If you can support them financially, or at least you could at the time you were having them, I'm okay with people popping out as many offspring as they want. But the people who have them knowing that they will be relying on government support for medical, food, childcare for the entirety of their kids' lives drive me a bit bonkers. Oh alright, a lot bonkers.
I think Erik's question is beyond the present; beyond the ability for a family to provide for their offspring. The question is about finite resources for an ever expanding population who all demand a greater quality of life. The very idea of growth for growths sake is at the very least unsustainable, and at the worst disastrous.
So sure, some family might be able to support their massive brood, but what happens when those X children procreate? Our society champions the growth of the family without understanding the global implications of a blossoming population. Competition for resources (petrochemicals - or rather, all carbon based energy, water, agriculture, land) will just continue to grow, and for what?
Something Josh told me rings true - every indicator for a positive economy hinges on growth. Anything else is labeled with the negative connotation of stagnation or decline. As a species we have no objective aside from making our life easier... so we'll continue to breed uncontrollably and squabble over finite resources. Thus the question, is it a right or a privilege to procreate? Is it responsible to have more than 2 children per couple?
Why do you assume that our resources are limited to the extent that competition over them is a problem? It seems more likely that when we run out of fossil fuels that we'll either innovate new technologies which eliminate the need for them or that we'll find oil on Mars. Same goes for land, air, water, whatevs.
I'm only being half facetious.
I'm pretty cynical when it comes to faith in humanity to save us from ourselves. We're too selfish to make sacrifices to our quality of life that are not foisted upon us. I really do hope for some magic bullet of clean energy that will solve our problems; the warp core and matter-replicators will remove humanity's scraping desire for material wealth and usher in a new age of enlightenment. /dream big!
Rather, I think we're going to keep shitting into our water and atmosphere until we reach a tipping point to inspire massive change - probably long after our personal lifetime.
Everything you're saying is really just support for my argument. First, quality of life changes will be "foisted upon us." By nature of the fact that resources have value, we'll be forced to pay for that which we consume, and if we can't pay for it, we don't get it. That's how capitalism works, and how capitalism generally protects scarce resources (I'm ignoring a lot here for the sake of brevity, but you get the idea).
The "tipping point to inspire massive change" will have to be a change we have the technology to effect (affect?). If our air sucks but we don't have air purifiers, then we move to mars or something. It would be silly and inefficient to make a massive change until we reach said tipping point; that's why it is a tipping point.
Lastly, I have trouble caring about things that will happen after my lifetime. This is especially compounded by the fact that I I'm not too interested in having children, giving me less reason to care about the world in 100 years. I'm not advocating foolhardiness, but there is a certain amount of screwing the earth and hoping for the best in the future that I'm willing to accept.
This was addressed in a Calvin and Hobbes series: http://www.scribd.c...ravel-Strip-Series (www.scribd.com)
The real shame is that too many people who have enough shit to live comfortable place a high value on life. They end up caring a whole hell of a lot when a shit ton of people who don't have it that great die off due to some disaster because of the lack of resources.
It probably is also the case that any change foisted on us will end up coming from wealthy nations. I really don't see a place like Haite on its own saying "Damn cholera really sucks, we should clean up our water supply or we'll all shit ourselves to death." And then that actually happening. Though if allowed to run its course the population while somewhat decimated would of course come out much stronger and resistant to the disease.
wow... I have so many opinions on this I don't even know where to start. And I highly doubt anyone would want to read my pages of ranting. But I would like to respond by saying just that I believe that Duggar mom's uterus should be confiscated for misuse and abuse. Well, the tissue thin shell of a uterus that it is by now anyway...
i would say that it is a privilege, rather than a right, just like all of the freedoms we are entitled to through the U.S. constitution. Admittedly, our courts and government have defined and enforced many freedoms we have as "rights," but to take the argument reductio ad absurdium, what's to stop the rest of the world's armies from toppling our government and instituting totalitarian rule?
That being said, I think being a responsible, intellectual, educated adult calls for limiting yourself. that doesn't mean i know the right answer for how many kids you should have, but rather, how many kids do you think is responsible.
personally, in my culture, families are traced through the fathers. as such, i am the last nicolai. yes, I have sisters, and cousins, but my dad was the only one of his brothers who had male children surviving beyond childhood. i feel a responsibility to my ancestors and to my culture to make sure my family continues.
but before i do any of that, first i gotta find a girl.
Please.
If you work for a small business or organization without the benefit of either a dedicated IT staff, or somebody who knows what they're doing, and some dedicated, proven, and automatic backup solution, stop what you are doing right now. Do not feign ignorance or incompetence. Set out. Fix the problem. Immediately.
