Many people who train for social reasons. Clubs can be fun, and the people they attract vary a great deal. People are primates, and primates enjoy physical contact. Not many people get enough touch. While some of the touch in martial arts is a little rough it has the virtue of being uncomplicated and socially ‘safe’. It helps create links between people, a space where other conversations can take place. Incidentally martial arts classes are often a great venue for women to meet men...

Other people are attracted to martial arts out of fear. Fear of aging, or fear of conflict, fear of being beaten. In some clubs this fear is tangible. It is the driving force towards ‘street realism’ at one extreme, or an obsessional search for ‘magic chi power’ at the other. Fear can be corrosive if it drives the training. It can be healthy if there is space to notice that fear is just one part of training that needs to be accepted and integrated to progress.

Health and fitness is another motivation. Martial arts provide a great way to develop strength, flexibility, grace of movement and endurance. The best piece of exercise equipment you can ever have is your own body. Combine that with another body and the possibility for extending your limits of awareness, skill, strength and speed are endless. Martial arts are also a fine way to encourage relaxation and deal with stress. Combat is as stressful a context as it is possible to be in. As a result martial arts have developed methods to balance this stress with relaxation.

Some people are fascinated with martial arts for the richness of philosophy, culture and understanding that they embody. Chinese martial arts touch on Chinese medicine, cosmology and art. Study of their techniques reveals volumes about biomechanics, physiology, and psychology. Each art has a history filled with colourful characters and courageous deeds. Some people take this to an extreme where their identity gets wrapped up in the exotic culture from which their chosen art originates. Their art becomes a way to stand out and be different. They usually grow out of it though...

Finally some people devote themselves to their arts to contribute to the people around them. Martial arts provide discipline and insight. They put you in touch with fear, aggression and provide a way to control or transcend negative impulses and desires. They build confidence and are humbling at the same time.

Being clear about your reason to train is important. It allows you tro create goals of what your training will bring you, and know whether you are achieveing them, or whether you need to change your approach.

Whether you already train, or are thinking of starting what's your reason?

Discussion to be led by Keith Parker (Oswy Gothly in SL) on Sunday 7 Sept, 9pm GMT, on Open Habitat in Second Life.

Let us continue our debate which began with the issue of fame and has now moved to an analysis of the state of our culture.

I define the Enlightenment Project thus:-

A belief in the power of human rationality to establish reliable, universally recognised scientific and moral knowledge.

A rejection of beliefs that claim truth based solely on authority and tradition.

A belief in the equality of humans in terms of their ability to be rational and an impulse to remove all barriers to the exercise of that rationality via the promotion of individual liberty, autonomy and choice.

A belief in the capacity of humankind to use rationality to promote individual and communal progress.

In asserting these beliefs I stand with those who defend the Enlightenment Project. Mark Rowlands, whose book Fame sparked this debate, is one of those defenders. I have tried to summarise his position in this debate in an accompanying document, (See The Enlightenment Project and the Threat it Faces)

Of course there are many philosophers who in recent times have attacked the whole idea of `Enlightenment` these include Mark Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, who saw the instrumentality of reason leading us to the `Death Camps`, Jacob Talmon and Isaiah Berlin who saw it leading to the Soviet and Fascist Totalitarianism. Jean Francois Lyotard who dismissed `Enlightenment ` pretension to Grand Theories of Progress as useless meta narratives. Michel Foucault who claimed that `Enlightenment` practices concealed new methods for human domination. Edward Said who saw the `Enlightenment as responsible for colonialism and racism. MacIntyre, Taylor, Sandel and the Communitarians who see the objectivist quality of `Enlightenment` moral thinking as corrosive of our traditional values and community bonds.

Little wonder that one critic of `Enlightenment` condemned it in the following terms, “the three ideational colonnades, on which the entire edifice of the Enlightenment rested” were a triumphalist science that was “virile, misanthropic, misogynist, determinist, intolerant and subjugationist”; a “materialist totalitarianism” that “united phenomena as far apart as Patriarchy, Imperialism, Colonization, environmental degradation, [and] destruction of the community and social ties”; and a liberal, progressivist ideology that was “blatantly Stalinist” in that it sanctioned “rabid, catastrophic violence [as] an entirely legitimate means to enshrine and defend [its] wonderful principles.” (1)
So what cultural state are we in? Is vfame really the most worrying sign that our culture has been eroded by postmodern relativism? Is relativism with its rejection of objectivity and universal standards making us more vulnerable to Fundamentalist attack? Are there such things as `Enlightenment ideals that are worth defending anyway?

Questions.

