?

Log in

A Dialogue
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 18 most recent journal entries recorded in Lunch Sessions' LiveJournal:

Saturday, March 3rd, 2007
12:19 am
[aquiethope]
Advance Apologies for Somewhat Rambling Nature
Madison's questions about souls and reincarnation made me think a bit, so I decided to start a new post about my general views on souls, God, and the nature of life.

I'll try to back up my views as best I can, but being, as they are, so intertwined with my personal state of mind, I am understandably cautious with my justifications and conclusions.  In short, I can't defend everything I believe, and won't try for some of it, so be gentle.

Some things I believe:

I believe in Quantum Physics, and hold that the reason it doesn't make a lot of sense is because it is related to things we don't normally connect with "science".  I think that Quantum Physics may be the rules that govern such things as emotions and the existence of such.

I believe in an afterlife... but more in the sense of a BIGGER life, an existence of self that surpasses physical matter.

I believe that God is Light.  That can be taken literally.

I believe that our earthly lives are... like... soul boot-camp.  We live to learn certain lessons, and perhaps as our larger selves, we in fact set up certain things to happen in our lives to help us better ourselves.

I don't believe that we disappear when we die (this was not always true for me), because of the very simple fact that I still feel connected to the people I love who are dead.

I believe in doing good for the sake of doing good.

I believe that whatever religion gets you closest to God is the right one.

So, yeah.  That's my state of believing at the moment.  The Quantum Physics thing is the easiest to understand; Things do not exist unless observed, as I believe is true for life... we are not alive unless someone is aware of us being alive.  I think that it argues for a greater being.

Quantum Physics also has a theory that I find to be very very fascinating; String Theory.  It's been adapted somewhat since I first heard of it, and is no longer really STRING theory so much as "all existence is made up of a giant vibrating membrane" Which actually makes a whole lot more sense... anyways, it holds that there are, mathematically, 10 dimensions... it may be 11, but I think it's 10.  So, Up-down, left-right, forward-back, time, and 6 more.  It allows for parallel universes, if you can call it that.  It may be that our entire existence is the result of a collision between two of these membranous objects.... I don't know if I'd take it all that far, but the idea that we are all vibrations is intriguing.

Back on the subject,  I used to make fun of those Christian-types who, when asked how they prove the existence of God, would gesture their hands around with a condescending smugness.  Bastards. 

But truthfully, I think that just... looking around, at the very complexity of the world, with its useless beauty and our completely useless emotions, I just can't help but very grudgingly admit that they have a point. 

There is no point in beauty but to enjoy it.  Why then, is the sky, the grass, the rain, trees, diamonds, whatever, so beautiful to us?  There's no justifiable use for it.  I don't want to hear any rot about it just being chemicals in the brain, because anyone WITH a brain can feel that that just isn't it.  You may be able to convince your logic that that's all there is to it, but you'll never really believe it.

Why do we love?  Why are we self-sacrificing?

I don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell that we ended up here by random occurrence.

And I don't think that there's a bunch of little soul-pieces floating around.  I don't think a soul would degrade like that.  Can't really justify that, but it just doesn't seem like that's right. 

I look at it as... our bodies are kind of like filters, through which the soul is projected... the soul being everything about you that you can't explain away with your bodily functions... and when we take a body, we filter our memory, and limit our comprehension.

Soooo... Something else I believe in is our effect on the world around us.  I think our minds are much more powerful than we believe, and the reason we can't ever prove that is because, quite frankly, people lie about what they are really thinking and feeling.  Even to themselves.

Alright... that's about it for now.  Please don't present me with reasons why my beliefs just MUUUST be wrong, because you WILL be ignored.  However, I would like to know if anyone feels the same way on any of these subjects, or can expand upon them, OR work them into their own pet theories.

So.  Discuss.  Don't destroy.
Thursday, March 1st, 2007
10:33 am
[vieszcy]
so i've been bouncing an idea around recently... and seeing how we haven't used this in a while i figured i'd put it here lol
anyways

if there's nothing new under the sun... does this also apply to people? and if t does apply then how do you explain that there are more people now then there used to be...

i had an idea but it didn't make much sense lol anyways.. thoughts??
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006
12:13 am
[aquiethope]
Lego Philosophy
I could have sworn I reformatted my computer since I wrote this, but I stumbled upon it. Decided to share.

