And, I dare say, it feels good to be back.
I have had many posts stored and partially stored in my head over the last few days. But I've written exams and managed to convince myself that writing here would be procrastination. (Shame on me!)
But here I am with some more quasi-controversial stuff for my readers.
Let us begin by making a reference to perhaps the best known psychologist ever. No, not the one who played with rats in cages. Yes, the one for whom the unconscious id was capable of mainly two types of thinking - sexual or violent. And surely the first one is better known. The reason I mention our friend Sigmund is because, when you read this, I want you to think like he might have when you read the next paragraph.
Imagine that there were a device that someone could somehow persuade you to wear or use that made your sexuality their exclusive property?
Oh shit, wait, those do exist anyway. They have for a while and most of them are not very pleasant.
But let's say you were opposed to such forcible treatment of people. After all, this should be voluntary. Just difficult to remove in case one had reservations about something like this. Something that you were convinced had great value and therefore should not be trifled with.
And there exists something like this as well! They're so common that almost all people in Western culture want one. Most end up getting one too.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe I should just state it more plainly. My question to you is, what do you think the connotations of a wedding ring are in relation to sexual bondage and ownership?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The night-walks through suburbia
...tend to produce interesting conversations. I met the Monkey somewhere around 8pm. It was dark, but we had a business deal to conduct. The transaction lasted an hour under minimal light, and all I was wearing was a t-shirt and shorts, but I wasn't even remotely cold.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Pure randomness
As I sit in the Mendi Labs (or more colloquially, the Dungeon) this morning, with nothing currently else to do (can you believe that) I've decided to make a couple of rather laconic, random points about my observations.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
I want to be a part of it
But the question is, do you need to?
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Insight
Yes, I'm back. You may now all perform the customary sharp intake of breath warranted by this sudden turn of events.
Pardon my theatrics. But I have an idea for you (or is it my idea anyway?). That is, are the thoughts that you have, creative or logical (or perhaps even illogical, hopefully not too often or else I'm not getting through to my intended audience, truly yours to begin with?
From whence exactly do we, as human beings, ostensibly individuals, truly glean ideas? Do they come from your brain? What inspires them? Or did they exist elsewhere and your brain just absorbs them, crediting the individual that is you with the idea? As far as capitalists are concerned, it makes sense to credit individuals with ideas, insights and creative works, so that corporations may come and exploit such people under the banner of intellectual property rights, of course. But my question to you is as follows: Are these ideas manifestations of entirely individual thought processes?
Naturally, we all gain our inspiration from the world and our subjective experience of it. But some of us forget how much we owe to it for providing us with these thoughts and ideas. Instead we exploit or allow others to exploit these ideas for personal gain. And most of us do so not greedily and selfishly,but rather, in accordance with the system requiring us to earn money to surivive, just to make our survival that much more likely and comfortable - even at the cost of the free use of the idea.
My view, though, is that these ideas stem from the collective consciousness and that when you chance upon them, you should be grateful, and you owe it to the collective consciousness to express these. For you, with your free will, have a unique ability to express it, in a way no-one else can. The ideal, then, is for any ideas to be freely disseminated so that they can be enhanced further by other 'individual' aspects of the collective consciousness - improved, and then perfected. For that is all I believe we are, in the end, a unique aspect of this unknowable, ethereal substance we call consciousness.
In effect, I believe that what you are reading right now, in a blog typed by Dave Dornbrack, is an idea that is manifest in the consciousness itself, and that I am merely expressing this idea, using my gift of language, this particular variety that is known as English, to disseminate across the interwebs. All I am doing is increasing the palpability of a preexisting, if dissolute cogntion.
Something to consider: Sometimes, in a certain species, if enough individuals learn a behaviour, it can become instinctual to the rest of the species without ever being taught.
Make of that what you will.
Pardon my theatrics. But I have an idea for you (or is it my idea anyway?). That is, are the thoughts that you have, creative or logical (or perhaps even illogical, hopefully not too often or else I'm not getting through to my intended audience, truly yours to begin with?
From whence exactly do we, as human beings, ostensibly individuals, truly glean ideas? Do they come from your brain? What inspires them? Or did they exist elsewhere and your brain just absorbs them, crediting the individual that is you with the idea? As far as capitalists are concerned, it makes sense to credit individuals with ideas, insights and creative works, so that corporations may come and exploit such people under the banner of intellectual property rights, of course. But my question to you is as follows: Are these ideas manifestations of entirely individual thought processes?
