Above: a khoisan woman with steatopygia, which is a notable accumulation of fat on and around the buttocks, hips and thighs. 'khoisan' is the word the people in question use to describe themselves, as opposed to 'hottentot,' which is a dutch word meaning 'stutterer,' referring to the palatal clicks used in the khoisan language.
the venus of willendorf (below) has similar physical characteristics, and we can perhaps infer that there is some deep-rooted genetic signal, or at least jungian cross-cultural archetype, that is responsible for our fasciation for women with fat in all the right places, so to speak. In fact, a khoisan woman known as saartje baartman (a dutch name) was exhibited, freak show-style, in europe in the early 19th century as the 'hottentot venus' (her remains were later returned to southwestern africa at the behest of nelson mandela).
The khoisans exhibit a greater genetic diversity than any other human population, from which can be deduced that the khoisans are among the oldest, if not the oldest, ethnic populations in the world.
The venus of willendorf statue of neolithic european origin has similar steatopygic characteristics, and is sometimes thought to be a fertility symbol. If the khoisans, who are genetically more similar to humans in their early modern form (before genetic drift, interbreeding, etc), exhibit steatopygia, and a neolithic statue from europe exhibits steatopygia as well, then one starts to consider the possibility that all early human populations exhibited steatopygia, and that the venus of willendorf was a representational female form, rather than being purely an exaggerated fertility symbol.
Perhaps the 'fertility symbol' grew up later, and that in early modern human populations such as those in 19th century southwestern africa (interbreeding in the last century has all but eliminated visible phenotypic khoisan traits) and in neolithic europe, the willendorf form wasn't just a symbol, but was an accurate portrait of womanhood.
When we look back at the venus of willendorf or at 19th century photos of saartje, they contrast with the waif ideal (think: kate moss). However, men across cultures find the hourglass figure attractive; a small waist:hip ratio is desirable. The venus/khoisan body-type seems to caricature this quality, and might be a better archetype of attractiveness than the model-waif of the late 20th century.
I wrote that principally to see if I could. It was pretty difficult, actually, and I found myself struggling for words and syntaxes to avoid saying things that might be construed as objectionable. I encountered several landmines, notably the categorization of the human species with the concept of race.
Categories are problematic, and laying them down over human beings to create races is more immediately problematic than most category-formation. It's been posited that the races aren't valid or meaningful categories -- that the specific line of demarcation between, say, 'negroid' and 'caucasoid' is burry enough so that the concept of one race being different from another should be abandoned entirely. This is fine, and in fact valid, but if 'nergoid' or 'caucasoid' or 'mongoloid' are thrown out as categories, likewise one must discard 'male,' 'female,' 'good,' and 'bad,' as well as banalities such as 'house,' 'apartment,' 'food' and 'drink.' if distinguishing from this race and that race is to be abandoned, then distinguishing between many other things that are similarly conceptually ambiguous must be abandoned as well. maybe race is a good place to start eliminating these categories that confound the one true nature of reality, rather than expound upon it, as they purport to do.
There's always the problem, however, of science. I like to focus on computer science, since I'm sitting here typing at a computer. Science is based on distinguishing between this and that, and this is observable in computer science, in the deep language of any digital system: binary. Binary has two states -- off and on, 0 and 1, no and yes, absent and present, negative and positive -- whatever you want to call them. And, everything a computer is able to do is based on distinguishing between this and that, being able to tell what is 0 and what is 1. The only counterexample I can conceive of is fuzzy logic, which inserts intermediate states between 0 and 1. Perhaps fuzzy logic is the key to reconciling computers with the single essence of all that is (and you thought I was fresh out of synonyms).
And now, for something completely different. I'm going to transfer to the web my posts on the SDF bulletin board on religion.
[ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 22-Jul-04 20:35:42 HOST: sverige if there is such a creature who might writing things in hundred light year-long letters, then that creature is wondering about ultimate reality too -- that creature is searching for god, and it doesn't have any more answers than we do. when people say 'god' they are usually taking the term to mean one of two things: 1. The one true nature of reality, everything that is, the sum of all existence, etc. 2. A very powerful, sentient being that may have created the human race or various other things, and that is undetectable. if this sentient being exists (it might -- why not? Stranger things have happened), then that sentient being is a very powerful being who created the human race, the earth, etc. But that's all we can infer. if you want to call that powerful being 'god,' then you can, but then 'god' means 'a very powerful being who exists apart from everything else.' there has to be more to the universe than that being, if that being is distinct from the rest of the cosmos. Such a seperate entity cannot be 'god' in teh way 'god' is often thought of: as all-knowing and all-powerful. There's more to the universe(s) than this god-creature. alternatively, a panthestic, hindu/brahmin approach is another way to define god -- god is simply everything, the existance of creatures who proclaim 'i am the lord thy god' notwithstanding. I've heard this referred to as pantheism (god is the sum of all that exists). so, even if a creature suddenly revealed itself by writing letters across the sky, I wouldn't be convinced. I would think, 'here is a very powerful creature who is writing letters across the sky, and for some reason wants us to defer to it.' but that creature wouldn't be 'god,' in the pan-spiritual sense. It couldn't be, because it is an entity apart from everything else. [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 22-Jul-04 20:46:05 HOST: sverige furthermore (hehe), god as ultimate reality is not 'pure good.' the idea of a dualistic battlfield where good battles evil is an abrahamic idea, and not especially meaningful to me, other than as a sort of quaint and primitive fairy tale. god (ultimate reality) is neither good nor evil -- it just is. Which, incidentally, is how zen and nihilism tie together. Along with dada, those two form a pretty good model of many of my feelings on spirituality. furthermore (heeeeeeeeeeeeee), buddhism talks about suffering. I'm not sure if one can equate suffering with evil, or how suffering fits into the concept of ultimate reality that transcends the illusive one our perceptions trap us in. but I'm reasonably certain I don't beleive in good or evil. Things just are. [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 26-Jul-04 06:09:22 HOST: sverige bob, how would I know that the supreme being had 'total control over my reality'? But let's say I was convinced of this, that it was somehow proven to me. if it's a supreme being that's in control of my reality, then that supreme being is apart from everything else -- there's more to the universe than it. So, that being can't be god, in the pan-spiritual sense. a being that has infinite power and knowledge but that is not in itself the sum of all reality doesn't make sense to me. maybe that's just because I'm a pantheistic wacko ;) [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 30-Jul-04 20:07:09 HOST: sverige >(a paraphrase of rjudge's paragraphs about untold wonders, 11 dimensions, >etc): the teleological argument for the existence of god (the universe >fits together so well that god had to have designed it). yeah, the universe is amazing, and fits together nicely. But why does this imply that something created it? Isn't this just symptomatic of western linear thinking, and western dependance on axiom --> deduction --> conclusion? Everything just is, and doesn't need to be 'explained' or 'understood' -- our tools of logic and language make poor categorical metaphors for reality. We tend to understand the universe from our own perspective: from the perspective of egoism and self-importance. 'if something wondrous exists, then we (or some entity that we've made in our own image) must have created it.' >Just because in your microsopic view of the universe you don't think you >see evidence of Him? ad hominem -- rephrase: 'in your particular view of the universe you don't see evidence of god's existence?' no, I don't -- not as you are defining 'god.' when our understanding of the universe is expanded, and if then suddenly a conscious entity who has infinite power suddenly makes himself known or apparent, then what makes that entity 'god'? I think the central problem is in defining 'infinite power,' which is a pretty far-out concept. Does this imply that the creature can do whatever it wants, and that it was a will? Why should there be this strange creature roaming around the cosmos? It seems like an odd, counter-intuitive idea to me. >Or better yet, see if you can prove He doesn't exist. hmm, interesting. This empty coke can I see on the floor in front of me is the almighty. If you can't prove that it isn't, then it clearly is. i guess the concept of 'god' as it is defined abrahamically doesn't make sense to me, and that's all I can say about it. The funny thing about this thread is that it's not really a debate -- these aren't refutable arguments that are being made. Arguing or discussing the existence of god isn't logically possible, even though to try is still kind of fun :) it's