All computers fail. And it is usually their storage mediums (hard drive, etc.) that go first, destroying your data.
I can assure you, the cost of system failure and recovery is far greater than the cost of an external hard drive and a bit of your time. If you want recommendations on how to do reliable, automatic backups, I can give them. They are relatively simple, usually free, and you can forget about them once they are working.
Don't let your entire business' livelihood sit on an iMac on the front counter. Don't make me have to put your hard drive in my freezer to get the heads cold enough to read data again. Don't make me have to guess which files are critically important to your organization and meticulously pore over them guessing at their possible contents. And don't assume I'll be able to fix the problem eventually.
Please.
Sort of wry, dry humor (my favorite), but the following is a guy's take (www.itworld.com) on a "truly honest privacy policy." It's written satirically, but the point he's getting across is a valid one: online businesses are just that, businesses, that are looking to make money in any way possible.
"At COMPANY _______ we value your privacy a great deal. Almost as much as we value the ability to take the data you give us and slice, dice, julienne, mash, puree and serve it to our business partners, which may include third-party advertising networks, data brokers, networks of affiliate sites, parent companies, subsidiaries, and other entities, none of which we’ll bother to list here because they can change from week to week and, besides, we know you’re not really paying attention.
We’ll also share all of this information with the government. We’re just suckers for guys with crew cuts carrying subpoenas.
Remember, when you visit our Web site, our Web site is also visiting you. And we’ve brought a dozen or more friends with us, depending on how many ad networks and third-party data services we use. We’re not going to tell which ones, though you could probably figure this out by carefully watching the different URLs that flash across the bottom of your browser as each page loads or when you mouse over various bits. It’s not like you’ve got better things to do.
Each of these sites may leave behind a little gift known as a cookie -- a text file filled with inscrutable gibberish that allows various computers around the globe to identify you, including your preferences, browser settings, which parts of the site you visited, which ads you clicked on, and whether you actually purchased something.
Those same cookies may let our advertising and data broker partners track you across every other site you visit, then dump all of your information into a huge database attached to a unique ID number, which they may sell ad infinitum without ever notifying you or asking for permission.
Also: We collect your IP address, which might change every time you log on but probably doesn’t. At the very least, your IP address tells us the name of your ISP and the city where you live; with a legal court order, it can also give us your name and billing address (see guys with crew cuts and subpoenas, above).
Besides your IP, we record some specifics about your operating system and browser. Amazingly, this information (known as your user agent string (www.eff.org)) can be enough to narrow you down to one of a few hundred people on the Webbernets, all by its lonesome. Isn’t technology wonderful?
The data we collect is strictly anonymous, unless you’ve been kind enough to give us your name, email address, or other identifying information. And even if you have been that kind, we promise we won’t sell that information to anyone else, unless of course our impossibly obtuse privacy policy says otherwise and/or we change our minds tomorrow.
We store this information an indefinite amount of time for reasons even we don’t fully understand. And when we do eventually get around to deleting it, you can bet it’s still kicking around on some network backup drives in somebody’s closet. So once we have it, there’s really no getting it back. Hell, we can’t even find our keys half the time -- how do you expect us to keep track of this stuff?
Not to worry, though, because we use the very bestest security measures to protect your data against hackers and identity thieves, though no one has actually ever bothered to verify this. You’ll pretty much just have to take our word for it (www.itworld.com).
So just to recap: Your information is extremely valuable to us. Our business model would totally collapse without it. No IPO, no stock options; all those 80-hour weeks and bupkis to show for it. So we’ll do our very best to use it in as many potentially profitable ways as we can conjure, over and over, while attempting to convince you there’s nothing to worry about.
(Hey, Did somebody hold a gun to your head and force you to visit this site? No, they did not. Did you run into a pay wall on the home page demanding your Visa number? No, you did not. You think we just give all this stuff away because we’re nice guys? Bet you also think every roomful of manure has a pony buried inside.)
This privacy policy may change at any time. In fact, it’s changed three times since we first started typing this. Good luck figuring out how, because we’re sure as hell not going to tell you. But then, you probably stopped reading after paragraph three."
I did stop reading after paragraph three!
Now I know why you're ever so paranoid, Josh. BUT: I don't really mind people selling my preferences, as long as I'm actually using the service at hand (read: Amazon). In fact, I've 'sold' my preferences before by taking online consumer services. You can personally profit as well, even if you're preferences are just being used to better sell things to you. I like to think that I have barely enough self-control not to buy everything I desire on a whim.