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


Caitlyn Byers
Professor Bombardi
PHIL 1030
22 April 2005

Lego Philosophy

The task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees. - Erwin Schrödinger

Atomic philosophers have been in existence since the times of Leucippus and Democritus, around 430 B.C. Despite that fact that Democritus existed centuries before even cells were visible for human observation, he developed a basic theory of atomic structure to explain the nature of the world. This theory is still in widespread existence today, and remains a viable explanation for both the construction and transformation of objects.
The word “atom” means un-cuttable, and Democritus believed that everything was made up of small, indivisible, eternal blocks. These blocks acted similarly to Legos, or Velcro; different pieces were shaped differently, and were able to be “hooked” together, to form larger objects. When something disintegrates, it reverts to atomic form and the atoms can be used in the construction of other objects. Democritus was also a materialist; he believed that all that existed in the world could be explained by the presence of atoms, and void. This also correlates to current beliefs; modern science generally concedes that atoms exist in a vacuum, and that in fact, everything is almost completely composed of empty space. What differs between these two theories is that Democritus, as a materialist, did not believe in forces. Our theories rest on the idea of forces between atoms (and particles of atoms, which would be the atoms of Democritus’s theory, since they are the actual “un-cuttables”).
Democritus’s theory was an explanation for the problematic issue of change. It was his attempt to explain how things can grow, and transform, while accepting the facts that nothing can spontaneously pop into existence, and nothing that exists can become, nothing. Naturally, a theory in which things are made up of smaller, eternal things, that can be rearranged to form other larger things, takes care of this problem. So in addition to being an early atomic theory, it is also an early conservation theory.
Now that Democritus’s view of atomic theory has been briefly overviewed, we can move on to other speculations. These speculations will be stated in a dialogic form. Why, you ask? Well it’s very simple. Conversation sparks controversy. Controversy sparks a drive towards resolution. Resolution brings understanding. The rest of this paper will not be a restatement of Democritus’s view, per se, but rather an extrapolation of his atomic theory into an area of modern consideration.

“If the world is made up of tiny, small pieces, why do I see it as a continuous object?”

“Well, here’s one way to examine this. First, find a computer. Turn it on, and look at the screen. What do you see? Well, chances are that you see a Windows logo. Once you dig around a bit, you find that you can apparently open up a number of windows that show pictures, words, and even some that trigger sound. Is any of that really there? Of course not. What is actually there are numerous series of two digits, repeated over and over in different orders. Ones and zeros. “

“I don’t think that works… if the world is like computer code then we’re all living in something that doesn’t actually exist, like the Matrix.”

“Not necessarily. Think of computer code as a sort of primitive version of atoms or as a numerical equivalent to them. If we were computer people, computer code would be our natural state of existence.”

“But what controls the code? I mean you have the atoms, which are like numbers. But how do they join together to become something else?”

“Well, Democritus’s view was that nature works as a machine. It is a complex mechanism that acts according to laws of necessity. There is no conscious design to it, the atoms would just naturally tend towards certain constructions.”

“If Democritus didn’t believe in anything except void and body, and he thought it was all mechanical, then he must not have believed in souls, or God.”

“Democritus did believe in souls, but he assumed that they were also physical. Souls, according to him, were made up of their own special “soul” atoms. "

“Even so, where do the atoms themselves come from? If there’s no God in his theory, how can the atoms have begun?”

“They are perpetual. They always existed and always will exist. They are perfect and eternal… now what does that remind you of?”

“God.”

“Correct. So Democritus’s atomic theory does have a Godlike presence, doesn’t it?”

“Yeah, I guess it does. And it makes as much sense as an actual comprehensive being. But the specifics of his theory still seem rather unlikely, like the hooks.”

“Naturally we’ve developed more complex ideas of those specifics as we’ve gone along. Democritus’s great contribution wasn’t in the specifics of the theory, it was in giving us a basis on which we build, and develop a more sophisticated theory. For instance, consider our modern atoms. What holds them together?”