sort of exhausting, though. [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 30-Jul-04 21:39:18 HOST: sverige >You are thinking of a god patterned after your own knowledge and >experience, limited by your understanding of the universe. funny, I was thinking the same thing about you (that you had a parochial working definition of god). I don't usually like to use the term 'god,' because of it's association with abrahamic religious tradition, but sometimes I use it anyway as a sort of 'reclaiming.' god, for me, is the sum of all reality, or the one true nature of reality. God is everything that is. The hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH translates as 'i am that I am,' so it's likely that the ancient hebrews had a similar goal to mine: ultimate understanding of the one true nature of reality -- it just IS. The only discernable difference is that, in the hebrew model, god is seen as seperate from all other being, while I see god as being the same thing as all other being (heh, and beings). But, as I've just illustrated, the word 'god' is semantically conflated and not really very useful. 'the universe(s)' might be a better way to say it, 'it' being all that exists and, to keep repeating my favorite pet phrase, the one true nature of reality. this kind of disconnected thinking about god, that he is somehow seperate from all other reality is understandable in terms of the desert world-view, 4000 years ago, and explains why god isn't seen as everything, as god is in shintoism, hinduism, and celtic paganism. These religions see god in everything and in all of nature, but in the desert, there *was* nothing else -- only the ancient hebrew tribesman and the empty sky. So, he dreams up YHWH, because he couldnt grasp a fundamental interconnectedness with all being. i liked your robot parable, but I don't see the metaphor (of humans assuming through pride and solipsism that god must be made in their image, as opposed to the other way around) as applicable to god as a seperate, conscious entity, simply because I don't think such an entity exists. And even if it does, I don't find it any more important in my portrait of reality than a new species of jellyfish. I find it far more likely that we've created god in our image than a yahweh-like-being created us in its image (even though that's certainly possible, but I don't think either you or I would be happy with that concept of 'god.') the challenge of christianity, islam and contemporary judaism has always been to carve from ancient abrahamic tradition a viable view of spirituality -- to somehow take a 'petulant psychopathic child of the desert' (quoting Bob there) and carve from it an understanding of the sum of all reality. in my opinion, it's easier just to start fresh than rely on a world-view that is very culture and time-specific, and that really has terrible problems fitting in with contemporary culture. but, if the cult of YHWH works for someone in making them a better person, in creating joy in their hearts, and in giving them a metaphor for understanding ultimate reality, then I don't have any problem with the abrahamic tradition. If it works for you, great. my problem is with the evangelical abrahamic tradition, but that's a whole other can of worms... [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. What If - IV DATE: 31-Jul-04 00:07:23 HOST: sverige >From my perspective, you have confused God's creation with God himself from my perspective, you have confused the interdependant nature of reality and the invalidity of any ultimate categories with a 'creator' and the 'created.' >I also don't see a difference from your pantheism and atheism, except in >terminology (pantheism=everything is god, so everything is equal; >atheism=there is no god, so everything is equal). good observation. Indeed, I could call myself a pantheist or I could call myself an atheist. >You also limit the concept of God as an entity by thinking that God would >be wondering about ultimate reality. when I said that, I was talking about 'god' in one sense: as a sentient, highly powerful, conscious entity who is undetectable. This is a central problem to approaching this subject logically: the definition of 'god.' >He doesn't wonder about reality--simply because He created it. god (the way your words are making him out to be, the abrahamic god, yahweh, etc) is part of reality -- reality is something greater than him. By the definition of 'reality,' god is a part of reality, since god is an entity, and reality encompasses all entities. Therefore, if god created reality, then god is not 'god' as I think we both are trying to see it/him. To put it simply, here's a falsification: god is a part of reality (reality includes god). Therefore god could not have created reality, since he existed before it. >And a logical extension of your concept would state there is spirituality >in a pencil, that the pencil is equal in all aspects to you and I. That >even one million people put together have no greater value than a single >pencil, since all is god and all is equal. well-said, except that nothing really has any 'value' that supercedes the 'value' of another 'thing.' since everything is of one subject and the conceptual and linguistic categories we use to describe reality and as metaphors for reality, talking about different 'things' isn't ultimately a valid concept when one is talking about ultimate reality. >But in my concept, I know that God places greater value on each of us as >individuals than on anything else within His