Lacuna
6 years ago
Friday, July 6, 2007
Transformers, more than meets the eyes, DAMN IT!
So I haven't seen the new Transformers movie, but I'm not confident about it. The critical consensus, among those critics who have actually liked it, is that the movie is good "dumb fun". Look not every movie has to be sophisticated, or complicated, "dumb fun" is fine. But that isn't what Transformers was all about. Transformers was about an epic battle between good and evil, it was at times a space-opera, at times a concept-driven sci-fi show, and yes it was a kids show, but it contained a short of grandeur that ignited kids' imagination. It wasn't "dumb fun", from a visceral stand point it often wasn't that exciting, but it was thrilling to see this magical world unfold. Once you got to the space episodes and the full space opera, then it got more exciting and even more wondrous. It was an amazing universe, and I'm sad to see it smushed down into "dumb fun."
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Logician's Dilemma
I am a man who likes to invoke logic. It often clarifies arguments a great deal and sometimes it is one of the few available methods of resolving a particularly bitter dispute between people of very different systems of thought. Yet I must make a confession. I am DB Cooper (I'm sorry Adam West, but somebody had to take the fall). But also I don't really like formal logic. I like logic in general, but I mostly just use the basic largely intuitive semi-logic. I realize that the problem with using that kind of logic is that it is inpercise, it tends to make overgenerous assumptions and it sometimes takes unwarranted logical jumps. But the advantage of intuitive semi-logic is that it is simpler, easier, and shorter. Formal logic is a different beast. It is a beast I respect, that I admire, but which annoys me if I'm around it for too long.
Formal logic is something that starts at the basics then marches up bit by bit to the end. Good idea if you want to be right. Bad idea if you're lazy or with little patience (I happen to have both qualities and I'm so incredibly awesome it doesn't matter if I'm wrong every now and then). Semi-logic might get you the wrong answer sometimes but it is quick and that means it allows me to solve a problem before I lose interest in it and it's good in a debate because its easy to explain in English (formal logic has its own language, and if I'm going to learn another language, well it's going to be this, but that's only because I'm taking a class about it, but I'm only taking a class that sort-of-half-assed teaches it (nothing against the teacher, but that's just the nature of the class)), also in an arguement one often lacks the time and scratch paper to work out a formal logic proof. But perhaps most usefully, the semi-logic is, as I have labelled it before, intuitive, which means that it can often work with your sub-conscious which is good since your sub-conscious tends to usually undermine your logic attempts.
I realize there is a sort of pure beauty to formal logic, but I only can catch it in glimpses. I can say wow look at how these things interconnect and make sense sometimes but most of the time I'm like huh? (confused) or buh? (mildly annoyed or bored). Those who can see the pure beauty of formal logic, they are the smart ones, they are the lucky ones, but they aren't the everybody ones and they aren't me. But still we ought to remember to give them some respect (not too much respect because the beauty of logic can sometimes blind people to their mistakes and also you don't want to inflate their heads too much) and we got to raise a glass to them. Cheers!
So take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks!
Formal logic is something that starts at the basics then marches up bit by bit to the end. Good idea if you want to be right. Bad idea if you're lazy or with little patience (I happen to have both qualities and I'm so incredibly awesome it doesn't matter if I'm wrong every now and then). Semi-logic might get you the wrong answer sometimes but it is quick and that means it allows me to solve a problem before I lose interest in it and it's good in a debate because its easy to explain in English (formal logic has its own language, and if I'm going to learn another language, well it's going to be this, but that's only because I'm taking a class about it, but I'm only taking a class that sort-of-half-assed teaches it (nothing against the teacher, but that's just the nature of the class)), also in an arguement one often lacks the time and scratch paper to work out a formal logic proof. But perhaps most usefully, the semi-logic is, as I have labelled it before, intuitive, which means that it can often work with your sub-conscious which is good since your sub-conscious tends to usually undermine your logic attempts.
I realize there is a sort of pure beauty to formal logic, but I only can catch it in glimpses. I can say wow look at how these things interconnect and make sense sometimes but most of the time I'm like huh? (confused) or buh? (mildly annoyed or bored). Those who can see the pure beauty of formal logic, they are the smart ones, they are the lucky ones, but they aren't the everybody ones and they aren't me. But still we ought to remember to give them some respect (not too much respect because the beauty of logic can sometimes blind people to their mistakes and also you don't want to inflate their heads too much) and we got to raise a glass to them. Cheers!