“The positive and negative charges… different energy fields.”

“But Democritus didn’t believe that there were forces like that. Does that mean we should discount his entire atomic theory, simply because part of it may be wrong?”

“No… you should keep the parts that work.”

“So what are the parts that work?”

“The world is made up of small indivisible pieces that can be rearranged to form the things we see. They aren’t arranged by a divine being, but rather by necessity. However, since the atoms themselves are by necessity God-like, then the idea a divine being is still possible, right?”

“Yes, it is. What else?”

“Conservation of energy or mass. It seems like the main things that we get from this are basic scientific principles. One thing that I don’t understand though, is whether or not this allows for free will. If everything is mechanical, then how can we possibly be the free willed creatures that we feel we are? And is that the same thing as fate?”

“Not at all. As far as that goes, I think Democritus had a very good basis. Consider this. If you throw a plate against a wall, and it shatters, do you call it fate?”

“Of course not. It’s an effect from the plate hitting the wall.”

“Good. You can consider that cause and effect, or consequence, to be the mechanism by which Democritus’s theory works.”

“But how does that explain the free will?”

“I’ll give you another exanple. If you push a key on a keyboard, and a letter pops onto the computer screen, is that fate?”

“No.”

“Can you tell me how it happens?”

“Well… not exactly, but I know that the keyboard sends a message to the computer, which encodes the letter and shows it on the screen.”

“Even though you don’t know exactly how it happens, you accept that it’s an effect from you pushing the button. Now consider this. Free will is not an illusion. We have free will, but we also have this mechanism of consequences, which is a natural mechanism that we must follow. Now… if you throw a cat against a wall with extreme force, will you kill it? Answer seriously, please.”

“Not necessarily… if the cat can grab something, or twist around, it should be ok.”

“Yes. So the consequence that would have occurred from the cat hitting the wall was changed by the cat’s actions. This is free will. We are still subject to the mechanism of consequence, but we are able to manipulate it. We add another cause to get another effect.”

“That makes sense. So when you take Democritus’s position and expand and supplement it, some of the problems that it presents can be worked out.”
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005
1:49 am
[expressindie]
Independence or self psychotics?Collapse )

Current Mood: confused
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005
8:54 am
[aquiethope]
Hurricane weather breeding ideas...
I find that more and more people are coming to the realization that something immense, even apocalyptic, is about to happen.

There are different theories, including an economic depression, and extending into the complete collapse of society as we know it.

I hold the possible theory that the world has in fact already ended.

Some place this inevitable-seeming event in ten years, some as soon as two.

You can see signs of it, if you look.

I certainly feel like the repeated hurricanes are a sign of some sort. Not sure what of. But I'm nearly positive that they are a sign of things to come. No, I don't think that they are some kind of "miracle" or anything like that; I'm just as sure that they have a perfectly logical meteorological explanation. That doesn't take away from my certainty that they are a sign. From "God", maybe, though my own beliefs lead me to the idea that it is... a natural force, and not an omnipotent deity, that is trying to warn us of something.

And honestly, why not? Some laugh at this idea because they don't believe that any natural force would care enough about what's going on in the gulf to start throwing hurricanes at it. I agree.

But look at it like this; when you are trying to communicate an idea to a lower lifeform, i.e. a cat or a dog, how do you do it? You do an action repeatedly. They may not realize what you want them to do, but if they are an intelligent specimen, they will at least realize that you want SOME response from them.

How can you expect something that is extremely different from the way we are, like god or nature, to be able to communicate in a way that's easy to understand? Or even logical? You can't.

I think even the most cynical of people feel, in a queasy and "I don't want to think about this" kind of way, that this weather is a sign of something.

In a way, I am excited to begin seeing signs of a major change, even if it does mean the collapse of our society.

I justify this excitement by explaining one of my fears. Christians believe that one day God will take the worthy, good people home, and leave the rest. (Yes, that is very simplified, I'm no theologist, sorry) I don't believe that EXACT concept, but I do feel, sometimes, like something similar has ALREADY happened. Like, something very important happened, and we were judged... not good enough, so we weren't a part of it. We are the ones left behind. That's why things have become so stagnant... why history and stories are so much more real to us that our own lives.