creation. this has dangerous implications for other living things on the planet and the health of the biosphere itself. If we see ourselves, due in part to the abrahamic world-view, as inherently superior to all other life, this leads to our abuse of that life. The other problem is grab-bag, american-style capitalism, but that belongs in another thread. as far as your bible quotes go, I can sum my response up with this circular fallacy: biff: yahweh exists, and is in charge! spliff: how do you know this? biff: because the bible says so! spliff: how do you know that what the bible says is true? biff: because yahweh wrote it! rjudge, you're treading on dangerous turf here in terms of your credibility. You're beginning to proseletyze and evangelize, which I'm afraid I can't and won't tolerate. I see your behavior as leaving the realm of friendly discussion and entering territory I know all too well. In response to hostile christianity, I feel that it's appropriate to be hostile to christianity, and to incite conversion away from it. of course, the same arguments I present against christianity can be made against islam or orthodox judaism, but I'm not as familiar with either of these. Lucky for us, though, I'm a recovering lutheran. The abrahamic world view represents a harmful dualism that has probably done more to retard our progress as loving, caring components of all being than any other force in the history of the species. i really did try to keep it friendly, folks... Command: TYPE (A NUMBER) 4.3 TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. Do you live in Europe?? You live in France, Germany...? DATE: 20-Jul-04 17:54:42 HOST: sverige i don't have a problem with judaism or the jews. All they have tried to do for x-thousand years is try to live in peace while preserving their own culture, something that's proven difficult. Zionism is a different story, and is something that not all jews support or condone. Contrary to what some people say, it *is* possible to criticize israel without criticizing the jews. jewish cultural and religious tradition is not evangelical -- jews have no interest in thrusting their abrahamic baggage down the throats of infidels. On the other hand, the christians do. And the moslems do. christianity and islam haven't been positive, beneficial forces for humanity, and it's no surprise that they're now fighting a holy war. Command: TYPE (A NUMBER) 2 TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: port from ANONYMOUS DATE: 29-Jul-04 14:46:50 HOST: sverige >You did not pick your body out. It was >formed without your consent and knowledge, and when you die your body will >rot and decay. This is science, not religion. If these facts make you >believe that God gave you the body, so be it. But you did NOT buy or pay >for your body. You do not own it. When you're done with it, you do not >keep it, no matter what happens to your soul (if anything) when you die. this presumes that 'you' somehow exist apart from your body. that's really all I need to point out, but I'll continue and make a big, loud, obnoxious, black-or-white statement, just so I can coax some responses out of people: your body is the only component of 'you.' 'mind' only exists as a concept because the brain is too complicated for neurologists and cognitive scientists to understand, and 'soul' only exists as a concept because...well...I'm not sure I can figure that one out. soul (dictionary.com): The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. it sounds like a pre-scientific notion of mind, which is itself a pre-scientific notion of brain (or nervous system, which is part of and extends to and is interdependant on the rest of the body, so maybe ultimately 'brain' doesn't make too much sense as a category, name, or concept either, but I'm not quite ready to abandon the english language and join a zen monastary yet -- maybe this winter). Chomsky uses the word 'mind-brain' to sort of ease the conceptual transition. the word/name/concept/category/metaphor 'soul' doesn't mean anything to me. When someone says 'when you're done with your body, you do not keep it,' i start to understand why the soviet government locked the religious up in asylums. [ Press to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. Port from ANONYMOUS DATE: 29-Jul-04 18:17:14 HOST: sverige >Er, no. 'mind' certainly isn't a prescientific notion, what gave you that >idea? intuition, I guess. I don't see any evidence for anything apart from the physical structure of neurons and neurotransmitters inside my head. 'mind' seems to be a concept mot much better-defined or meaningful than 'soul.' >Or it may be prescientific but it is a widely used term in contemporary >science what gave you the idea that it isn't? nothing...i didn't make any references to the concept of mind not being widely used. It just doesnt happen to be meaningful to me. >I'm more interested in what the "areligious" people who locked up the >religious in Soviet based what they believed to be universal or general >values upon. Marx or Lenin said so doen't fly... Common sense is little >better an answer. It is a bit better since they concede to not being >rational. yeah, this is crap too. In fact, a lot of people classify marxism, stalinism and leninism with the religions of the world. I don't know if i agree with this, and it's largely a semantic issue (ie, not worth debating, so dont get any ideas ;]), but it does help illustrate how ideologies, either political, religious, or a chymera, tend not to be good for society.