1)Is Rowlands right when he says, “If anything you do counts as self realization, then the idea of self realization is vacuous` and that this implies we need an objective system of standards to rank our choices in life?

2)Is the definition of the `Enlightenment Project` given at the beginning of this introduction correct and sustainable?

3)Is relativism a sustainable defence against fundamentalism?

Reading

1)`The Enlightenment Project and the threat it Faces` Extracts and Analysis of Rowlands
Summary: Mark Rowlands on the enlightenment projects and threats it faces.

2)Foucault, `What is Enlightenment` famous article showing Foucault`s ambiguity to the Enlightenment.

3)Dennis Rasmussen. `Contemporary Political theory as an Anti-Enlightenment Project'. Very long but the first section is very good as a review of critics of the Enlightenment Project.

4)`Fame by Mark Rowlands A Resume` Resume of Rowlands book fame.

Is choice a necessary component of morality? Can we morally judge an action if the agent had no choice in the matter? Supposing we can’t, how do we tell if it’s possible to do so? What if we never have a choice?

Predeterminism is the idea that we can have no effect on the events occurring around us. It means, no matter what we try to do, the same predetermined events will happen. But, there is still the possibility of free will, within a predetermined world.

An argument against predeterminism is that if we don’t have the choice in whether we do the things we do or not, we can make no moral judgements, which invalidates the whole study of morality.  This argument is obviously flawed, because moral judgements aren’t a necessary condition for predeterminism. It would be the case regardless of whether we can or can’t judge. But this raises the question can there be morality in a predetermined world?

When we make a decision, we have some desire which this decision aims to satisfy. For example, say you want to pass an exam. In order to do this, you study. In other words, you study to pass this exam. Most likely however, you don’t want to study for the sake of studying.  In this example, you would have more than one desire. You don’t want to study, but you want to pass. So, studying, or not studying, is a first order desire, while passing the exam is a second order desire, which overuses the first. You could in fact have any number of orders of desires, but this is a minor point for now.  In a predetermined world, this means you would study whether you wanted to or not. But the point remains that you have a choice. In this way, we still have free will in a predetermined world.

Returning to the original question, we can say that while you can’t act morally, but you can will morally. If you were to kill someone, you wouldn’t have a choice in killing them, but you would have a choice in wanting to kill them.  But this raises a deeper question. Is it right to kill someone (which I’m sure most would agree is a wrong thing to do, of itself) when you have no choice in the matter? Or more precisely, if you don’t want to kill someone, is killing them right?  If choice is not necessary for moral judgements, then a predetermined world is not moralistic. Otherwise, the question becomes one about the desires of whatever agent is to be judged. But in this case, morality is conserved.

There’s a simpler argument about moral judgements and predeterminism. If this is a predetermined world and you make a judgement about something, you would have made that judgement whether you wanted to or not.

The topic of this blog is a follow on from the highly entertaining Socratic Society debate last Monday and the challenges it posed to my definition of Philosophy. Although the point of the debate wasn’t strictly about its definition (but rather its existence as some distinct entity), it caused me to question how I define it for myself.

How do I define philosophy?

It relates to a point made by Dr Madison; to define philosophy we should (or at least, it would be easier to) apply a bottom-up way of thinking. Look at examples of philosophy and see what they have in common.

Trying to put that into practice is harder than it sounds. Being a humble first year I’m not too sure what the disciplines of philosophy are, or if they are even distinct from each other, but if they can display some common theme then maybe we can get somewhere.

Regardless of their names, they must have at least one common theme. So what is it?

It seems to me that they all involve discussing abstract concepts. Take for example, the discussion group last Tuesday was a 2 hour discussion on the abstract concept of conformity (in Morven Brown 327 from 12 – 2, every even week!). By abstract I mean to say that it isn’t tangible, something that can’t be quantified. You can quantify degrees of conformity, but not conformity itself. In the same way, you can’t quantify knowledge, love, belief, discrimination, justice, God or morality. So does that make it philosophy?

Surely philosophy involves more than just discussion.

This brings me to my second idea.

I think it is necessary to think long and hard about philosophy, not just discuss the issues it concerns. To really engage in philosophy I think it is necessary to sit down (in an armchair by the fire, in any good café or even the Doncaster) and think about a topic as in the examples above to form (or begin to form) a personal opinion on the matter. I hesitate to use the word opinion, because that implies reaching a conclusion and often has connotations of aggressive applications, but I think you catch my drift.