That's a perfectly reasonable relationship between you and an online entity: you understand the nature of the agreement, and you are constantly made aware of the company's actions as a result of your feeding of information to them (e.g., the suggestions you get from Amazon become more accurate as you browse, purchase, and rate products). It's an equitable arrangement.
It's the base assumption on the part of the companies that people tend to forget: "If you are using our service, you are costing us money, and we have to find a way to make that money back." Selling the information you give them is the first thing they sell, not the second, third, or last.
I was severely irritated earlier this year when I applied for a business license. It took a week to get the paper license in the mail. It took two days for business printing services, credit card services, and other bullshit to start sending me junkmail to "Intersection Thereof Software."
It's all about education.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Well, maybe not too afraid. The Internet's a terrible place, but it's also terribly convenient. But just be aware of the types of information you're exposing, even without your knowledge. Particularly to organizations like Facebook, or other organizations that have a keen interest on what you think is interesting.
Cuyler's turn for picking book club books.
His choices are:
So far, votes are 3 for Eureka Man, 2 for Smile When You're Lying.
I was keen on #2, but then I realized it was written a decade ago (before 9/11!). And I thought the conclusions/observations would be too dated. So I said no to that one.
#3 sounds cool, but is not available on the kindle, so it was disqualified.
#4 doesn't have great ratings, and self-deprecating/sardonic humor tends to get old for me after a while. So I said no to that one as well.
Which left me with #1. Also not amazing reviews, but Archimedes sounds like a badass, so thar is my vote. Also, per Baird's update, it looks like she voted for #4. So votes now stand at 3-3.
This reminds me of the one time I tried to play dodge ball.
Which brings up an interesting technicality in the rules of dodge ball: If a player throws a ball, purposefully, at another player's head, that is considered a foul, and the throwing player goes out of play as if they themselves had been tagged. However, if the player being thrown at tries to dodge (read: flinches by instinctively curling up into a ball), and ends up dodging their head into the path of the ball, that is considered a legal throw, and the dodging player is out.
So I'm on to a new series: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (to those who would note that I seem to be watching a lot of episodic television lately: I'm funemployed, deal with it).
People have been telling me to watch this for awhile, and I understand why. It's pretty good. I'm somewhere in season 3 now, and the show has clearly hit an easy stride. I just can't figure out what I like about it. Obviously, the characters are supposed to be irredeemable and generally unlikable (although I find myself pulling for Charlie in like every episode). Most of the episodes have the same structure, too, so there is very little development or surprise. But I still feel compelled to keep watching.
I appreciate the reincorporation of jokes, a la Arrested Development, and the constant And Thening of the situations, also like AD. So, maybe I should just go watch AD instead?
Also, I can't help but draw some parallels to people we know. Don't nobody be offended now, but Charlie is a deadringer for Aaron, Mac reminds me of Mike, and, I hate to say, Dee and Dennis remind me of my sister and I.
I've only seen the fourth season. And I just haven't had a chance to revisit the first three, or anything following.
I feel about It's Always Sunny the same way I feel about Arrested Development. I like the shows a lot because they have great writing and comedic content, but I feel inadequate because I can't recall or regurgitate quotes from the shows upon command.
Penny Arcade, though... that's different.
I like It's Always Sunny for all those elements. It's a quick show to watch, keeps me entertained, and they always get into some crazy hi-jinx. I'd say it's true that there isn't really much growth per individual episodes, but there are little things that will get referenced here and there throughout a season that do help flush out the characters.
To me it's a cross between Arrested Development and The Sarah Silverman Show. It's got really good writing like AD, but more fart/poop jokes like TSS.
Off the top of my head some of it's highlights are:
While I'm thinking on this: has anybody seen 2001 lately?
I think I saw it again a year or so ago. Every time I watch it, I am a) bored, because some of the scenes are so incredibly drawn out, and b) impressed with the depiction of the HAL 9000. The imagery and design around HAL was incredible for 1968, and still holds up today. It was one of the first movies to have computers showing something other than blocky, pixelated graphics (or any graphics at all).
Compare it to something like The Thing, made 14 years later in 1982, and its "simulation" of the thing they found in the ice.
HAL 9000 is depicted as something beautiful, a monument to human creation. And when HAL started to show his flaws, it was made apparent that intelligence was something more than designer graphics and thoughtless automation.
HAL is easily one of my favorite characters depicted as computers or robots.
Thoughts on the Dec 4th show:
Despite the tiny audience, and that tiny audience being pretty wooden, still a pretty good show. As was mentioned, singing went really well. For the other games:
Thanks for playing.
Ramblings of an improv madman...
AND I TRIED SO HARD TO MAKE YOU LOVE THE DATING GAME!!!