Naturally, we all gain our inspiration from the world and our subjective experience of it. But some of us forget how much we owe to it for providing us with these thoughts and ideas. Instead we exploit or allow others to exploit these ideas for personal gain. And most of us do so not greedily and selfishly,but rather, in accordance with the system requiring us to earn money to surivive, just to make our survival that much more likely and comfortable - even at the cost of the free use of the idea.
My view, though, is that these ideas stem from the collective consciousness and that when you chance upon them, you should be grateful, and you owe it to the collective consciousness to express these. For you, with your free will, have a unique ability to express it, in a way no-one else can. The ideal, then, is for any ideas to be freely disseminated so that they can be enhanced further by other 'individual' aspects of the collective consciousness - improved, and then perfected. For that is all I believe we are, in the end, a unique aspect of this unknowable, ethereal substance we call consciousness.
In effect, I believe that what you are reading right now, in a blog typed by Dave Dornbrack, is an idea that is manifest in the consciousness itself, and that I am merely expressing this idea, using my gift of language, this particular variety that is known as English, to disseminate across the interwebs. All I am doing is increasing the palpability of a preexisting, if dissolute cogntion.
Something to consider: Sometimes, in a certain species, if enough individuals learn a behaviour, it can become instinctual to the rest of the species without ever being taught.
Make of that what you will.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Lives ruined
This is going to be quite a negative post, at least in the beginning. I just think I should warn you of this before you begin reading.
Okay, now that you've decided to go on reading anyway, let me start by stating the obvious: The world is not a just place. History tells us about how many people have been killed, tortured and excommunicated, sometimes with the illusion of justice having been done. At best, this justice is administered capricously and arbitrarily. One must remember through all of this though, that these are not statistics as much as they are human lives. Every time a person is sent to jail, exiled, beaten, killed or forced to suffer pain, it is unnecessary. These brutalities are quite simply being imposed on such people, for no reason other than those imposing them considering them just or even necessary.
Dehumanisation of people leads to said people's potential becoming less fully realised. Putting the people through hell on a personal scale is horrific enough - they have only their own lives to experience, after all. But when you consider the macrocosmic effects of such behaviour, it should become clear that if you dehumanise one person, you dehumanise everyone. The pain they feel is going to manifest itself as pain in the greater cosmic environment.
It has never been more clear: Strive to do no harm. To anyone. Ever. Making a single person suffer makes us all suffer. For we are all connected. We are all just slightly different manifestations of a collective consciousness. Why should we harm something we can help grow? We can build on happiness and efficiency to the point that they become self-sustaining. If there is a purpose for the human race, it is for everyone to live in harmony. For 100% of people, and indeed all sentient beings to enjoy their existence, however brief, to the full.
So you ask, how can I make a difference? The answer is simple: Be kind to everyone. Be generous with your time, your patience, your knowledge and your possessions. Develop yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, all the time. Seek an education. Strive to be fair, non-violent and efficient wherever possible. Listen to people. Laugh, shout, cry, celebrate, mourn with others. Most importantly, enjoy your life. It gives you greater ability to help others enjoy theirs.
Okay, now that you've decided to go on reading anyway, let me start by stating the obvious: The world is not a just place. History tells us about how many people have been killed, tortured and excommunicated, sometimes with the illusion of justice having been done. At best, this justice is administered capricously and arbitrarily. One must remember through all of this though, that these are not statistics as much as they are human lives. Every time a person is sent to jail, exiled, beaten, killed or forced to suffer pain, it is unnecessary. These brutalities are quite simply being imposed on such people, for no reason other than those imposing them considering them just or even necessary.
Dehumanisation of people leads to said people's potential becoming less fully realised. Putting the people through hell on a personal scale is horrific enough - they have only their own lives to experience, after all. But when you consider the macrocosmic effects of such behaviour, it should become clear that if you dehumanise one person, you dehumanise everyone. The pain they feel is going to manifest itself as pain in the greater cosmic environment.