Here it could be possible to ask, “Is discussing one of these intangible ideas engaging in philosophy?” and my answer is no, it is discussing philosophy, not engaging in it. It is certainly possible to enter discussions that are not philosophical. Although I do agree that discussion is an integral part of philosophy and is perhaps part of what it is to be a philosopher, but not what it is to be a philosopher. To continue with the discussion group example, I would say that if someone came to one of the meetings without an opinion and left with one, they’d be engaging in philosophy with themselves. If they came prepared with a personal opinion, voiced and developed it during the discussion, they’d be engaging in philosophy with the group. If someone came to the meeting and didn’t manage to form/develop an opinion, but instead discussed the issue at hand from a purely objective perspective, they would be discussing philosophy, not engaging in it.

I think what I’m trying to say is that it involves some degree of personal involvement.

That being said, it is almost impossible to remain completely disengaged from a philosophical discussion, so it would be quite rare to discuss philosophy and not engage in it.

So, is it unfair to say that almost everyone could be considered a philosopher? Assuming that all it takes to be a philosopher is to engage in philosophy and given that most people at some stage wonder about the meaning of life, say, or perhaps the nature of love or the existence of a God or Gods, does it not follow that most of the population capable of grasping abstract concepts could be counted as a philosopher?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Twice I found myself in the tea room with B and we seemed to fall back into our chatty, flirty style with each other. We keep edging around the topic of relationships with each other which is quite interesting. Today it was comments on rich, aging men who take up with much younger women - B assured me he wasn't interested in young bimbos (not that he is exactly aging I have to say - he's only in his late 30s). I assured him I wasn't interested in rich men particularly (although I have no real aversion to a man having money I must say :-) )

Not much planned for the weekend. Another massage tomorrow and then perhaps another movie. Nothing for Sunday except perhaps I might take myself on a bushwalk. Another quiet, potentially slow weekend. Where have all my friends gone lately I wonder? Next weekend I'm seeing Paul and another friend wants to catch up (same day I think).

Acceptance. That is where I am at. Next week Saturn crosses my Ascendant (that is pretty significant - only happens every 29 years). I am having a guided meditation to try to make the most of the opportunities.

Thursday nights I still go to my study/meditation class and I'm quite amazed now at the sorts of things that come through sometimes. I had a voice saying to me the other night, they are not all connected yet. So last night I asked who was not connected. Turns out it is the team of people I am to work with on the physical plane - and there are 17 of them. Then I was told how to attempt to connect them up! Cool stuff. I love it. I have been yearning for my 'team', my 'group', my 'ashramic colleagues' for quite a while now. The ones with whom I am going to find and manifest my purpose. When I think of this aloneness I often feel I realise it isn't just, deep down, the desire for a partner, it is also the desire for my group.

So now I'm going to post this and then go and read Esoteric Psychology Volume II by Alice Bailey. I love the way it explains the stages as we grow and evolve, and I like to try to pinpoint the stage I am at - then everything makes sense. I think I am making inner progress but often it isn't reflected in the outer world. Then I read up on it and find that what I experience is often a sign that things ARE moving and shaking.

invited me to

"meet the source of your fearlessness."

I thought about it 

walking down the hall where 

my little guy

sleeps and dreams

and thinks that I am

fearless

which is being scared

down to my soles

and doing it anyway

fearlessly

Oh, it's not like it hasn't happened before. And it's not like I didn't expect it to happen again. Actors are ... actorish, and this is what they do. They're like cats on the doorstep...I want in...I want out...I want in...but unlike cats, you can't exactly stick your foot under their butts and decide it for them. For one thing, most of them are bigger than you, if you happen to be me. For another, the whole virtual butt-kicking thing works much better in fetish DVDs than in motivational emails.

So I've heard.

But fame or no fame, actor or no actor, I've been down this pixel trail a time or two (dozen) before, and frankly, you can't push people. They come or they go, and it can mean a great deal to the "audience" or it can mean nothing at all, but that makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not the person returns for the long term. I've seen people come back for twelve hours. I've seen people come back for just long enough to register a digital avatar trail and say "see, I went." I've seen Brian Atene come and go and come back and go again over the course of a couple of years. But it's the same process and we are just exactly as impotent.

I could email. I have his email. But I don't for a second believe he's playing coy: I think the man is honestly backing off, and that nothing is creepier than opening your email to see a mass of zombie grab-hands springing out from it, trying to draw you back. I'll leave him be. If he returns, he returns; if he doesn't, I hope he's making shitloads of money and eventually sends me that autograph he owes me, which, no, I don't think I'll ever see. I'm like that myself, you see, and the list of things I owe to people I've never seen in the flesh is longer than I am tall. Even if I were, like, tall.