Operating systems lock a user's software-operational thought patterns into a particular configuration based on qualities of that particular OS. I hear a lot about how a linux or BSD user manages to crash windows machines within a few seconds of turning them on, can't intuitively see how to accomplish this or that goal, etc. The problem is that the BSD/linux user isn't a windows user. The windows user has undergone a long-standing conditioning process by which s/he has learned not to behave in certain ways while using their operating system. It becomes almost subconscious -- the windows user isn't even aware that s/he is avoiding some behaviors which may have come quite naturally before their computer thinking was 'window-fied'. The first OS a user learns is cognitively analogous to a first language -- that user's brain has been wired to fit that particular OS. Even if that user becomes fluent in other 'languages' (other OS'es), s/he is still going to most often use only one OS, since preference and comfort have been developed.
I remember when I first started using windows (about 2 years ago -- it was all mac OS 9 before that) I went through a horrible learning curve that involved reformatting my hard drive several times, calling dell at 2am, uninstalling and reinstalling programs, downloading new display drivers, etc. So, perhaps I've learned not to do certain things on my windows machine that will cause me to have to be on the phone with dell at 2am, which is unpleasant. Operant conditioning at work.
To approach it from another angle, perhaps my initial myriad of problems with windows had something to do with my mac OS 1-9 operant conditioning. I was raised on mac os 1-9, from the age of about 10 to 27 or so, and it sort of showed. The mac GUI is so seamless and functional that the user tends to forget that s/he is using a computer. For example, I remember putting EVERYTHING -- every program, every document -- on my desktop, effectively preceding every file's path preceded with something like c:\finder\desktop. I didn't even consider hierarchical directory structures, which is an abstraction that seems to run pretty much across the board (windows, mac, unix, VMS, etc). I explain this behavior with mac OS conditioning -- macs will let you get away with a great deal, things that would never fly on a windows or *nix machine. Thusly, mac users develop bad cross-platform habits.
A windows user is going to complain if forced to switch gears to BSD, just as a BSD user will complain if forced to switch gears to windows. As far as questions of objective functionality are concerned, I think windows can be difficult to direct, but it does work. One just has to devote a lot of one's time to fighting the OS and keeping other programs from modifying it, keeping the taskmanager handy and familiarizing one's self with acceptable processes so that one can learn to recognize intrusive programs (acrotray.exe, realscheduler.exe, etc), and sort of keep the operating system generally under control. It's my feeling that windows does more behind one's back than other OS's. Keeping a reign on this tendency of the windows OS to act on its own becomes something like second nature, and all the little rituals the windows user goes through to keep things in line become reflexive, and even comforting.
My windows OS (a pirated version of XP pro) literally never has stability problems -- I honestly can't remember it ever crashing or freezing, or for that matter taking an inordinately long time to boot. However, this may be because my operating system user-consciousness has evolved along windows lines, and I'm subconsciously avoiding those behaviors which would cause my machine to behave errantly. Or, it could be because I don't use the thing very deeply. But I don't know how much more 'deeply' I could conceivably use it -- I have both python and perl installed, and scripts compile just fine in both. I'm not much of a programmer, and there are certainly many, many computer users who are much more competent than I am and who might tend to inspire buggy windows behavior with the depth of their use, but I just don't see any nontrivial problem with windows.
I've been most heavily conditioned with the 'windows mindset,' as opposed to the 'unix mindset' or the 'mac mindset' (or now, the 'VMS mindset' -- I just got an account). Each of these represents a different world-view in terms of computers, as the respective operating systems and their design shape and coral the user's thought process in particular, unique ways.
One should keep in mind the principles of first language acquisition when using a foreign OS. If I'm having trouble with BSD, I assume it's because I don't know BSD well enough. If I'm having trouble with windows, I assume it's because I don't know windows well enough. It seems to me that things have gotten to the point where the OS argument has become even more clearly a religious argument. A competent user can accomplish almost anything on any platform/OS, provided that user is fluent enough in the use of those particular tools.
I can't help but blame capitalism for the way science and engineering are more valued in our society than the fine and liberal arts. If our economy weren't based on growth and consumption, then I'm not sure technological and scientific progress would be treated as being as vital as they are by industry and government sponsors of academic programs. Maybe just being happy, spiritual beings would be seen as most vital, and artists, writers and musicians would be nurtured and encouraged.