I thought we had about a 4.5 / 10 show last night, and I will not let up that things are not really changing because we are content with putting up the same type of performance every time. I don't mean this to be a derogatory comment, but I am just pointing out I don't see a whole lot changing in our routine. Our leaders still host the same, our games list are similar, gag games are prevelent at the end, rehearsal feedback is still the same. If we want to get out of the 5/10 range, a lot of these things need to change.
Best game of the night: Deck the Halls. For all the work we have put into singing, I think it finally paid off. I, being the ass hole I am however, am still skeptical that this means we are getting better at singing.
Worst game of the night: Asides. Four players, story didn't go anywhere, cut-off was wierd. Close runner-up, Three-Headed Santa. The format just doesn't work out for that game.
I thought the hosting was the anvil tied around our ankles last night. Who the fuck plays with that kid during our games? I won't talk anymore on that. Badgering the audience, making reference to the kid several times, I can go on. Also, one of my bigger pet peeves: We go through the exercise of setting up a random challenge game, he gets the book out and gets the numbers, then instead of reading it and making it sound new and invigorating, he says FUCK IT WE'RE PLAYING PANEL OF EXPERTS.
We are getting into a downward spiral of needing to feed off the audience. We should be able to supply our own energy. A good example, if the audience doesn't show energy our first game seems to be like pulling teeth to get the troupe into it. The audience energy shouldn't be a factor for us, we should always be selling it. I won't go so far as to say the audience isn't a factor at all, but I think we should be able to nail the 6-7 / 10 range regardless of what the audience is doing.
If you were to ask me the number one thing that needs to change:
Hosting, all around
Second thing that needs to change:
Interesting objectives that make sense
Bring on the debate bitches...I want to ramble on this topic...LETS DO THIS!
Yeah, no kidding. And why does that couple bring their kid? Had it been a larger show, it would've been terrible, for the kids, the parents, and the performance.
I think at that point with the random game, he had brought the show to such a stand-still by asking for page numbers and such that going through and reading the game's description would have worsened things.
Or maybe... Maybe he can't read? That... That would make a lot of sense, I think.
You just went on a rant about Blind Man Bluff's because I put your game at the bottom of my list. I HATE YOU TOO.
Erik and I spent a good portion of the time on g-chat today talking about improv. I will sum up the points:
1) Set leadership expectations so we can get some organization up in here
2) We want to know what other players think about the state of our shows and the troupe. Erik and I teamed up last night at the rehearsal for some smack down, but everyone else just sits and stares when we talk about 'global' issues rather than specific games. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING IN THERE? I don't want to lay down the smack talk because I think we are right, I want to lay it down to figure out what people want out of this troupe. We will not settle with silence, I want to hear it directly from other players if they think we are beating a dead horse and they like things the way they are. WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT!!!
3) My personal opinion, apathy is a bigger problem than poison.
4) PLAY PLAY PLAY PLAY PLAY PLAY PLAY, but not until some of these issues are solved.
It kills me that you think 'I hate my job' is an interesting enough objective to float a game. BOO YAH.
Mmm yes. Good stuff. Sometimes I look into Kristen's eyes, and see the void staring back at me.
I also contacted Jason, who told me he was going to make me an admin for the facebook group. Which means that I can probably get the event up before the morning of the event! Hurray.
Also, two points of clarification:
1) Note that I said Blind Man's Bluff was the second worst game NOT including the games I was in. I'd still rate 3-Headed Santa as the lowest because I hate that format of the game (it's worked well maybe once), but I'm sure some of the games I was in would fill the gap between that and Blind Man's Bluff. But also I hate every scene you're in.
2) While that might not be an interesting objective, Asides did HAVE an objective, so I was really countering your initial point. And Rich introduced that in the scene, so I pretty much just rolled with it (probably should have done something more interesting, but such is improv sometimes). Soooooo... eat shit if you want to criticize choices ;)
All right, I was told the other night Josh put this section up for me and it got me thinking I haven't been giving it the attention I should. Sorry Josh, let's remedy.
I thought the last show went pretty well, but I still think we are stuck in 'average' shows. I don't think any of our shows get out of the 5/10 category and I feel helpless because we all contribute in one way or another. I'm looking for ways to break through the 5/10 category.
Perhaps two keys to my perception:
1) Better hosting - I maintain good hosting can get us through wierd audiences
2) Games list - not every game we play is good for the audience and we don't necessarily play every game on the list well as a group (thank you singing)
Thoughts? ??
Thank you singing
Do you mean to say singing is actually redeeming in the aspect of playing as a group, or as in it's detrimental?