And if you think this is just about Brian Atene, you haven't been paying attention at all.

Today my friend Tom needed help with some recording he was doing for a movie he just finished. For some reason, his beast of a Mac wasn't picking up his microphone at full volume, and he called me to see if I could help.

I went to go diagnose the problem where I couldn't figure out anything to do. So I suggested we try recording on his PC while our singer, whose name I have since forgotten :-/, listened to the instrumental in headphones from an iPod. It was kind of make-shift day.

Well, that sucked too. Not only does the stupid generic Windows sound recording program limit you to 60-second recordings, but it turns out that the mic just sucked too. So our singer decided to go to her boyfriend's studio to record the track and turn it in later. It was a fun couple of hours.

CelebSystem

So I decided to take a slightly different approach to the monetization of the CelebSystem site, and I decided that a better idea would be to sell 25+ page article/reports for $10 instead of a single $30 ebook of all of my writings.

This will allow me to expand while also letting visitors purchase individual articles that they may be interested in instead of an entire package, only half of which they may have actually wanted/needed to know about.

I'm going to have to go through a significant amount of coding to get my site in shape for my new expedition, but I'm looking forward to it. I just wish there were more hours in the day.

Politics

Okay, this is just kind of silly, but for real, Mike Huckabee looks just like Kevin Spacey. Check it out:

Anyway, a slightly more substantial and interesting note, Jon Stewart had a field day at the Republican Convention tonight.

My new favorite issue of contention is the staunch Anti-Pro Choice stance and its clash with Presidential candidate John McCain's running mate's, Sarah Palin, teenage daughter's scandalous pregnancy.

It was very interesting to see how adamant conservative GOP supporters insisted that the issue was a family matter, but were extremely reluctant to use the words "their choice". It's funny how people are in full support of an ideal until it affects themselves or those they care about.

It was very similar to Michael Moore's criticism of the politicians on Capitol Hill who supported families sending their children off to fight the war in Iraq, but didn't believe in sending their own.

Now I'm not a die-hard democrat. I have some issues that I'm liberal about, and I have some issues that I'm conservative about. I don't believe in the death penalty (I'll touch on that some day down the line), but I also don't believe in the welfare system and other social services provided to the dregs of our nation.

I suppose I'd be called a libertarian, but it's just a label. What do you think about this blatant hypocrisy?

-K
http://www.celebsystem.com

Buy one philosophy and get a contradictory philosophy at half price!  Hey, you're ready for politics! And we'll wrap it up with a Machiavellian streak absolutely free!

Thinking of becoming a television pundit but don't have strong opinions of your own?  We have an incredible selection of hobbyhorses! Ride 'em off to fame and fortune on 24-hour cable news. Or get just one and become a blogger. The possibilities are endless.

We also provide our patented Duplicate and Detail Service. Bring in a "borrowed" philosophy, we'll not only provide you with an identical replica, we'll chrome and ornament it so it's superficially original. Watch out academia, here you come!

College opinions don't fit you anymore? Got a new, lucrative career in a morally suspect industry and your old scruples are chafing your delicate self-image -- don't worry! We'll buy them from you for twice what you'd get from lobbyists!

So come on down to ReThought!

Philosophy nearly good as new! Sure this stuff's been thought about, but not that hard!

That is:
First, lay out [general] conditions and definitions:
eg.

Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being
premeditated is defined as ...
killing is defined as ...
human is defined as ...

Then move to consequences / moral statements

eg.

Murder is morally wrong because to believe that murder is right introduces inherent contradictions as outlined by Stephan Molyneaux in his work ... (visit freedomainradio.com for a rational secular morality)
The consequences for murder should be sanctions upon the murderer as outlined in such and such penal code

Enforcing this generalized system means that individual cases are first evaluated on whether the cause is correct, and then on what action must be taken.
For example:

Imagine a rule that says:
"All organizations that enforce racial or religious discrimination are barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America."
Many people would nominally agree with this rule, but it's irrelevant for this discussion whether one does.
Accept for the moment that such a rule exists, and subsequent definitions for organization, discrimination, recieving, and federal money.
If such a rule existed, we might apply a line of reasoning like the following:

The KKK is an organization.  [Check the definition of organization - any useful definition would probably cover the KKK]
The KKK enforces racial and/or religious discrimination.  [I guess we'd have to check the definition of enforce, as well as historical actions taken by the KKK]
Therefore the KKK must be barred from receiving federal money from the USA.

not an unreasonable result... Lets try another one:

Nations are organizations of people.  [we'd have to check the definition of organization above to be sure, but this is not unreasonable]
Israel is a nation. [It claims it is... and there are a lot of nations in the middle east whose leaders and people wish it wasn't]
Israel enforces religious discrimination.  [It's proud of the fact that any Jew can become a citizen, but other religions are not equally protected]
Israel is _therefore_ an organization that enforces religious discrimination.
Israel, therefore, is barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America.