Fuck it. Maybe it's time to go to borders again and read humor books. I've been waking up at 8am for the past two days so as to babysit mrs. White's house, and the pressure of having to go to sleep is keeping me awake with anxiety.
I talked to a few people about yesterday's blog-rant (which incidentally riled me up so badly that I didn't get to sleep until 3am), and I want to revise that statement a bit.
I think there is some value in a totally free-form, anything-goes major like visual art, in that it allows the brain to expand along creative lines, unencumbered by rules of any sort. I mentioned that techy subjects are just as creative as artsy ones. I want to revise that -- while I'm sure they can be just as creative, they are usually not. The way they are taught and the sort of person inclined to gravitate towards the technical, deductive and logical world-view produces an archetype of the little robot/pedantic social idiot stuck in a dismal, tiny, grey world of deductive logic and pattern-recognition. This model person is almost without exception less creative than an artsy major. Anything the techies 'create' is readily visible as a simple combination of two or three things; they alter a few details on someone else's idea, and call what they've ouputted 'creative.' this isn't universally true -- it's just a modeled archetype, engineered to sound harsh in part to help counter yesterday's pro-techy blog.
Yesterday, I also mentioned that a perceived division between technical subjects and artsy subjects, between the pragmatic and the expressive, does NOT represent a meaningful split in world-view or academic approach to study. I'm not so sure anymore. For instance, how is a fine arts class graded? On effort? Whether or not a student can get through a lecture without snickering? Ultimately, the knowledge gained there is subjective, because there cannot be any standard against which creative output is judged. Contrast this with math or engineering. While of course 'showing your work' amounts to something, ultimately the success or failure of the assignment or test rests on whether the thing is 'right' or 'wrong,' whether the program compiles or not, whether the answer to the math problem matches the answer in the back of the book, or whether the circuit lights up. The split, if there is indeed one, can be modeled on concepts of objectivism versus subjectivism.
As usual, I'm futilely trying to turn all of these personal sentiments into sweeping generalizations about reality. Frankly, I'm tired of trying to engineer a world-view for myself. It's ultimately going to fail, and I know that it's not a good goal to have in the first place. I know that I'm smart, and I know that I'm creative. I got a great deal out of my classes that were based more on systematic logic, as well as the art classes in which I was given broad directives for projects, and then made things. I'm not sure this is something that one can study, exactly, or learn how to do better. Maybe it is. I really don't know. I feel that I'm more creative now than I was when I entered the art program at UMBC, that I was shown that 'there are no rules,' and that I might make anything that I can conceive of. But I wish I hadn't spent as much time as I did taking postmodern, postructuralist art theory classes and reading articles by cyberfeminists or posthumanists or whatever. That was truly a waste of time, except in that it kept my writing chops up.
If I could devise the perfect college curriculum, it would involve both logic-based subjects and 'making stuff'-based subjects. Maybe a few writing classes. I mention writing classes because in writing essays about art theory, I honed my ability to crank out prose, even if I was ignoring or even dulling my critical thinking skills.
I've been getting more and more frustrated with the logical writing process lately. Trying to make some kind of language-structured sense out of things, designating this symbol or that symbol to be a metaphor for a metaphor for a category that never should have been demarcated in the first place is pure masturbation and intellectual nonsense.
But the problem is, if I didn't write about 'the way things are,' what would I write about? I don't know any other way to write. Maybe I should stop writing -- maybe it's an unhealthy addiction.
This buddhism thing is really affecting my writing. Every time I make a statement that divides things into categories and cites examples and arrives at a conclusion, a little part of me is snickering madly and saying 'what are you talking about? Everything is one. Just go make a sandwich and stop devoting so much energy into something that is inherently flawed.' I think I need to learn another language. English seems to have been designed to be used in this way, in the way that I like to use it: to give names to things, set up a hierarchical relationship between things, give names to those relationships, and construct more relationships between these new names. And all the while, the ultimate goal is to totally contradict the subjective, interdependent flux of ultimate reality, and yell 'x=x!' at the top of your lungs, to say 'THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE,' and 'prove' that there's no room for compromise. I'm not sure that I feel comfortable doing that anymore.