It has never been more clear: Strive to do no harm. To anyone. Ever. Making a single person suffer makes us all suffer. For we are all connected. We are all just slightly different manifestations of a collective consciousness. Why should we harm something we can help grow? We can build on happiness and efficiency to the point that they become self-sustaining. If there is a purpose for the human race, it is for everyone to live in harmony. For 100% of people, and indeed all sentient beings to enjoy their existence, however brief, to the full.
So you ask, how can I make a difference? The answer is simple: Be kind to everyone. Be generous with your time, your patience, your knowledge and your possessions. Develop yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, all the time. Seek an education. Strive to be fair, non-violent and efficient wherever possible. Listen to people. Laugh, shout, cry, celebrate, mourn with others. Most importantly, enjoy your life. It gives you greater ability to help others enjoy theirs.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Pot
If you want to get anywhere studying a degree, I have one piece of solid advice for you. No, it's not study hard, no it's not don't party hard, and it certainly isnt 'stay off the pot'.
Stay the fuck away from TV Tropes. If you're anything like me, you will likely find the site irresistible and remark, 8 hours later, where the fuck has my life gone?
Ah, another symptom of Internet addiction. Kinda distracts me from the important things in life, and indeed the important point of this post, which actually has nothing to do with internet addiction.
This post is about weed. It could be about drugs in general, but for now I'm going to focus on weed.
Now of course I've never been high before. (It's illegal, and I don't break the law). But, lets, just say, hypothetically, that I were to try this, I suspect that with enough use I could come to recognise the dangers, but also the potential of this. And by 'this' I mean being high, having one's state and/or perception altered, and importantly, allowing it to be altered by choice. The drug user voluntarily enters this state. And then strange things start to happen.
You see, you start seeing the world in a different way. You notice that things around you have a strange flow to them... some are functional and efficient. The dysfunctional ones don't affect you quite as much. Your senses are all enhanced and you feel quite sharp, reflexive and agile. And then you make a key realisation. The world around you - when high - is the world that you want to see. It's no Utopia, but it's a projection of your desires.
One paying any attention at this point could figure out the obvious danger involved here: Such a world is highly desirable and preferable to the so-called 'real' one. The drug user will reach a point that he/she rationally concludes that living in such a world is simply better than the other, and begin to smoke pot regularly. (Addiction? Or rational choice to continue using? You be the judge). The point is that using this drug allows you to see things in a different way. A good metaphor for it, for those who have read Harry Potter, is in the first book where Harry finds the Mirror of Erised (desire backwards). The mirror is a projection - nothing more.
But in this same post I argue that this is entirely necessary. To boost creativity and efficiency, to imagine a better world, is entirely necessary if one is ever to create such a thing. Creativity naturally comes to those that know where to look for it. And by serving as a 'distraction' to a person, the drug may allow a person to enter such a space. And then it is used in the service of the present (to have fun/be more calm/enjoy a party more/succeed better at attracting people) and the future (inspiration for creative works, whether for one's career or just for the world in general).
Perhaps those that postulate a causal relationship between weed and schizophrenia see these experiences as delusions. (Perhaps they are). Except, for a schizophrenic person, these delusions become all to real, indistinguishable from so-called reality. While I, of course, am in doubt about such a reality existing in the first place, certain people think that because weed has hallucinatory effects, users cannot separate them from the more commonly experienced life (presumably one not affected by psychoactive drugs). However, let me make a bold suggestion: if a person develops schizophrenia through use of weed - what if they were paranoid and delusional in the first place, and smoking helped to naturalise it? This would be a strong argument for people not to smoke if they were schizophrenic. However, I very strongly doubt that a person with no preexisting psychosis could induce delusions by smoking pot - the test would be: while high, is the subject able to tell the two 'realities' apart? If yes, then where's the risk? It does not make sense that one would lose the rational ability to separate imagination from, well, 'reality' (another layer of imagination?)
So I don't buy the whole schizophrenia thing. Interestingly, my psychiatrist believes that ADHD and schizophrenia are on opposite ends of a continuum - ADHD patients have an underproduction of dopamine, and schizophrenia patients and overproduction.
Nor do I believe that weed is physically addictive. Psychologically, perhaps - if only for the fact that regular users enjoy their experiences and therefore choose to repeat them.