I probably cannot give very good critique; most of my comments are specific to my own sort of humor (play Objection and the pantomiming telephone game every show!), bias towards the friends on stage, a learned hatred towards the cancer that is Warren, and the little part of me that dies each time sex (and each derivation thereof) is suggested from the audience.
I think a good way to phrase a goal we should have:
I want the troupe to be at a point where you would go regardless if your friends are in it.
I think you have great perspectives because we like objection and chain murder, we think some people could play in a team better and we all agree sex is a cop out a majority of the time.
You're an improv God Mike!
I just don't think the songs go over very well.
I think if you play games like the following:
Irish Drinking Song
Doo Run Run (Not Doo Run Die)
Try that on for size
Hoe Down
Questions
to name a few, they are chosen because you are skillful at them. This is a personal preference, but whenever I watch shows and there is a song that doesn't have a story throughout, I don't think there is justification of doing it. And rhyming a full story is very difficult. Not ragging on us, just saying it is not our strong suit.
I really don't know why I thought you might have been content with the product of the song games; you phrased it perfectly with " rhyming a full story is very difficult." I think that embodies everything that terrifies me about improv. The idea that you are expected to create a continuous story rhythmically while rhyming. I definitely don't really look forward to the songs, but am kind of intrigued by the challenge (I'm always both surprised and disappointed with each singing game).
i think you guys had great energy in the first two games and it felt like your energy was kind of interrupted by the introduction, especially its length.
also, the marshmellow madness was built up too much. i knew what was going on, and i was chuckling at how much the audience was taking it seriously - it was a long time before you guys got someone in the audience to break.
I'd change out Dead Celebrity Diner or Party Quirks for Diamond any day. The I prefer scene building to guessing games. And I prefer guessing games that have a) time limits or b) natural progression to guessing games that don't (e.g. Bong-bong-bong, Chain Murder, etc.)
You folks have games that you do excel at, and do so consistently. Just frustrates me that I don't see them as often.
Like somebody said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."
I never really wanted to talk to people on the phone. I just wanted to send them sound clips and worthless quotes to amuse / annoy them.
Now, if we can further refine the idea, and find a way to communicate only in Penny Arcade comics...
I'm not saying that you misinterpreted the point of What the $&*% Do We Know, but I think you may have missed it. I mean, the film built its case on a sort of science which is questionable, but that was all just a thin support to appease people like you. The Secret doesn't really try to do that.
The point of both was really that positive thinking is more constructive than negative thinking. I probably shouldn't stick up for them, because I hate them as much as you, but I wouldn't call The Secret especially pseudoscience.
I'd also argue with you about palmistry, or tarot or ouija or zodiac, for that matter. Everyone knows that they are vague, and everyone knows that the "science" upon which they are built isn't the point of the exercise. The point is to, as you kind of concluded, reorient your thinking, or at least reframe your worldview to potentially cause you to notice different things.
Ionized water, I'll give you, but those hologram things? That is the MOST POWERFUL ENERGY BAND IN THE WORLD. You can't tell me that's not impressive.
"To appease people like you." I guess I deserve that.
My problem is mysticism masquerading as science, and people trying to convince me of their legitimacy without scientific proof, or even worthwhile analysis. That includes parading sophisticated yet arbitrary and irrelevant rules based on random natural phenomena. Why should such things be the basis for "reorienting" one's thinking, if they have no rational basis?
My hope in mentioning palmistry was to warn people away from magical thinking by demonstrating potential susceptibility. Also mentioned it in hopes that I wouldn't have to make that argument again.
Maybe stir the pot like the old days of idkfa?
Interesting read. I think you are getting more aggressive by the entry in these articles. You should have been in our conversation Saturday night, because I think it ties a lot into Robbie's point of negative versus positive thinking. I would have very much liked to hear your input.
I guess I think it is kind of interesting to me that you make a big deal of the point:
...question everything, and everyone, and ultimately come to only your very own conclusions.
But then the tone of the rest of the article focuses on this perspective being the only correct one:
If this isn’t obvious, if at some point you’ve bought into, or paid for the things here, then I’m sorry.
I also find it kind of wierd you haven't read The Secret, but are prepared to write a whole section on why it is wrong. Book club entry in the making?
I guess I just see opposites when you say be strong and come to your own conclusions and at the same time put such a strong negativity on the opposite point of view.
Also, I am part of the universe and I care about you, does that not count for something?
You can correct my spelling and call me fat now.
No pots to be stirred, just organizing my thoughts. The article actually started out with listing the "rifts" as a result of the palm reading when I was young, and just sort of developed from there.