It's just a theory, and if you try to take it too literally it won't apply. But it's a common feeling to many people.

So the idea that something ELSE is about to happen, gives me hope that maybe... we weren't left behind. Maybe there is still hope of an important SOMETHING that we can be a part of.

Christopher tells me that this is the most optimistic thing I've ever said. I don't know. To be either a worthless remnant, or to be faced with possible destruction... to be faced with an opportunity for more, which means to be face with the possibility of losing everything...
Thursday, September 8th, 2005
9:39 am
[aquiethope]
This speaks for itself.
Wombats in light speed experiments (idea)

(idea) by trembling

Thu Oct 24 2002 at 10:49:43

C! info: 3 C!s given by: ariels, dabcanboulet, avalyn

10 ¶, 42 s, 934 w, 5580 c


Take, for instance, a wombat. A perfectly normal, everyday wombat, apparently unaware of his future place in the Annals of History as part of the most important animal-based experiment since we discovered the joys of thalidomide. Place this wombat on a reasonable flat, reasonably solid surface. Take another, seemingly innocuous wombat. He will need to be somewhat smaller than the previous wombat, for as we are about to see, you must now place this second wombat on top of the first. Amazing as this may seem to you, please, stop gawking. The really clever part is next.

Now, do this with an infinite amount of wombats. I say infinite, but in actuality the number needed is finite, only inversely proportional to the speed of the actual wombats.

I should probably also head off the PETA activists right now and say that since this is a hypothetical situation, my concern is not with the treatment of these wombats. Let us assume that they are perfectly happy wombats, well rested, and fed on the finest wombat food money can buy. In a real world scenario, you would obviously have some manner of wombat wrangler to look after the creatures, protect them from rabies, and generally keep them in a state fit to be stacked. They would not even be needed for any large amount of time; as you shall see, the experiment, bar stacking time, is over very quickly, and thus the animals can be sent back to their happy wombat lives secure in the knowledge that their intrinsically comedic appearance and ease-of-stack quotient has helped mankind break the final barrier to finding other civilizations, subjugating them under our ruthless expansionist principles, and sending them blankets covered in smallpox.

Right. Now. Once we have this infinite, or at least variably random (based on external wombat movement speed) amount of stacked wombats, we need to make them move forward at exactly the same time. This can be achieved through the use of cattle prods tear gas provocative pictures of lady wombats as incentive.

At this crucial stage in the hypothesis, one must imagine the scene: one average, albeit well built and gourmet-fed wombat, moving forward at a rate of, let's say, 10 km per hour. The second wombat, moving forward on top of the first, also moving at the hypothetically maximum wombat speed of 10 km per hour. Ditto the third. And the fourth. Thus, if we call the first wombat's speed x, the speed of any given wombat in the stack (k) can be deduced with the formula yx = k, where y is the number of the wombat's position in the stack. Therefore, the 10th wombat in the stack in the above example would, at a certain point in time in the wombat-stack's forward motion, be moving at a speed of 10(10) = 100 km per hour. Since we have our finite, but undeniably tall stack of wombats, eventually we shall reach a point in this stack where a particular wombat reaches, and then exceeds, the speed of light. If the speed of light is at or around 1,071,360,000 kilometers per hour, we can judge that this would be the wombat approximately 107,136,000 wombats up.

Obviously, we must give or take a couple of wombats due to what is scientifically termed 'wombat error', or, in applied thermodynamics, 'dumbass goddamn wombats'. This term applies to the phenomenon whereby some of the wombats will do one or more of the following:

Fall off the stack during the stacking process. This is less common after actually being stacked, as it is somewhat difficult to hurl yourself to the ground when there are 100,000,000 other wombats above you.
Slip, lose footing, and therefore speed. This can be solved with the use of special wombat-shaped running shoes. I would recommend those with rubber soles, not spikes, so as to preserve the beautiful coat of the wombat below, and maintain our PETA-friendly status.
Need the bathroom. You're on your own here.
Now, I understand that there are those who put forward Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which dictates that the faster an object travels, the larger its mass becomes, and therefore our top wombat would, before reaching the speed of light, collapse into itself, reach infinite mass, and destroy the stack, the wombat wranglers, and a large part of our solar system. I think I speak for all of us when I say that these amateur physicists are nothing but godless heathens, and should be ignored. Besides which, if he really was as cool as these people think, why haven't we heard more about this 'Einstein' fellow? What has he ever done for the realm of theoretical physics?