But of course, I have never experienced any of this for myself. Because I don't do drugs. Drugs are bad.
Fuck it, there's no getting through to you kids, is there? Drugs are... Forget it. I'm going for a beer.
Stay the fuck away from TV Tropes. If you're anything like me, you will likely find the site irresistible and remark, 8 hours later, where the fuck has my life gone?
Ah, another symptom of Internet addiction. Kinda distracts me from the important things in life, and indeed the important point of this post, which actually has nothing to do with internet addiction.
This post is about weed. It could be about drugs in general, but for now I'm going to focus on weed.
Now of course I've never been high before. (It's illegal, and I don't break the law). But, lets, just say, hypothetically, that I were to try this, I suspect that with enough use I could come to recognise the dangers, but also the potential of this. And by 'this' I mean being high, having one's state and/or perception altered, and importantly, allowing it to be altered by choice. The drug user voluntarily enters this state. And then strange things start to happen.
You see, you start seeing the world in a different way. You notice that things around you have a strange flow to them... some are functional and efficient. The dysfunctional ones don't affect you quite as much. Your senses are all enhanced and you feel quite sharp, reflexive and agile. And then you make a key realisation. The world around you - when high - is the world that you want to see. It's no Utopia, but it's a projection of your desires.
One paying any attention at this point could figure out the obvious danger involved here: Such a world is highly desirable and preferable to the so-called 'real' one. The drug user will reach a point that he/she rationally concludes that living in such a world is simply better than the other, and begin to smoke pot regularly. (Addiction? Or rational choice to continue using? You be the judge). The point is that using this drug allows you to see things in a different way. A good metaphor for it, for those who have read Harry Potter, is in the first book where Harry finds the Mirror of Erised (desire backwards). The mirror is a projection - nothing more.
But in this same post I argue that this is entirely necessary. To boost creativity and efficiency, to imagine a better world, is entirely necessary if one is ever to create such a thing. Creativity naturally comes to those that know where to look for it. And by serving as a 'distraction' to a person, the drug may allow a person to enter such a space. And then it is used in the service of the present (to have fun/be more calm/enjoy a party more/succeed better at attracting people) and the future (inspiration for creative works, whether for one's career or just for the world in general).
Perhaps those that postulate a causal relationship between weed and schizophrenia see these experiences as delusions. (Perhaps they are). Except, for a schizophrenic person, these delusions become all to real, indistinguishable from so-called reality. While I, of course, am in doubt about such a reality existing in the first place, certain people think that because weed has hallucinatory effects, users cannot separate them from the more commonly experienced life (presumably one not affected by psychoactive drugs). However, let me make a bold suggestion: if a person develops schizophrenia through use of weed - what if they were paranoid and delusional in the first place, and smoking helped to naturalise it? This would be a strong argument for people not to smoke if they were schizophrenic. However, I very strongly doubt that a person with no preexisting psychosis could induce delusions by smoking pot - the test would be: while high, is the subject able to tell the two 'realities' apart? If yes, then where's the risk? It does not make sense that one would lose the rational ability to separate imagination from, well, 'reality' (another layer of imagination?)
So I don't buy the whole schizophrenia thing. Interestingly, my psychiatrist believes that ADHD and schizophrenia are on opposite ends of a continuum - ADHD patients have an underproduction of dopamine, and schizophrenia patients and overproduction.
Nor do I believe that weed is physically addictive. Psychologically, perhaps - if only for the fact that regular users enjoy their experiences and therefore choose to repeat them.
But of course, I have never experienced any of this for myself. Because I don't do drugs. Drugs are bad.
Fuck it, there's no getting through to you kids, is there? Drugs are... Forget it. I'm going for a beer.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Kids
I am having a bit of an angry day today. It happens from time to time. I merely remark upon it to justify, in advance, the somewhat hostile tone of this post. The reason I shall persist with it, though, is because I feel it is appropriate in this case.
It's a quick issue. But it gets to me and needs to get out. And it is this: Most of my friends are in the age range 18-30. (As one would expect). All of these people have had childhoods of varying strictnes, control and parental intervention, ranging from little to great. You must ALL be aware, though, of how terrible a life under the latter would be.
