clothing, including my INC (brand name) short trenchcoat and run-down Nike Air shoes that are falling apart, and glasses with very skinny goldtone wire frames (I haven't worn glasses since mid-1983).
The mission for this part of the training is diving off of a very high platform (at least 100' up, possibly more) into (I get the impression of) a bay. The water is very still & clear- it is night, but very well-lit, and I can see bins of stuff that has been dumped sitting on the bottom. The tower for the platform is mounted on a rectangular projection that juts out from a pier, with a ship moored to the pier further down.
Tower and platform are rusty in places, the whole thing looks rather rickety, but it seems solid enough while I'm up there. The platform is a crow's nest of sorts, with one side open to climb in off the ladder- perhaps wide enough for 2 people, but shallow, so that I can't get my feet all the way on, which makes standing on it a tricky busines, especially when I decide that I need to take my shoes off for this. I manage to keep my balance and footing by leaning heavily on the railing, but I have problems trying to tie the laces together so they don't get separated, because I need both arms free to do the tying and one arm hooked over the railing to do the balancing. I give up eventually and throw the shoes down to the ship, overdoing it a bit, as one shoe lands on the deck on the far side of the ship, and the other goes past and splashes in the water.
While I've been wrestling with my shoes, the guy who's going to be my in-the-water observer has jumped off the ship into the water, in full uniform (which I think is a dark blue, but I can't say that I remember for sure), bootsd and all, and is not very happy that I'm making him wait...
I go over the railing feet-first, trying to figure out if I can take my glasses off and pocket them on the way down, or if I should just hang on to them... it's a moot point as when I land, I only go in to about just above the upper curve of my calves (I reason upon awaking that in 'real' life, this probably would have meant something breaking, terribly and painfully)- I've landed on top of a bunch of, I think, cardboard boxes, packed with who-knows-what. The water is very cold... |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
m0n90053's journal