Remember a while back when I used to blog a lot about godel's incompleteness theorem and how it applies to everything, and basically undermines all deductive logic and all human thought? This has been coming back to me lately, and I think there are obvious connections there between the incompleteness theorem and the ultimate one-ness of all existence (I'm running out of synonyms for 'the one true nature of reality'). Basically, the tools of logic enable us to distinguish between this thing and that thing, to lay down a sort of empirical map of reality, and ultimately to perpetuate our own illusions. But, as godel demonstrates, these tools are inherently flawed, and deduction must always be based on an axiom, or unprovable assumption. So, obviously all of this complex structured hierarchy of categories and names that the western mind has fashioned as a metaphor for reality is nothing but a phantom. None of it actually exists, as the enlightened mind comes to see.
I'm looking after mrs. White's house today while some unshaven contractor comes to hammer away at things, but took an authorized break for a bit to blog and check email. I should be getting back now, though.
I've been realizing something lately. The liberal arts majors are useless in preparing a student either for the world of work or logical, creative thought, and are merely intended as opt-outs for people who aren't able enough to study technical subjects in the sciences or engineering. Most of the value of 'hard' majors is not in that they prepare the student for a career in a technical field (although they do serve that function), but rather in that they teach college kids to think logically and critically, something that is missing from majors like history and english. During those crucial, formative years of brain-development in early adulthood, differential calculus is much richer and more needed (and is in fact craved by the developing intellect) than a course on african languages and culture.
The soft majors, like english lit, psychology, art, history, anthropology, sociology, etc, aren't really conducive to learning anything. They're set up so that a creative student can literally read a few sentences of the required reading, and then dream up a 10-page paper. And, if that student is an able writer, s/he gets an 'a.' majors like these encourage meaningless output by the example of an endless flow of meaningless input. Bullshit in, bullshit out.
On the other hand, one can't fake one's way through a 'hard' major -- one has to apply one's self and learn things. It's impossible to get by on inherent ability and panache in mechanical engineering. One needs to pay attention, show up, work very hard, and most importantly, APPLY LEARNED INFORMATION TO NEW PROBLEMS, regardless of natural ability. A liberal arts major is essentially a 4-year babysitting session for the wealthy.
"I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science," "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of post-structuralism and post-modernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed." -- Noam Chomsky
Students of engineering, math, etc, are quite capable of, and most often do pursue the 'liberal arts' as hobbies; computer scientists and engineers are often accomplished musicians or philosophy buffs. The overwhelming majority of people who studied 'hard' subjects are extremely well-read and well-rounded. On the other hand, not a lot of english majors take advanced math classes or design and build transistors for fun.
The split between the 'soft' and 'hard' majors doesn't represent some imaginary break in world-views between the liberal arts and the pragmatic sciences -- far from it. Math, science and engineering require just as much creativity, expression and aesthetic sense as do art or music. The rift is simply a matter of intelligence, ability and willingness to work: if one doesn't have the brain power or wherewithal to major in computer engineering, one gets one's BA in information systems.
The most meaningful classes for me were calc 1 and 2, music theory 1 and 2, and a class in syllogistic logic and set theory that I took pass-fail during my senior year. The whole 9-year morass of english, psychology, sociology, art and history were utter nonsense as well as a colossal waste of money. In retrospect, I would have liked to have majored in something like math, music theory, computer science, engineering or deductive logic, and taken a few art classes for fun and experimentation, as opposed to the other way around.
But it's too late now. I'm $25,000 in debt, and society doesn't want me as I am, essentially ruined and wasted by my education. I'm 29, and can't afford any more schooling -- my neurons have largely fused because of age, brain damage, and temporal lobe epilepsy. It's literally too late for me.
It's possible that I'm prejudiced by the quality of the liberal arts at state universities, which is truly abysmal. Perhaps at serious universities, rigorous thought is encouraged and fostered in these 'soft' subjects, and there they aren't really 'soft' at all. For instance, a major in english might be, if it were taken seriously, essentially a major in human thought, depending on the breadth of the reading list. But at state universities, the liberal arts are not handled that way. At UMBC, if one turns in 5,000 words, one is guaranteed at least a 'b.' perhaps I'm an unusual case, because I can open the floodgates and dump forth a deluge of prose more easily than most, but I don't want to be graded and assessed on abilities I had going into college. If I wanted to be a writer, there are tough, tough writing programs out there ('out there' being, of course, in the curricula of private colleges).