This line of reasoning could of course be used to block federal money from being sent to any huge number of intolerant states.

Okay.  What's the problem?  Why am I bothering to address this issue?
Many people put the cart before the horse in many situations like this.  Rather than first laying out rules and systems (an ideology) for who or what is worthy of support (engineering practices, nations, laws, etc.), people instead put their support behind whatever is personally convenient, and then try to form an ideology behind that.

This would lead to self contradictory ideologies, if people were okay with that.  Unfortunately, people justifiably have an aversion to self contradiction and instead start inserting implied 'except for' clauses into their rulesets.  The ultimate 'except for' clause is god, of course, but many have 'except for' clauses that basically say 'except for when that would cause me personal inconvenience or would imply that I'm a hypocrite.'
These convoluted, changing, and often self-contradictory ideologies get names slapped on them like conservatism, liberalism, marxism, libertarianism, socialism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

A side effect is that these ad-hoc ideologies become so convoluted that experts can and do argue about the relative merits of all these ideologies without arriving at any conclusions... Which makes great TV.

The complete obfuscation allows anyone to apply pretty much whatever label they feel like to themselves without even realizing they're advocating a hypocritical position.

Are there ideologies that are consistent out there?

Probably.  There are a few that I've seen that seem internally and externally consistent.  Their primary feature is a lack of support for any sort of institutionalized coercive mechanism.

Thank you for being such wonderful teachers,exemplary role models, and caring people.
Thank you for knowing your subjects and sharing your knowledge.
Thank you for not being afraid to treat students like real people.
Thank you for showing acceptance, approval, and appreciation. These are all gifts that are so important to a student's development and that your students will always remember, just as they will also
Remember you, Words of encouragement, a little respect, simple gestures of kindness from a teacher promote the perfect climate for students to study, learn and grow.Your attitude translates into a spirit of friendliness and good will towards others in an atmosphere of creative freedom, joy and ease, and you foster this feeling in your classroom. I salute the good work you've done. I appreciate the people you are, and I think you for your positive influence. You have passed on invaluable instruction and wisdom and created pleasurable moments associated with learning that will always be sweet memories.
Thank you for answering the call to be teachers.
Thank you for the enduring impression you've made in the lives you have touched.Every community needs people like you. Your contributions are immeasurable. Your lessons are permanent. You improve our world. You are so important.
Thank you once again to be my teacher and help me to be whatever today I am. Speical thanks to Mr.Gyotindra Narayan Jha, Md Abdul Qayum, Mr. Akhilesh Pd. Yadav, Mr. Shiv Shankar Das, Mr. Bhola Nath Jha, Mr Nihar Ranjan Sahu, Mr. Manoj, Mrs. Archana Arora, Mrs. Rashmi Priya, Mr. Gyan and also all the people who contributed little bit to my whole life.

With Respect
Shashidhar Kumar
Website : www.shashionline.in
Email : shashi@shashionline.in

I remember reading that Lokmanya Tilak started public festivals to foster a sense of unity among people. It made sense that many communities came together to celebrate something in times of extreme social unrest under the British rule. But what's the deal today? Moreover, has it even remained what it was intended to be?

Let's put aside the fact that I'm an atheist and celebration of festivals doesn't make sense to me anyway. Let's just look at the idea of public demonstrations as such.

You bring in the idol at home and perform aartis to appease the God. Fair enough. You invite other people so that everyone could benefit from one another's prayers. Again, fair enough. But what do you gain by playing loud music and making everyone else (including the ones who don't wish to be a part of it) a part of it? What do you gain by dancing along the street and disrupting the flow of traffic?

The different mentalities of people play a role here. One of the types are those who, in Ayn Rand's words, gain their self-esteem second hand. These people gauge the importance of a celebration by the number of people that participate, the size of the idol used, and the amount of noise made. The number of people gaping at your extravagance is a bigger measure of faith than the faith itself. You are great if people consider you great, irrespective of what you really are. Incidentally, this also happens to be one of the reasons why corrupt people donate large funds to charity thinking that the gesture would somehow atone for their corruption.