(As for the conversation, I hear it was something. Sorry I missed it.)
The tone changes for two reasons: one being that I wrote the two parts at different times, the other that I wanted a clear premise and frame of mind for people to be in when reading the rest of the critiques. Luring people in with a childish anecdote and a Youtube video and a webcomic might be considered cheating, but, you know, whatever gets the point across.
There's also that I state for people to challenge the ideas forthcoming, and to do their own research, which I follow up by immediately linking to the Wikipedia pages on the subjects. I was hoping folks would at least skim the articles to see what peer reviewed (albeit amateur) encyclopedia entries have to say on the subject.
That I haven't read the book or seen the movie based on "The Secret" certainly undermines my argument. That Robbie simply states that "positive thinking" is more constructive than "negative thinking" does not. My opinion of the book's ideas is based on other people's interpretations or misinterpretations of the books. I've heard people interpret that putting your needs and positive thoughts on a whiteboard for all to see affects the universe, and exerts your will upon it. That is pseudoscience. Positive thinking does not quantifiably or significantly change the probabilities dictated by the universe, only your perception of them.
I'm not advocating being a pessimistic, ogre asshole about everything. You can be pleasant, and happy, and optimistic, and at the same time you can have a plan. And you should have a plan first. And as I said in the article, if all "The Secret" and "What the Bleep" do is get you to think about things more, more power to them.
As far as why the rest of the article is negative, well, what would the alternative be? I'm speaking out against pseudoscience. Giving an unbiased opinion by trying to include a positive opinion on these things would mean further distributing and giving credence to already effective marketing scams. Mentioning the placebo effect just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
That counts alright. Accounts for about 1x10^-52% of the universe.
FAT JOKES!
I don't know why I feel I have to do this, but I'm now going to mount a defense of the science (or lack thereof) in The Secret and its ilk. Settle in, kids, because I'm about to get all Kantian up in here!
First, some definitions: empiricist, as in "Josh, as a philosopher, is part of the empiricist school because he believes that things in the universe can be known by way of our scientific perceptions of them and that those observations (and only those observations) inform our understanding of the universe around us."
Also: rationalists, as in "others, perhaps Rhonda Burne (or whatever that lady that wrote The Secret's name is) are philosophical rationalists because the believe that things in the universe can be concluded without any external empirical observation. If one were to be born into a vacuum without perception, it would still be possible for that person to rationally draw given conclusions about the nature of the universe based only on the premises they can rationally conclude to be true."
As regards your empirical school of thought, it would be difficult indeed to argue for the science of The Secret. You're right, writing positive ideas on a white board is not, in a scientific sense, going to have quantifiable ramifications. The people who come up with this stuff are not, though, empiricists.
New definition: transcendental idealism, as in "Kant (and maybe Robbie?) was a transcendental idealist because he believes that there are things which we must perceive empirically to know, and that there are things which we can conclude and reason in the absence of perception."
Finally, let's mention what perception means as regards Kantianism: the perceptions of things we have are perceptions of "phenomena," and are only loosely related to the things-in-themselves, which we can call "noumena." The human mind imposes two conditions upon things-in-themselves: space and time. These two qualities are not found in things themselves, but are rather the forms, the preconditions for our understanding.
This has radical metaphysical consequences; imagine your computer, or your desk, or your chair without the properties of time or space. Actually, don't, because you can't. Your mind is totally bound by the ideas of space and time, and it would be impossible to conceive of things without those forms. That's the "transcendental" part of transcendental idealism. Suffice it to say that things in themselves are nothing like the world we perceive.
Back to The Secret- the whiteboard upon which we write our pithy self-help aphorisms is empirically unhelpful. The whiteboard, or at least its existence in time and space, is entirely, though, a function of our own perceptions. In fact, the problems which our little positive blurbs are supposed to fix are also products of our perception, grounded as they are in space and time, with an indeterminate amount of actual relation to those things-in-themselves. So if the whiteboard exercise does something to change our perception of things (which we've already determined is not entirely, but partially, created by the normal functioning of our own minds) then it may have done something to change the nature of the universe as we perceive it. I should be careful to add that our changing perception hasn't changed the universe itself, but it has potentially altered the known world as we perceive it.
This change can't be measured by science, because we have no outside standard by which to measure it. The entire system has shifted, and we don't have a control group by which to compare. Science, or pseudoscience, doesn't figure into this equation. The question here is beyond science.
That being said, I think some of the quantum theory bullshit that they advertise has some merit. Kantian philosophers and physicists, for instance, have written a bit about how Kantian theory has been repeatedly supported by scientific finding after Kant's death. I can see how Schrodinger and Heisenberg, for instance, could be integrated into the argument I've just made pretty easily.