The moral of the story is: if you insist on studying something nontechnical or 'soft,' then you should be prepared to fork over $30,000+ a year to attend a school where the nontechnical becomes technical through rigor and seriousness of approach. Don't borrow $25,000 from the state of Maryland and attend art school-kindergarten. On the other hand, subjects like computer engineering really are taken seriously at a school like UMBC, and are as such a good investment.
I will blog when it is light again.
It is light again. I experienced intermittent power outages this morning, so I was forced out of the house due to boredom. I had lunch at the fu-shing cafe, then sat around in borders reading thich nhat hahn books and a book of 'bush-isms.' I think bush has some variety of dyslexia, has a parochial, dualistic, dry-drunk quality of mind, and has an active and healthy wit, so it's not always clear if he entirely means what he says. I guess this is an indication of his shrewdness as a politician as well as a basic language-stupidity and black-or-white quality to his world-view.
Anyway, I thought of two things to blog about, so I'm going to try to do it concisely, just so I can save myself the pain of looking into the future and imagining all the time I'll have to spend here, goal-oriented-ly writing in the form of 'here is my assumption, therefore I derive this other thing,' so I can imagine that my penis is bigger than it actually is.
The first was the phenomenon of people from more media-approved cultures playing tourist in cultures that are less media-approved. For example: even though person x is an avowed beer aficionado, when visiting an area that s/he perceives to be less cosmopolitan, s/he will order a bud or a coors, instead of sniffing out the available micro-brews, even though s/he knows the micro-brew will invariably taste better, as s/he has tasted bud/coors before and knows they taste like seltzer water that has had sun-aged chewed bubble gum and iron filings soaking in it for 20 days. Person x orders a bud ostensibly so s/he might experience the culture of whatever podunk town s/he is visiting. But, as you might have guessed, there are more insidious motives at work -- hideous, dark, psychodynamic motives that are illuminated by fear, aggression, and general spiritual ugliness. Person x is using this purported anthropological field trip not to genuinely sample and learn from other cultures, but merely to solidify in his/her own mind as well as the minds of spectators the inferiority of this podunk town's culture to person x's own far more worldy culture.
This phenomenon is very similar to the priest who preaches about the inherent sinfulness of man and how we are all doomed to death, and in the act of saying these words effectively absolves himself from the collective condemnation he's meted out. Or, we can look at the 19th century anthropologist who writes analytically about the motives and behaviors of some new guinean tribe, and in doing so absolves himself from similar study. Or, we can even look at the contemporary anthropologist, a product of post-structuralism, performing culture studies 'at home.' just as the 19th century scholar implies his superiority to the natives with bones in their noses by categorizing and labeling them, the contemporary scholar implies his or her own superiority to the middle class, the average tv-watching, nose-picking joe in the street, or anyone who doesn't fit in his or her own particular tribe (in this case, other members of the pampered university elite, feeding on the tax money of wage-slaves).
Wanting to 'learn more about' and 'experience' other fascinating, foreign cultures tends to be born out of a sense that one's own culture is somehow better than all the other ones, and in general, a sense of self-satisfaction and personal superiority that is best described as ethnocentric.
I don't think it's possible to study another culture without imposing a sort of hierarchy over it, especially with the western mind, which is dualistic, obsessed with categories, and obsessed with hierarchy. These are problems that are built into our language, and into our culture. In some ways, the english-speaking world (and perhaps this extends to any latinate or germanic tongue) is doomed. Our language/culture is set on an autopilot that is going to corkscrew us not only further away from illumination of reality, but into physical death.
In short, studying human thought and behavior is impossible without the implication of the student's superiorty to the subjects, at least with the passion of the western mind. Heehee.
Moving along, the other thing I wanted to blog about was about how everything is inherently a metaphor. This is especially easy to see in language, where obviously a word is either a sound or image that refers to another 'thing.' what this thing actually 'is' is beyond the grasp of language, because we can't help but refer to it metaphorically, if we are going to refer to it at all.
The metaphoric nature of language is related to the metaphoric nature of everything -- how reality isn't really the way things 'are.' everything we perceive is ultimately a metaphor, just as everything we communicate is ultimately a metaphor. We live in a world of illusion.