The other type of people involved in this are those who have forgotten the difference between "tolerance" and "respect." I don't know how this came to be, but the phrase "tolerance to others' opinions" has somehow changed into "respect for other's opinions." As if respect was something one earns as a birthright. Meaning, if you have reverence for Lord xyz, everyone else is supposed to respect that. That's nonsense. Everyone has to "tolerate" that. They cannot stop you from doing it, but they certainly don't have to consider your notions worth respecting. Respect is a special feeling reserved only for things that you have reverence for, not what others have reverence for.

Then there are those simply looking for an excuse to shed the mask of civility and be their own savage self. This public display of "happiness" gives them an opportunity to do just that. These are the ones you will find shabbily dressed, gloating between women who wouldn't otherwise even look at them, and dancing without restraint.

Of course, there are also the ones who are really spiritual and think that all of this makes sense. It is to them I want to ask: Does it?

I trust that no one will tell me that faith gets stronger by public demonstration. And certainly no one can claim that Gods prefer noisy, dancing devotees more than they prefer solemn, rational worshippers. Then what purpose does this act serve? I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your happiness; you do. You can be as boisterous as you want when you're in a place with people who all seek the same form of expression. But why is it so important to do it front of a society that might or might not be interested in sitting through an hour of that hubbub.

I appreciate that it's not alright for others to comment on someone else's faith; it's a personal matter. But do the ones celebrating it realize that it is a personal matter, and that it's called "personal" for a reason?

Expressing your happiness does not have to mean being obnoxious to others.

While most pups are born, Mr. Snuppy and Mrs. Snuppy were "created" through the exciting process of cloning. Forgive my use of the term Mrs. Snuppy, but as her name was of no significance despite her hard work in bringing the pups to life, I couldn’t find it in this fantastic article that I read in the newspaper. I think that it’s with great pride that the “now-disgraced cloning expert Hwang Woo-Suk” of Seoul National University (some of whose work on “cloning embryonic human stem cells” was identified as fake,) brought this wonderful news to the world!

I should be happy. Nine new “pure-bred” Afghan Hound pups have been brought into this world. They are unique, aren’t they? They are purebred in two ways – both their parents are Afghan Hounds and both are clones! Voila! They are the purest! Think about the commercial aspect of this whole deal – in future we may have a new kind of pup in the pup-sellers’ windows…and they are going to have a price tag, which would make them the most exclusive of all status symbols! I should be happy!!

But I am not. Somehow this whole thing reminds me of the movie Gattaca! I don’t know if you seen it, but it tells us what may happen to this world if we begin to engineer people which is going to be the next step…they are now moving to wolves!

In my estimation, the next cloned lot would be that of guerrillas or orangutans; and then human babies will be first “manufactured” illegally…because no government will permit experimentation on humans…and then the engineered humans shall take over (it would be easier for them, for they wouldn’t have the flaws that natural-born humans would have) – and the children born of love would become second-grade citizens of the new world.

You may call this hogwash, but a canine can see twenty times the distance a human can, and mark my words…check them out when the time comes…or probably when the time comes, we’ll have only engineered humans and pups, who’ll be able to read and write…so they shall read this and brand me a canine Nostradamus! Who knows!

As I said earlier, this whole thing doesn’t make me happy. There are better things to be done with all that money that’s being poured down this cloning drain! The Katrinas and the Tsunamis, and the Gustavs and the Kosis will always be there to give us a better cause to spend money upon! Today, we still have humans who look at the victims with sympathy, but when the cousins of these natural disasters strike the engineered-beings; sympathy would be scarce, especially for the natural-borns!

The individualism that today enthuses humans to embrace cloning would become its first casualty, as cloning by its very definition is the antithesis of individualism!

So I congratulate Snuppy, but with a heavy heart. He doesn’t know that he is a victim and that his pups are symbols of a future that I’d rather not imagine!

And personally I would be happy if even this research by Hwang Woo-Suk turns out to be a fake!

There's no such thing as bad student, only bad teacher...

Actually I take that back - sometimes there are naughty students

I also mentioned wanting to get Daniel Wilson's book How To Survive a Robot Uprising (Tips on Defending Yourself During the Upcoming Rebellion .

Then, the other night, I saw another show on robotics (how in the hell do I keep stumbling across these cool, informative shows? Oh, and to those who say TV is useless - I beg to differ).

On this particular show on robotics, they did mention the future of humanity alongside robots, and they claimed that the humans that wanted to keep up/survive would have to be implemented with artificial parts, something the futurists like to call "transhumanism" - the mixture of biology and machinery.

Some of this is already done, with pacemakers and artificial limbs, and other parts of the body, but what the program was suggesting is much more drastic implementations, such as to the brain, involving silicon chips (such as the infamous RFID chips) and so forth.