So take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks!
we don’t need to profile one race of people because actually most of the world hates us
There's a quote from majority of Indians like us for example, and much of these popularity ratings fluxuate and are do to multiple complex factors. However, that said, the above quote still rings of truth. We still have to be careful about racial profiling (look I know that this is an inaccurate term since in this case we're talking about profiling based on a religion, and even if we were talking about profiling Arabs it wouldn't work since technically Arabs are white, but until I think of a better term for profiling based on wide ethnic or ideological based groupings, I'll use this one) because there are actually a large number of and highly diverse cast of possible terrorists out there. That's why I'm a little bit annoyed at the saying that we need to be tough on "Islamic terrorism." I mean I understand why people are saying it, and I'm not going to hold anything against people who say it (well, I'm going to try not to hold anything against them, the subconscious is often a slippery thing to control and so I'm not to pretend to be completely its master), heck I might slip into using it sometimes (of course, I do have some pretty negative feelings about myself, even though I am Rand the mighty and glorius), and sometimes the saying is appropriate. But here's the problem with that saying, it ignores the fact that not all terrorists are Muslims.
What is the second largest terrorist attack on the US. The Oklahoma City bombing, granted it wasn't on the same scale as the September 11th attacks, but it beats out any other act of domestic terrorism, including any other act of terrorism commited in the US by Muslims. And guess what, the culprits were American. Moreover, because of racial profiling, media claimed the culprit was probably Arab, resulting in attacks on Arabs in America (see the Wikipedia article).
So we can't just be vigilant about "Islamic terrorism," we must be vigilant about terrorism in general. And that includes terrorism by white supremists against Arabs in the US as well as against Muslims in the US (the two terms aren't interchangable, most Muslims in the world or in the US are not Arab, and there are plenty of Christian Arabs in the world, and in the US most Arabs are actually Christian (this is do to a number of factors, including but not limited to the fact that Christian Arabs find the US easier to live in than Muslim Arabs and the fact that Arab countries often (that is not to say all Muslim Arabs hate Christian Arabs, that would be a gross sterotype) have problems in the religious relations between Christians and Muslims. Given the increased attacks on Muslims in the US by hate groups this is a pressing concern that must be addressed. We must be vigilant in protecting all our citizens from terrorism no matter what the religion of the terrorist or the victims.
What is the second largest terrorist attack on the US. The Oklahoma City bombing, granted it wasn't on the same scale as the September 11th attacks, but it beats out any other act of domestic terrorism, including any other act of terrorism commited in the US by Muslims. And guess what, the culprits were American. Moreover, because of racial profiling, media claimed the culprit was probably Arab, resulting in attacks on Arabs in America (see the Wikipedia article).
So we can't just be vigilant about "Islamic terrorism," we must be vigilant about terrorism in general. And that includes terrorism by white supremists against Arabs in the US as well as against Muslims in the US (the two terms aren't interchangable, most Muslims in the world or in the US are not Arab, and there are plenty of Christian Arabs in the world, and in the US most Arabs are actually Christian (this is do to a number of factors, including but not limited to the fact that Christian Arabs find the US easier to live in than Muslim Arabs and the fact that Arab countries often (that is not to say all Muslim Arabs hate Christian Arabs, that would be a gross sterotype) have problems in the religious relations between Christians and Muslims. Given the increased attacks on Muslims in the US by hate groups this is a pressing concern that must be addressed. We must be vigilant in protecting all our citizens from terrorism no matter what the religion of the terrorist or the victims.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Never time to wait
I am often busy these days. However, more and more that I think of it, I realize that there is no reason that I need to be busy. My current responsibilities are my two days a week internship and my two days a week class, both which do not occupy the entire day. So logically I should have plenty of free time, and yet I always feel crunched for time. Blah, blah, wah, wah.
Anyways, the point of the matter is the reason I am busy is because I keep on taking on more and more projects. I work on a comic, I expand my website, I work on this webpost, etc., etc. On top of that, I am at times hugely depressed and demotivated eating up those hours. So I am busy, but on the other hand it is largely, although not entirely of my own fault. But I suppose I enjoy this business more than simply laying around. Well, enjoy is perhaps the wrong word. Keeping myself busy undoubtably reduces my time to just lay around reading, watching tv, etc. and gives me much unneccessary stress. But I derive satisfaction from my work. So I keep on truckin' because trucks are cool.
Anyways, the point of the matter is the reason I am busy is because I keep on taking on more and more projects. I work on a comic, I expand my website, I work on this webpost, etc., etc. On top of that, I am at times hugely depressed and demotivated eating up those hours. So I am busy, but on the other hand it is largely, although not entirely of my own fault. But I suppose I enjoy this business more than simply laying around. Well, enjoy is perhaps the wrong word. Keeping myself busy undoubtably reduces my time to just lay around reading, watching tv, etc. and gives me much unneccessary stress. But I derive satisfaction from my work. So I keep on truckin' because trucks are cool.