Yet then why do I hear you declare that when you have kids, you are going to be similarly tough on them? DONT YOU LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES??? Being tough on people never works. it just makes them hostile towards you, and makes an enemy out of someone you could otherwise have co-operated with. Here's my approach to parenting (God forbid I ever need to use it myself, but here goes)
Teach your kids fucking decent communication skills, so that they can always be honest about what it is they want. Then communicate well and reach an informed decision about the best way to proceed, instead of forcing your authoritarian will on them. When your parents did that to you, what did you do? That's right - you went out anyway. You had sex. You drank alcohol. You smoked pot.
And your kids will do the same.
Good night.
It's a quick issue. But it gets to me and needs to get out. And it is this: Most of my friends are in the age range 18-30. (As one would expect). All of these people have had childhoods of varying strictnes, control and parental intervention, ranging from little to great. You must ALL be aware, though, of how terrible a life under the latter would be.
Yet then why do I hear you declare that when you have kids, you are going to be similarly tough on them? DONT YOU LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES??? Being tough on people never works. it just makes them hostile towards you, and makes an enemy out of someone you could otherwise have co-operated with. Here's my approach to parenting (God forbid I ever need to use it myself, but here goes)
Teach your kids fucking decent communication skills, so that they can always be honest about what it is they want. Then communicate well and reach an informed decision about the best way to proceed, instead of forcing your authoritarian will on them. When your parents did that to you, what did you do? That's right - you went out anyway. You had sex. You drank alcohol. You smoked pot.
And your kids will do the same.
Good night.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Idealism
Allright, so I have this friend. To preserve his anonymity, we're going to call him MW. Yesterday, MW and I were talking about matters related to sensitivity vs toughness, but more importantly, something TV Tropes refers to as the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism. Read it here. In short, it's about how those two concepts belong on opposite ends of a continuum. And perhaps they do.
So guess which end I'm on? Yeah, I suppose that didn't take much effort on your part. The reason I mention MW is because he's the self-proclaimed opposite. Whether this is true or just wishful thinking on his part is his concern, because that's the problem cynics have: they distinguish between the two.
I used to be a cynic, myself. I hated the world and everything it stood for. I was never a misanthropist, unlike a certain ex of mine (who herself fulfills most of the criteria for cynicism). But I certainly was quite negative, not to mention depressed and disillusioned with the world.
And then something changed. Perhaps I am mistaken or overly optimistic in assuming this change is for the better. But my senses tell me it is. Life isn't nearly quite as empty when you take a look at it, and realise, hey, I'm actually achieving some of those goals. This is really happening. We're not scaremongering....
Forgive my Radiohead moment. (What kind of idealist listens to Radiohead, anyway? Or loves films like Fight Club, Sin City and American Beauty, not to mention said person's own films always seem to be about depression and suicide).
So perhaps we're not all achieving our goals. In that case, I can understand cynicism. But a certain amount of achievement, be it in the arts, the sciences or the wonderful world of seduction, is bound to make a person realise, hey, life isn't all that bad. We have agency. We have a 'reality' fully built out of our own subjectivity.
And that's when things start to get really weird. (See my post on solipsism). After talking to MW, I went to see my psychologist, whom I was imagining was pretty sick of me and my delusional monologues regarding sociology, politics and individual psychology. But I started developing a theory (honestly, one I'm completely unable to let go of, for letting go would mean letting them win. And that, I refuse to do. Acquiescence to my enemies' constructed reality isn't happening any time soon.
My theory is: Efficiency is a virtue. And the best one. But I need to redefine your idea of efficiency first. You're supposedly only thinking about terms of work and success. And those are great things. But there's another dimension entirely to efficiency - your happiness. It's total bullshit that up to 85% of people are forced to do jobs they hate. They're not contributing much to the world, not because their jobs aren't worth much, but because they're not happy. A happy person is a far healthier, more engaging, more EFFICIENT person. The so-called virtue of hard work should be replaced with a virtue of EFFICIENCY. See, hard work isn't efficient, or else it wouldn't be hard, but smart.