Ok, I thought. So it boils down to adding robotic aspects to ourselves in order to best the technology - being like them, but also still having humanity. This is the answer! I thought.

But then today I saw an extremely disturbing episode of the sci-fi show Outer Limits.

Mind you, it is science FICTION.

And it was made in 1997.

But the fact is, it was the best damn episode of Outer Limits I had ever seen. Why?

The episode is called "Stream of Consciousness", and, in a nutshell, humanity is living within a futuristic society where everyone has implements on the side of their heads which interact with their brain in order to acquire all human data instantly, instead of having to read it/learn it.

The main character, however, is a human that had "brain damage" (he doesn't appear less intelligent) - so he wasn't able to have the implant, since he was very young.

But the disturbing part came when the "data stream" that all humans subscribed to started to give random humans a "virus" that caused information to be sought after/downloaded too fast for the brain to process - eventually killing the person.

So finally, the guy without the head implant has to go and find a written book that the data stream/computer had neglected to destroy (although it had neglected to destroy this copy) - in order to have his friend, a girl with an implant, read the book and spread the shutdown code to the whole system.

The problem was that, once all entwined together with this data stream, the stream itself was like a mass consciousness to all the people, and none of them would willfully destroy it (themselves!) Wow.

Basically, the question is this - if humans merge with technology as the transhumanists desire, would we doom ourselves to being vulnerable to something like a computer virus killing us?

A disturbing thought.

I'm just going to buy that fucking book, already.

The media is partly to blame, as they focus on domestic issues only anymore. American's have no clue what's going on past the mailbox anymore. As the international issues are burried deep in the confines of newspaper advertisements, and as the broadcasts continue to argue over who has what kind of bias and spin, the world is becoming a strange place.

These misc. and utterly random bills are presented and passed, and before they know it the people's lives are hanging in the balance. There is no transparency in government, and that doesn't help the people. It only seems to make them more ignorant to what's going on which is the prime reason for this article in the first place. Some say ignorance is bliss, but with ignorance also comes a loss of power. In this wonderful country power for the government has always been of the people, by the people, and for the people. When people gain ignorance, the power goes to those few who seem to control all things.

As for me, I choose to take arms against the subtle giants that exist in the world. I cannot stand idly by while genocides rage in Africa, nor when China's government tells its people what they can and cannot think or talk about. It's time we gather once again, and let us fight for the greater good which we all know exists somewhere within the hearts of all men and women. Or we can just sit down and let the subtle giants become so powerful that there is no hope of getting things back to where they were. So the choice is yours, will it be the red pill or the blue pill.

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest"-Elie Wiesel

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:

• Objective morality does not exist.
• No action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another.
• In the absence of objective morality, existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal.
• There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.
• Even if a higher ruler or creator exists, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many do not want to register the fact that objective morality does not exist; most would claim that there is a set of "univeral laws" that exist for everyone -- but I do not believe this to be true, because I am not under that set of "universal moral laws", so I therefore break from that line, and logically if one person doesn't follow "univeral moral code" than the entire claim must be false.

Nihilism is not reactionary; it is a movement that has been growing since the 19th century -- it is simply that events in the 20th, and in the last 8 years of the 21st century, have assisted in the expansion of this type of thought -- that life itself has no meaning. It is not existentialism, for it goes beyond simply admitting that there is "nothing". This is an affirmation that not only does nothing exist, but that it is futile to make truth claims, and to make assumptions based on knowledge -- for there is no universal, binding truth. In other words: Nothing matters.

It is not that nihilism is indifferent, or ambivalent -- it is, rather, that there is a sense that what we perceive in the world has no absolutes, and that truth is a human construct -- humanity creates truth because we want to see it, not because it exists inherently.

How Are You Celebrating "Metaphysical Awareness Month"?

Well, I guess I've been engaged in a dialogue with Dan Peterson at scientificblogging.com about his post: Watching Sports Is Good For Your Brain

Here's an excerpt:

...the interesting finding here is that those with experience, either playing or watching, are actually calling on additional neural networks in their brains to help their normal language comprehension abilities. In other words, the memories of learned actions are linked and assist other cognitive tasks. That sounds pretty much like the definition of embodied cognition and Dr. Beilock's research has helped that theory take another step forward. In her words, "Experience playing and watching sports has enduring effects on language understanding by changing the neural networks that support comprehension to incorporate areas active in performing sports skills."

So, take pride in your own brain the next time you hear, "Kobe dribbles the ball to the top of the key, crosses over, drives the lane, and finger rolls over Duncan for two." If you can picture that play in your mind, your left dorsal premotor cortex just kicked into gear!