To other nay Sayers, who dispute the lowly wombat's ability to hold the weight of an infinite amount of other wombats on his or her well-groomed back, I also have plans for a complicated harness/pulley system, the details of which I shall not bore you with, only to reassure you that not only does it render these wombats weightless, but also performs calculus equations, advocates the widespread promotion of world peace, and can sort underwear into lights and darks.

This experiment also then answers the question of 'What is faster than the speed of light?': a wombat, running on the back of a wombat already going at the speed of light.



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



http://everything2.com/?node=Wombats+in+light+speed+experiments http://everything2.com/?node_id=1377991
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005
3:08 am
[vieszcy]
Changes
So yeah i don't post much anymore... mostly because of my many various reasons... but that's not the point of this post seeing how it's in the all glorious lunch_sessions... anyways i went and visited shelby today at his grandmother's wake... i guess in part to make myself feel better for not being able to go to jessica's... anways again i go off track.. possibly because of the time of day. but while shebly, isaac, danielle, billy, and alex talked to each other i moved away from the group just to watch them. and during this time i noticed something remarkably different about me... and that's the fact that i had changed.. which may not seem that great. but yeah for me it is. now here's the point of this little post. why do people seem to think it's better to hide their changes from themselves rather than just letting themselves feel the changes naturally and accepting them as parts of themselves. humans are supposed to be some of the most flexible creatures on the planet, but i don't see that really happening.. physically wise we can be... but mentally... sometimes we just tend to get stuck in our old ways sometimes refusing to let go, no matter what. and then sometimes... sometimes we just seem to be truthful w/ ourselves... welp it's 3:30 my mom is begining to wake up so i guess this means i'm off to bed myself.
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005
4:28 am
[aquiethope]
Ashes
Question: What do you want done to your body after you die?

Answer: I want to be burnt to ashes.

Why?

I believe that destroying my body will sever any connection to it that I may retain after death. That's the major reason. I see no reason to place my decaying corpse into the ground and let it rot away slowly, when it might be gone in just a few moments. I'd much rather myself be ashes in the wind than be the thing nightmares are made of.

You might say it doesn't matter, that my conciousness will either have left the body or disappeared entirely at this point.

Which brings me to my next question. What do you want to happen to you after you die?

Not BELIEVE, necessarily. But want. Hope.

I haven't decided yet.
2:22 am
[aquiethope]
From Korea
Note: This is copied verbatim from Willow's LJ, inneedofwings. I thought it worth remembering.


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


Where do you think this country would be without the military... We'd probably all be speaking German right now...

My dad fought for this country's freedom and almost died twice because of it... and he had to come home to people spitting on him and calling him a baby killer... the very people whos rights he almost died for... to think thats ok is just wrong. War isn't pretty ... Its not glamorous or fun, but sometimes its necessary. Human nature prevents peace, thats just the way it is. I don't agree with everything the military does or the reasoning behind wars... like Iraq. I know a lot of it has to do with money... with oil... with whatever, but that shouldn't change or demean the efforts of the soldiers out there fighting and sacrificing for the cause.