I have thought of many ways to go about my life and have as much fun as possible, while still being productive. And I've realised that the way I'm going to do that is by championing the kind of efficiency that looks after the individual. People aren't as lazy as we think. Indeed, we only call people lazy in opposition, say, to doing work they don't want to. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Societal determinism has created a situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils: work hard instead of starving. What I'm trying to say is that this is WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's a DYSFUNCTION of the system when a person is unhappy. Happiness, if represented by a critical mass, will solve all the world's problems. This I guarantee you. Your environment determines your life. Not your personality. So, let's work on the goddamn environment, and turn as many people as possible (obviously, it will never be everyone) into individuals that love, care for and look out for each other. And slowly the dysfunction of the world will vanish. Institutions that are no longer relevant will fade into obscurity.
EDIT: I had to rush off, but I'm back. To make sense of what I'm saying, you will have to understand my mathematical take on the world. Imagine that people's happiness is represented on a scale, say from 1 to 100, 100 being happiest. Happiness is contagious and reinforces itself. So if enough people have an average over 50, reaching critical mass, it will be a good enough world that most people can reach that. Let's imagine all people walking around with auras. Those with green (happy) auras improve their world around them. Those with red auras damage it. With enough green auras (which engage in energy transfer and, if left unguarded, entropy) the world will be improved far faster than it can be destroyed. See, I belive happiness is absolute, and there is an unlimited quantity of it, yet it is highly vulnerable and currently unstable. That is why it needs to be protected. By eliminating waste and caring for people, we care for the human race, and as a result, the planet. Dumping waste in rivers is inefficient - it destroys far more than it helps. This goes for any kind of environmental degradation - it is inefficient to destroy life. It causes more harm than good. So we must focus on doing good instead of harm.
I hope this post makes sense, for to me this is nothing short of a vital epiphany.
Good morning.
So guess which end I'm on? Yeah, I suppose that didn't take much effort on your part. The reason I mention MW is because he's the self-proclaimed opposite. Whether this is true or just wishful thinking on his part is his concern, because that's the problem cynics have: they distinguish between the two.
I used to be a cynic, myself. I hated the world and everything it stood for. I was never a misanthropist, unlike a certain ex of mine (who herself fulfills most of the criteria for cynicism). But I certainly was quite negative, not to mention depressed and disillusioned with the world.
And then something changed. Perhaps I am mistaken or overly optimistic in assuming this change is for the better. But my senses tell me it is. Life isn't nearly quite as empty when you take a look at it, and realise, hey, I'm actually achieving some of those goals. This is really happening. We're not scaremongering....
Forgive my Radiohead moment. (What kind of idealist listens to Radiohead, anyway? Or loves films like Fight Club, Sin City and American Beauty, not to mention said person's own films always seem to be about depression and suicide).
So perhaps we're not all achieving our goals. In that case, I can understand cynicism. But a certain amount of achievement, be it in the arts, the sciences or the wonderful world of seduction, is bound to make a person realise, hey, life isn't all that bad. We have agency. We have a 'reality' fully built out of our own subjectivity.
And that's when things start to get really weird. (See my post on solipsism). After talking to MW, I went to see my psychologist, whom I was imagining was pretty sick of me and my delusional monologues regarding sociology, politics and individual psychology. But I started developing a theory (honestly, one I'm completely unable to let go of, for letting go would mean letting them win. And that, I refuse to do. Acquiescence to my enemies' constructed reality isn't happening any time soon.
My theory is: Efficiency is a virtue. And the best one. But I need to redefine your idea of efficiency first. You're supposedly only thinking about terms of work and success. And those are great things. But there's another dimension entirely to efficiency - your happiness. It's total bullshit that up to 85% of people are forced to do jobs they hate. They're not contributing much to the world, not because their jobs aren't worth much, but because they're not happy. A happy person is a far healthier, more engaging, more EFFICIENT person. The so-called virtue of hard work should be replaced with a virtue of EFFICIENCY. See, hard work isn't efficient, or else it wouldn't be hard, but smart.
I have thought of many ways to go about my life and have as much fun as possible, while still being productive. And I've realised that the way I'm going to do that is by championing the kind of efficiency that looks after the individual. People aren't as lazy as we think. Indeed, we only call people lazy in opposition, say, to doing work they don't want to. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Societal determinism has created a situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils: work hard instead of starving. What I'm trying to say is that this is WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's a DYSFUNCTION of the system when a person is unhappy. Happiness, if represented by a critical mass, will solve all the world's problems. This I guarantee you. Your environment determines your life. Not your personality. So, let's work on the goddamn environment, and turn as many people as possible (obviously, it will never be everyone) into individuals that love, care for and look out for each other. And slowly the dysfunction of the world will vanish. Institutions that are no longer relevant will fade into obscurity.