I recommend reading the full article.

Peterson is interested in a theory called "embodied cognition" which, until reading his post, I had not heard of before. I scanned the linked Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the theory and it seems straight-forward enough. I sum up my thoughts on the theory in one of my responses which I will now shamelessly re-post:

I find the theory of embodied cognition more in the spirit of materialist theories of cognition in which consciousness is identified, somehow, with actual material brain processes. On this view, mental (immaterial, psychical) processes can be analyzed, explained and understood in terms of brain (material, physical) processes. Of course, neuroscience must progress further before this is possible.

I see the embodied cognition theory as an extension of the materialist theory for a couple of reasons. First, the tips of my fingers are just as important for sensory perception than the appropriate parts of the brain. I include the sensory organs, indeed the entire body, as part of the physical counter-part to the thinking mind. I suppose this makes me somewhat of a dualist, whereas the materialist does not allow for a non-physical element of consciousness. If embodied cognition is the view that upon hearing/watching actions with which one has frequently experienced and of which one has detailed knowledge are processed quicker and the actions are imagined (pictured mentally) more clearly because of brain processes that correspond on that occasion, then I see nothing wrong with this theory on a neurophysiological level. However, if the theory is strong and is used to try to explain consciousness in terms of actions, then I'm not very found of the theory.

It seems to me that the LDPC [i.e. left dorsal premotor cortex - konservo] activity could be evidence of some sort of natural mnemonic device (I use the term loosely, for it's really a brain process we are talking about not a rhyme used to remember the order of the planets or whether the "i" comes before the "e" after a "c"). The LDPC activity would be the physical side of the coin, the mental side would be the reports of clearer imagery and quicker understanding of the events being described.

Classical empiricism holds that particular sensory perceptions form an impression, these impression can be abstracted into an "idea" of various kinds of impressions. For instance, a child can have sensory experiences of his or her first apple, he or she can be told that that red object is called "an apple." After seeing many red objects that taste, feel, smell, etc. like the thing called "an apple." The child will have a basic "idea" of "an apple," i.e. he or she will know what an apple is. Upon hearing the word "apple" or upon seeing, say, a painting of a bowl of fruit (which includes an apple) the "idea" of "apple" may come to the child's mind, perhaps even a specific apple. Another piece of fruit, one which the child may have never encountered, a kiwi, for example, will not have a corresponding "idea" but will merely be a particular impression. If this impression is not reinforced with subsequent kiwi impressions, then perhaps no "idea" of kiwi will be formed (or if one is, it will surely not be as strong as the "idea" of an apple). This is a theory primarily about the mental side of the coin, perhaps, when the ideas are derived from impressions formed through activities such as sports, the physical side of this processes can be explained with the increased activity of LDPC.

For more on information on this psychological/philosophical theory check out the original post and the links Peterson provides therein. You can also read me other comments and don't forget to be aware of metaphysics! :P

What do you think?

photos by pingnews.com & freestone

ఆ వాఖ్యం

ఎప్పటికప్పుడు నిత్యనూతనంగా ప్రేమిస్తూ వుండటమంత ఆత్మవంచన ప్రపంచంలో మరొకటి లేదు.

ఇది చదివిన వెంటనే నాకు "How true it is...." అని అనిపించింది. కాని ఇదే కొన్ని సంవత్సరాల క్రితమైతే తప్పక వ్యతిరేకించేవాడిని.

అప్పటిలో ప్రేమ సత్యం.... నిత్యం.... నూతనం.. అని ఇలా ఎన్నో భావాలు... అభిప్రాయాలు....

కాని ఈరోజు ....

అలా అని అవి అంతా ట్రాష్ అని అనను. కాని అంత దృఢమైన అభిప్రాయం ఈరోజు లేదు అంతే. అందుకే శరత్ (దేవదాస్) అభిప్రాయాంతో ఏకీభవించాగలిగాను...

కాని ఈ మార్పుని ఒక అంతు పట్టుదామంటే....

నాకు తెలియకుండ నాలో ఒక "opportunist" వున్నాడు అని ఒప్పుకోవాల్సి వస్తుందనో....
లేక ప్రేమకి ఎక్కడ నిర్వచనం ఇవ్వాల్సి వస్తుందో అన్న అనుమానమో....
లేక ప్రేమనే ఎక్కడ ద్వేషించాల్సి వస్తుందో అన్న భయమో...
ఏమో....

ఆలోచనలతో ఎటూ తూగలేక అనిశ్చితితో కొట్టుమిట్టడుతూ.....
వంశీ