All that being said, I have found "The Secret" and positive thing and self-fulfilling prophesy to be pretty useless. Kant, though, solves every problem.
I don't think Kant intended phenomena and noumena to be a two way street. From your description, it sounds like he was trying to separate the things we perceive from things we can't. He wasn't trying to say that phenomena affects noumena, which is the intended goal of the whiteboard exercise.
If your intended goal is to change the phenomena, that is, your perception of things, for the sake of perceiving something different than what it is, that sounds like willful delusion.
I really tried to address that issue before you raised it, like when I said "I should be careful to add that our changing perception hasn't changed the universe itself, but it has potentially altered the known world as we perceive it." If our perception of the phenomenal world were to change, that by itself wouldn't change the noumenal world. A change in the noumenal world doesn't matter, though, because we wouldn't be able to detect it anyway. The only thing we have perception of, and access to, is the world of our perceptions, that is, the phenomenal world.
If you're calling a change in perception "willful delusion," then you have to call all perception "willful delusion." I actually don't have a problem with that if you do (certainly the Buddhists would agree with you), but I think that such an argument works in my favor, not yours.
I'm really not trying to dissuade you from writing essays like your diatribe against pseudoscience, just arguing that in this particular case there's more than meets the scientific eye. If you left your complaint with palmistry and magic crystals I wouldn't have anything to add. The "power" of positive thinking, though, does have some potentially valid philosophical basis, and that's all I'm pointing out.
I'm not trying to discard Kant. I'm trying to discard what seems like "The Secret's" interpretation of Kant.
And I can treat perception and "willful delusion" as separate things. Perception is you looking at a red apple and saying "That is red." Delusion is looking at a red apple and saying "I want to believe that this is a blue apple, regardless of what my sense and logic tell me." Call it the "there are four lights" distinction. And don't you dare say that transcendental idealism saved Picard from the Cardassians.
I'm glad you're at least keeping me honest. If I wasn't regularly told that the problems I'm trying to address are outside my realm of possible thought, I don't know what I'd do.
To be fair, I don't think The Secret references Kant at all. This is my own interpretation of both works.
But Kant does have a good answer for your apple scenario: Of course the apple is red, and to call it blue means either your senses are faulty or you are willfully disillusioning yourself, to use your words. The Secret wouldn't contest this either; the change that the power of positive thinking brings about is not in the actual properties of things themselves but in their relation to each other in the world around you.
So we say that the apple is red, and redness is a property of the apple. How red is it? Well, this particular apple is just a pale red, almost sickly looking. I would rather a robust redness, wouldn't you? The redness of the apple is brought about by its gestation on the tree, which is a function of causality, and causality follows from time, which we've already discussed is a precondition of sense perception, not a property of the apple itself. So, The Secret might argue (but probably not Kant, I should add) since the causality that brought about the redness of the apple in our perception is all in our head, we may have some power in changing it. Clearly, the redness of this apple is already given by virtue of our having observed it in this time and space. But positive thinking could change the redness of apples in our perceived future; the apples don't change, because they exist outside of time and space, just our perception of those future apples by way of the causality that exists only in our perception. Can you already see from this argument how easy it is to now integrate a discussion of collapsing waveforms and Schrodinger? It's all about as yet unperceived causal chains which aren't part of the things in themselves but depend on our own perception.
On the subject of trashy self-help books, have you read The Power of Now? It was a big Oprah book awhile ago. In it the author mentions Kant not at all, but it is very much rooted in Kantian epistemology. I like it a lot more than The Secret, and I think you might too, if only by virtue of the fact that he doesn't attempt to draft any hard pseudoscience into his arguments.
"[B]y way of the causality that exists only in our perception."
You've already explained this to me a few times. This concept is still illogical to me, and made no better by bringing causality into it.
And maybe it's easy to draw a comparison to our folk-quantum-theory level knowledge, but what problems does Kant solve with quantum mechanics? I don't see value in choosing to perceive the value of a qubit more robustly. It's still just the result of a probability function.
Causality is a part of this because causality is a product of time. Without time, causality is meaningless. So, since time exists not in things in themselves but rather in our own understanding, causality is not a function of things in themselves but rather a function of our own reasoning.
Does that make any more sense? It is hard to imagine time as something separate from things, because our minds are literally incapable of conceiving of the world in that way. That's the whole point- time and space are the preconditions our mind needs to understand the world.
This distinction is actually a bit of a shortcoming in Kant, because if you can say there is a world that we can't access by way of perception, then you can start to make all sorts of suppositions about it, which is exactly how we get into these weird New Agey theories. If you're going to criticize the theory, go for that part of it, because it is definitely a weak part of the argument.