EDIT: I had to rush off, but I'm back. To make sense of what I'm saying, you will have to understand my mathematical take on the world. Imagine that people's happiness is represented on a scale, say from 1 to 100, 100 being happiest. Happiness is contagious and reinforces itself. So if enough people have an average over 50, reaching critical mass, it will be a good enough world that most people can reach that. Let's imagine all people walking around with auras. Those with green (happy) auras improve their world around them. Those with red auras damage it. With enough green auras (which engage in energy transfer and, if left unguarded, entropy) the world will be improved far faster than it can be destroyed. See, I belive happiness is absolute, and there is an unlimited quantity of it, yet it is highly vulnerable and currently unstable. That is why it needs to be protected. By eliminating waste and caring for people, we care for the human race, and as a result, the planet. Dumping waste in rivers is inefficient - it destroys far more than it helps. This goes for any kind of environmental degradation - it is inefficient to destroy life. It causes more harm than good. So we must focus on doing good instead of harm.
I hope this post makes sense, for to me this is nothing short of a vital epiphany.
Good morning.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Celebrity culture
Greetings all. I am here to entertain you once again, with a little question to get you thinking.
Why the hell are human beings, as a whole, at all interested in celebrity culture? Why do we care whom our favourite actress sleeps with but not the hobo in the street? Or even just any given person? I have a long list of friends that are constantly getting in and out of relationships, do you care about any of them? Surely only the ones you know, you couldn't be bothered by the ones you don't know?
Perhaps you feel you know the celebrities since you choose to follow their progress. But I disagree. I don't think you know them at all. All you know about them is what the media choose to report. Which, if you have one iota of intelligence, you should know is geared towards their (media companies') own profit. They will never tell you anything you don't want to hear - that would just cause you to buy another magazine, listen to another radio station or surf another website. No, what you need to claim you know someone is interaction. You talk to them, and they talk to you. Simple.
But there is another level of consciousness going on here. I reckon the reason that these celebrities are of interest is because they are portrayed, quite simply, as gods.
In Western individualist culture, we are taught to look up to the rich, as they are assumed to be successful people (or else why would they be rich? No mention, naturally, of the capitalist system supporting the already rich. That would be too honest). And we see the riches of these celebrities on television. We are taught that they are beautiful and these are the standards of beauty we must aspire to. As soon as one of these people fails at something, the media are then uncharacteristically harsh to them. For failure is not tolerable to someone whose business is to thrust images of success, success, success at you. Celebrity culture is a religion unto its own right, a polytheistic religion if you will. Politicians are included in this game. Barack Obama did not buy that suit with a few one-dollar contributions, and remember that no matter how much change he promises you, he doesn't need any change himself. The reason I mention him at all is that in a celebrity culture of gods, his image is their leader, their Zeus or Jupiter.
You must remember their names. They certainly don't know yours. But you must remember theirs. The many names they won't remember are the opposite of the single names you must. And that is why they are rich and you are (probably) not.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Over your head
When I was a kid, I had no reference point to determine how much of the world I was naturally cognisant of. This being quite young, naturally. As i grew up, I had friends who would point things out or know things that they considered it 'normal' to be aware of, and I mean trivial things, like knowing that rugby happens on Saturdays, and perceiving that surfers were cool and knowing to wear clothes similar to them. This stuff took a while to filter through to me, the fact that I did not naturally follow it was an indication that I was not cool, at least to them.
Over the years I did eventually figure it out, though. And then I turned the game against everyone. I went the step further, went to university, and found things about the world that would make the 'average' person's head spin. I do that not to lord anything over people (for what benefit would that bring?) but rather to showcase the potential of humankind, for those that love themselves and others enough to realise that there is a better way to live - not to judge others, but to learn from them. Not to stand by old limitations of society. And this way, you notice a lot more about the world. So I might not seem typically observant to others, but that is because I listen where many do not. I think we could all do this if we tried.