July 4th
Happy July 4th! God Bless America!
I say that not because of any particular political position, rather because I love this country. I realize that a country is an imaginary object, well, perhaps imaginary is the wrong word, but it is a mental object. Countries do not have any physical reality beyond what people are willing to enforce them with. And they only enforce these realities because the country exists in their mind. It's all in the head. But that doesn't mean that a country doesn't matter.
The United States of America is a country, a mental object and not a physical one, and yet it still matters to me. I am not mystical about countries or ethnicities, I do not believe that they have a special spiritual essence of their own that requires protecting. But the term United States of America is not meaningless to me. It is a community, it is a collection of sometimes inexpressible associations, it is a jumble of ideas and concepts, that all come together to form something beautiful. A country is like a novel or a movie, it is an imaginary object, but that doesn't stop it from being loved. But there is also the community aspect, the aspect of how this imaginary object, although interpreted differently by everyone (sometimes slightly differently, sometimes radically differently) binds us to other people through our common love of it, and it encourages us to love each other. Those two aspects, the beauty of the imaginary object, and the encouragement to love the community are why I am proud to be patriotic and in love with America.
I know how easily though, this beautiful idea of love of country can be twisted into something horrific, monsterous, inhuman. Afterall nationalism fueled Nazism, nationalism launched a million failed economic, political and social experiments that left millions upon millions dead, nationalism has blinded people to the excesses and war crimes of their leaders, it has prompted people to murder their brothers without mercy. I am a student of history and I know of the burden of history borne by the word country.
Yet, I think much of that has to do with the twisting of passion. Previously I wrote about how religion has been used to justify horrors but that this is really due not inherintly to religion, but rather to passion in general. I'd apply the same rule to nationalism. Afterall, the most murderous (although perhaps not most horrific) ideology of the last century was Communism, an explicitly non-religious, and supposedly non-nationalistic ideology. When we are passionate enough, it is easy to use that passion to justify our worse insticts, but moreover, it is easy to say, well, the idea that I'm so passionate about is so important that it is worth killing for. From there the road to murder is easy and from murder mass murder can flow. Nationalism can be twisted into great evil, great hatred, but at its heart is love. The love an idea, the love of a community.
The key is to use that love inclusively, not exclusively. Love the country, love the community, but do not hate other countries or other communities. Instead of treating nationalism as a matter of choosing one country to adore and others to detest, make it a gift that you give to one idea, one community. But even that is not enough, sometimes what is good for the country (although given that a country is a hard-to-define, ever-shifting, abstract concept with an ever-shifting, ever-changing community attached to it, what is good for a country is often very, very difficult to find and define) and what is good in general conflict. In such a case, it is imperative that we remember that while country might be a matter of affection and belonging, our core beliefs of right and wrong must come first. We must always remember to choose what is right even when it opposes what is good for our country.
As I wrote previously, I think of myself as Christian first then American, and that is a representation of the fact that while I love America dearly, Christianity is at the core of my beliefs, the core of my conception of right and wrong and so it must always come first before my nation. That's why for all those Muslims who say they are Muslim first, then their nationality, hey good for them. In the end, nationalism I think, when properly used, when properly embraced can be a great positive, but when it opposes what we know according to our core values is right, we must fight for what is good, even if it is against our country.
So take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
I say that not because of any particular political position, rather because I love this country. I realize that a country is an imaginary object, well, perhaps imaginary is the wrong word, but it is a mental object. Countries do not have any physical reality beyond what people are willing to enforce them with. And they only enforce these realities because the country exists in their mind. It's all in the head. But that doesn't mean that a country doesn't matter.
The United States of America is a country, a mental object and not a physical one, and yet it still matters to me. I am not mystical about countries or ethnicities, I do not believe that they have a special spiritual essence of their own that requires protecting. But the term United States of America is not meaningless to me. It is a community, it is a collection of sometimes inexpressible associations, it is a jumble of ideas and concepts, that all come together to form something beautiful. A country is like a novel or a movie, it is an imaginary object, but that doesn't stop it from being loved. But there is also the community aspect, the aspect of how this imaginary object, although interpreted differently by everyone (sometimes slightly differently, sometimes radically differently) binds us to other people through our common love of it, and it encourages us to love each other. Those two aspects, the beauty of the imaginary object, and the encouragement to love the community are why I am proud to be patriotic and in love with America.