Wikileaks? Noble effort, illegal annoyance, or something else? Here is an article about their latest release: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858895 (www.bbc.co.uk)
I'm pretty conflicted.
First, pretty epic failure on the part of our intelligence agencies to not be able to contain this sort of information. Things like "hundreds of thousands of U.S. Embassy documents" should fall under their purview.
Second, I can't understand the reason why military personnel, or more specifically, an Army Intelligence private, would divulge this kind of information to Wikileaks in the first place. Maybe I'm mistaken, but divulging government secrets in war time is treason, right?
Technically, it probably is treason of some kind. But considering there's been some kind of war for what, almost 8 years now. I kind of think that's a pretty low threshold.
It seems like government is always trying to portray carefully crafted persona of diplomacy and ass kissing. Its almost gratifying to know in personal correspondence real people aren't like that at all.
I wonder if this will get the U.S. to limit the number of people with the level of clearance that one had to have to access the communications.
If it's not treason it's at least a violation of their service agreement which they sign when they join the military and that can get them into major hot water.
What do you think of the development where universities are telling students not to post about it on social media sites?
Speakers from the US State Department told Columbia University students that if they ever wanted jobs at the State Department they strongly suggested not posting information or discussing Wikileaks on their online social networking sites.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373889,00.asp (www.pcmag.com)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html (www.huffingtonpost.com)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/dont-mention-the-cables-future-diplomats/?scp=3&sq=columbia%20university&st=cse (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)
Supposedly Rare Star Trek: TNG Production Photos:
http://slightlywarp...ation_pictures.htm (slightlywarped.com)
As you may remember, friends, on idkfa v. 2 and maybe 1 I had magic powers that allowed me to post to the front page. That doesn't exist anymore, because Josh has become more egalitarian in his old age, but I'd like to propagate a tradition here that we had there.
On Thanksgiving, my family has a tradition that we go around the table and say what we are thankful for. Sometimes it is silly, like "I'm thankful for good sex!" Actually, nobody at my family thanksgivings has ever said that. And I'm thankful for that.
It can be something specific or general, something like "friends and happiness" or "I'm thankful that I get to do this specific task at my job next Thursday."
Ready set go! Give Thanks!
I'm thankful for new adventures and big cities. Small cities too, sometimes. I'm thankful for a place in the world where there is truly everything, from millions of people congregated to watch a silly parade to a traditional vegan feasts to evenings by the fireside radiator.
I'm thankful for a year of transition, the support of people around me, and a beautiful summer back home. I'm thankful that seemingly everybody I know is on the way to the altar, and I'm thankful that I'm not.
I'm thankful for iPhone, the only way to navigate, communicate, educate, and entertain. I'm thankful for savings accounts and unemployment insurance.
I'm thankful that even though I don't connect with my friends enough they still haven't written me off.
I'm thankful for an awesome family who is getting to be awesome-er as they get older, even despite the few people who seem to cause a disproportionate amount of drama.
I'm thankful for having some really wonderful friends who I really care about. And I'm even thankful for the fact that in the past few years more than a few of my "greatest friends" have proved to me that they were definitely no such thing.
I'm thankful for the person in my life who has gotten me to where I finally feel I am able to take life in stride and enjoy the moment I'm in.
I'm really thankful for being alive after what seems to be the universes second serious attempt at putting an end to that. I'm starting to think maybe there is some use to me still being here. hah.
And I'm thankful for finally having a job. I have learned I would make a horrendous house wife. haha.
Reefer Madness was actually really good! I didn't think it was going to be for me, but ended up enjoying it throughly. The Wildberry Theatre is a pretty great venue. John Fraiser, Eden Barrington, and of course Sextretary were all fabulous. I am definitely recommending it. It IS a generational thing. Even though i expected an older crowd i was still surprised with how many more "grey hairs" than young people were in the audience.
Be prepared to see Sexretary as many of you have never seen her before! Perhaps the orgy scene is only uncomfortable if you are sitting next to her mother!
Also, a cautionary tale: if Jesus offers you communion, feel free to take it. Unless you're Jewish. However, apparently, you're not supposed to actually eat it. Jesus told me after the show the cracker i ate was not fit for human consumption as it had been numerous places including down his pants. whoops. It did taste a little stale.
http://www.xkcd.com/821/ (www.xkcd.com)
It took me about 10 seconds of looking at the "1957: Eisenhower...." comic before I got it. Then it was HILARIOUS. Randall Munroe, you mother f*cker.