As a result of all of these changes, I've noticed that I'm becoming a lot more relaxed in this world. I've been telling people I know lately just to chill out and deal with what's coming when it comes, for worrying incessantly is not going to bring the same results that calm preparedness will. Higher plane of existence? Maybe not quite. But definitely an alternative perception. One that, in some form or another, deserves at least experimentation.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may go back to perusing the Internet for porn now. :P
Over the years I did eventually figure it out, though. And then I turned the game against everyone. I went the step further, went to university, and found things about the world that would make the 'average' person's head spin. I do that not to lord anything over people (for what benefit would that bring?) but rather to showcase the potential of humankind, for those that love themselves and others enough to realise that there is a better way to live - not to judge others, but to learn from them. Not to stand by old limitations of society. And this way, you notice a lot more about the world. So I might not seem typically observant to others, but that is because I listen where many do not. I think we could all do this if we tried.
As a result of all of these changes, I've noticed that I'm becoming a lot more relaxed in this world. I've been telling people I know lately just to chill out and deal with what's coming when it comes, for worrying incessantly is not going to bring the same results that calm preparedness will. Higher plane of existence? Maybe not quite. But definitely an alternative perception. One that, in some form or another, deserves at least experimentation.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may go back to perusing the Internet for porn now. :P
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Solipsism considered
I was talking to some friends about solipsism, for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why, but it was borne out of an experience of walking streets on a Sunday night. Fairly quiet streets, located in Newlands, which for those who don't know is a leafy, quiet suburban zone in the Southern Suburbs.
It came from thinking about the concept of objective reality. A concept I've never quiet bought, actually. I've previously argued that perception = reality. Now i further that with the sound realisation that there is no objective reality, at all. For there cannot be, in this case. From whence are we to form reality, if not objective? I propound that we are being experienced by a single organism (a singular conscoiousness), experiments, as it were, and that by achieving progress we are facilitating evolution, which is our purpose, we subjectively define its reality. This is our gift, to define 'reality' by experiencing it SUBJECTIVELY. Our weakness is that we can lose control of our abilities to warp it by failing to cope with demands of life, or supporting the energy required to power a simulation of this sort. Our consciousness is its energy source. To enjoy consciousness, to reach nirvana, as it were (or your cultural equivalent, mine of which is hedonism in anarchy) would be giving surplus power and allowing the simulacrum to flourish. The suffering in the world is draining it. Therefore, as a team of subjective entities, we must use our shared consciousness (communication) in order to allow said simulacrum to flourish.
Bascially, counsciousness is one fucking science experiment.
Now go watch a film based on a story written by Phillip K. Dick. Go on, pick any one.
P.S. Thanks to my friend Monkey, with whom I have had many philosophical discussions while on missions ambulating the Southern Suburbs or the upper levels, that I could develop such interesting cognitions and able me to make sense of two rather new, good friends with whom I have recently been engaging.
Yes, I'm a fucking pedant.
Good night
It came from thinking about the concept of objective reality. A concept I've never quiet bought, actually. I've previously argued that perception = reality. Now i further that with the sound realisation that there is no objective reality, at all. For there cannot be, in this case. From whence are we to form reality, if not objective? I propound that we are being experienced by a single organism (a singular conscoiousness), experiments, as it were, and that by achieving progress we are facilitating evolution, which is our purpose, we subjectively define its reality. This is our gift, to define 'reality' by experiencing it SUBJECTIVELY. Our weakness is that we can lose control of our abilities to warp it by failing to cope with demands of life, or supporting the energy required to power a simulation of this sort. Our consciousness is its energy source. To enjoy consciousness, to reach nirvana, as it were (or your cultural equivalent, mine of which is hedonism in anarchy) would be giving surplus power and allowing the simulacrum to flourish. The suffering in the world is draining it. Therefore, as a team of subjective entities, we must use our shared consciousness (communication) in order to allow said simulacrum to flourish.
Bascially, counsciousness is one fucking science experiment.
Now go watch a film based on a story written by Phillip K. Dick. Go on, pick any one.
P.S. Thanks to my friend Monkey, with whom I have had many philosophical discussions while on missions ambulating the Southern Suburbs or the upper levels, that I could develop such interesting cognitions and able me to make sense of two rather new, good friends with whom I have recently been engaging.
Yes, I'm a fucking pedant.
Good night
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)