I know how easily though, this beautiful idea of love of country can be twisted into something horrific, monsterous, inhuman. Afterall nationalism fueled Nazism, nationalism launched a million failed economic, political and social experiments that left millions upon millions dead, nationalism has blinded people to the excesses and war crimes of their leaders, it has prompted people to murder their brothers without mercy. I am a student of history and I know of the burden of history borne by the word country.
Yet, I think much of that has to do with the twisting of passion. Previously I wrote about how religion has been used to justify horrors but that this is really due not inherintly to religion, but rather to passion in general. I'd apply the same rule to nationalism. Afterall, the most murderous (although perhaps not most horrific) ideology of the last century was Communism, an explicitly non-religious, and supposedly non-nationalistic ideology. When we are passionate enough, it is easy to use that passion to justify our worse insticts, but moreover, it is easy to say, well, the idea that I'm so passionate about is so important that it is worth killing for. From there the road to murder is easy and from murder mass murder can flow. Nationalism can be twisted into great evil, great hatred, but at its heart is love. The love an idea, the love of a community.
The key is to use that love inclusively, not exclusively. Love the country, love the community, but do not hate other countries or other communities. Instead of treating nationalism as a matter of choosing one country to adore and others to detest, make it a gift that you give to one idea, one community. But even that is not enough, sometimes what is good for the country (although given that a country is a hard-to-define, ever-shifting, abstract concept with an ever-shifting, ever-changing community attached to it, what is good for a country is often very, very difficult to find and define) and what is good in general conflict. In such a case, it is imperative that we remember that while country might be a matter of affection and belonging, our core beliefs of right and wrong must come first. We must always remember to choose what is right even when it opposes what is good for our country.
As I wrote previously, I think of myself as Christian first then American, and that is a representation of the fact that while I love America dearly, Christianity is at the core of my beliefs, the core of my conception of right and wrong and so it must always come first before my nation. That's why for all those Muslims who say they are Muslim first, then their nationality, hey good for them. In the end, nationalism I think, when properly used, when properly embraced can be a great positive, but when it opposes what we know according to our core values is right, we must fight for what is good, even if it is against our country.
So take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Moving on up or not
I'm contemplating a move, or at least a partial move, in a number of ways, virtually speaking, because the futures (are) made of virtual insanity, or maybe just because as Rand the mighty and glorius I must maintain a strong internet persona (although I'm thinking of toning down my plans of launching a full-fledged internet identity, since you don't know my plans for that, this means very little to you, but it means very much for you my loyal, loving, extremely bummy audience), anywho, I'm thinking of moving, or perhaps launching a secondary blog at Blogspot since it offers some better features for blogging (or if you perfer pretty words to ugly ones, maintaining a webpost (I am getting actually somewhat tired of my war against the word blog, perhaps it is time for me to call it quits on that front, or perhaps it is time for me to take it up a notch, in the words of Emeril, BAM!), on the other hand it lacks the large social networking community MySpace offers, so it's a tough decision (plus I've already got some people apparently reading my stuff here, and they are probably pretty bummy so I'm not sure if they'd go along with my move). In the long term, I hope to gain the internet guru skills to put a webpost on my own independent website, and make it much more fancy than this. But that actually brings me to another question: Should I move my website off of angelfire, at least so I can get away from that horrendously long address. Oh, decisions, decisions.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Just as soon as I belong, then it's time for me to disappear
That's a line from one of Metallica's later songs. It doesn't compare well with their earlier work but it's still decent. It was I think part of the Mission Impossible II soundtrack (I never saw Mission Impossible II or III or the TV series, but I saw I and liked it, so maybe I'll get to the TV series sometime and maybe I'll watch a bit of II or III if it's on tv.), but more importantly it calls to a certain part of personality and so perhaps that is what you should remember it for. I am a person with a sort of eternal restlessness. It is partially due to my disease, partially due to my ambition, partially due to a certain force of personality the two contribute two (I'll elaborate more on this upon another hour). But it always calls on me to move. And yet, movement isn't enough, the movement has to actually take me away from somewhere for it to matter to me. When I was younger this was something possible, I could wonder into the woods, or follow a stream under a bridge, or just go down a road for a ways. When I was young there was a sense that there was an external world beyond my home that was still ready to be explored, still unkown, still filled with limitless possibilities. But as I got older I began to understand that the internal world of my home was in fact part of that external world, and all this world was explored. Those few pieces that are not explored are contained, understood, studied, out of reach or empty.
The unknown can no longer simply be walked into. Or at least, well, when I was young I could explore for a while and then come home, the unknown world was just down the road, or just a jog into the woods. Now, just taking a trip somewhere doesn't expose me to a new world, just a little known branch of my world. The way my restlessness calls to me I am tempted to run out into the night and catch a train and go somewhere far away. But I'd still be a phone call from home, I'd still be connected to my old world. And I still would have to come home.
The only way I could really get out into a new world is if I moved, if I actually packed up my stuff and went somewhere else and lived and worked there. But the dilemma is this. Say I did do that, I mean it's one more year till I graduate from college, and I'm porbably going to move (probably to New York (New York, New York!)), at first it will be a new world, filled with anxiety and wonder. I'll have some problems dealing with that, but I'll be fascinated by the city no doubt. But eventually I'll get used to it, understand it, and it will become my home. And then I will belong. And then it will be time for me to disappear. The restlessness does not disappear because I am in a new place. It didn't disappear when I got to New Brunswick, it will most likely not disappear if I go to New York, and so I will want to go elsewhere, and if I do I will be filled with wonder at the occassion, and then I will want to go further. I will want to leave and leave again and again, because the restlessness continues.
But I realize I can't live like that. Just as I realized that it made no sense years and years ago to leave home once my restlessness manifested in this way. But I would like. I would like some place, that has enough of a pull for me that it offers me enough to counteract the restlessness. I mean, home does, Rutgers does while I'm in college, etc. But I'd like somewhere that has enough for me that the restlessness does not bother me. Some place I feel at home. Perhaps that's why I want a girl.
I heard some one talking about how guys just want with a girl is to get laid, but for me I'd think (never having any real romantic relationship, not to mention no sexual relationship (I'm actually not planning to have sex till marriage, which isn't really here or there but this seems an appopriate enough place to put that), I don't know exactly what effect having sex would have on my values, but in most likelyhood they wouldn't change too much) what would be more important in my relationship, was being able to talk with her. When you talk to someone you love, it eases the spirit, it gives you peace. It is hard to imagine a place I can really find that is home, but if I found a girl who I fall in love with, truly in love with, being with her, simply being some place where we can talk, that would feel like home.
Or so I conjecture, so I hypothesize. So I think. Anyways, take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
Check out the newest Comikier
And check out the rest of the World of Rand.
The unknown can no longer simply be walked into. Or at least, well, when I was young I could explore for a while and then come home, the unknown world was just down the road, or just a jog into the woods. Now, just taking a trip somewhere doesn't expose me to a new world, just a little known branch of my world. The way my restlessness calls to me I am tempted to run out into the night and catch a train and go somewhere far away. But I'd still be a phone call from home, I'd still be connected to my old world. And I still would have to come home.
The only way I could really get out into a new world is if I moved, if I actually packed up my stuff and went somewhere else and lived and worked there. But the dilemma is this. Say I did do that, I mean it's one more year till I graduate from college, and I'm porbably going to move (probably to New York (New York, New York!)), at first it will be a new world, filled with anxiety and wonder. I'll have some problems dealing with that, but I'll be fascinated by the city no doubt. But eventually I'll get used to it, understand it, and it will become my home. And then I will belong. And then it will be time for me to disappear. The restlessness does not disappear because I am in a new place. It didn't disappear when I got to New Brunswick, it will most likely not disappear if I go to New York, and so I will want to go elsewhere, and if I do I will be filled with wonder at the occassion, and then I will want to go further. I will want to leave and leave again and again, because the restlessness continues.
But I realize I can't live like that. Just as I realized that it made no sense years and years ago to leave home once my restlessness manifested in this way. But I would like. I would like some place, that has enough of a pull for me that it offers me enough to counteract the restlessness. I mean, home does, Rutgers does while I'm in college, etc. But I'd like somewhere that has enough for me that the restlessness does not bother me. Some place I feel at home. Perhaps that's why I want a girl.
I heard some one talking about how guys just want with a girl is to get laid, but for me I'd think (never having any real romantic relationship, not to mention no sexual relationship (I'm actually not planning to have sex till marriage, which isn't really here or there but this seems an appopriate enough place to put that), I don't know exactly what effect having sex would have on my values, but in most likelyhood they wouldn't change too much) what would be more important in my relationship, was being able to talk with her. When you talk to someone you love, it eases the spirit, it gives you peace. It is hard to imagine a place I can really find that is home, but if I found a girl who I fall in love with, truly in love with, being with her, simply being some place where we can talk, that would feel like home.
Or so I conjecture, so I hypothesize. So I think. Anyways, take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
Check out the newest Comikier
And check out the rest of the World of Rand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)