It takes a lot of strength, commitment, and discipline to be in the military... to go to war...to be away from your family and the ones you love... to know that everyday you could die... but we do it anyway... we do it because we have to ... we do it because we chose to for whatever reason. We ARE the guardians of freedom... We ARE the guardians of the American way of life, and we ARE by choice. As a soldier you have to give up the majority of your freedoms... we sacrifice our own freedoms to maintain the freedoms of those who aren't capable or willing to defend they're own. THAT is what the Army is all about. Saying that the Army is a pointless organization run by money hungry leaders is just absurd. Saying that its pointless and stupid to want to be a soldier is like spitting in the faces of all the people who died defending our freedoms... its like saying what they did means nothing. Those people sacrificed so much... THEY are the reason you have the freedoms you have today... they're the reason you have the freedom to disagree with what they did and still do for you. They're the reason you have the freedom to be ignorant and close minded if thats the way you want to be. Think about all the things you take for granted all the freedoms you have that maybe you don't realize or think about on a daily basis, and then remember... remember why you have them... remember the countless people who gave up they're rights ... they're lives... just so you could keep yours.

People like my dad are the people who fight wars.... steadfast and strong. My dad is one of the most honorable people I have ever known. He chose to fight in Vietnam... he wasn't drafted... he WANTED to go... because he believed in this country. He suffered multiple gun shot wounds on one occasion and had to be hospitalized. His chain of command wanted to send him home, but he wouldn't let them. He wanted to go back... he wanted to fight... My dad almost died... I have never seen anyone who possesses more honor, or integrity than my dad... He earned many medals including the Purple Heart and Bronze Star because he was fearless ... because he was a true warrior... because he put the welfare of others before his own. My dad is the embodiment of the Army Values, and he is a person worthy of the utmost respect... not just because hes my dad, but because of who he is and how he lives his life. Its people like my dad who make this country a place worth living ... a place worth fighting for... and I refuse to be ashamed of that... I refuse to let close minded, ignorant people convince me otherwise.

My mom told me something earlier that I totally agree with... she said, "They're are people who take, and take, and take from this country, and then theres people who make it what it is." ...

I know nothing I say is going to change your opinion David, but since you always bombard me with it I thought it was about time I voiced my own.

I'm not a mindless robot brainwashed by the Army. I am a human being... I am an individual... The Army knows that. The Army is composed of people from every different race, religious background, age group, and educational level... Its the largest most diverse organization in the world... Our leaders know that and they don't try to change it. They understand that our diversity is a lot of the reason we are successful. We're encouraged to embrace other cultures, to help out in any way that we can... to do charity missions... to be educated and free thinking. It's not about policing the world or making everyone see things from the American point of view. Its about the protection of freedom. Its about being someone worth being.
Sunday, July 17th, 2005
2:21 pm
[aquiethope]
Basic theories on communication.
Basic theories on communication.

First, know what you're going to say. It's all very well and good in poetry or prose to write (or speak) whatever comes to mind, but it makes expressing yourself to others very difficult, because you will tend to jump around topics. Know what you're talking about.

After you know what you want to say, be sure you stick to it. If you want to say someone is a wonderful person, say so-and-so is a wonderful person. Don't qualify it with something else. "So-and-so is annoying, but they're still a wonderful person." What you want to focus on is the wonderful person part, but THEY are going to focus on the annoying part, and assume that the other is just to make them feel better. And it won't. If you need more to say, just think of WHY, and include some of those things. "So-and-so is a wonderful person BECAUSE they are kind and always thinking of others."

Don't repeat yourself over and over. Say what you mean, say it well, and let your reader/listener take it. Don't shove it into their brains, because they'll just ignore it. If you're trying to force feed it to them, that means that you need their approval to lend it credibility, and they'll be less likely to believe it. Say it and move on.

Don't expect people to agree with you. Sometimes they won't. Just be ready to back up your ideas, and show why you feel or believe what you say. You wouldn't expect someone to trust your answer to a math problem if they can't see how you found the answer, would you?

Know who you're talking to, and adapt what you say to fit the circumstances. Some people have their own preset ideas about things, and you won't be able to change their minds. A lot of times it's just a matter of placing a spark of idea into them, and letting them run with it themselves. Don't look for an argument.

DON'T ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE!!!! Not only is it bad form, it's just plain dumb. If you don't like an idea, focus on the idea, not the person who has it. Thoughts come and go, and tomorrow they may not believe the same thing.

Having language skills helps. Know how to structure your sentences to make them understandable. Don't use big words if you don't have to. Don't interrupt yourself.

I may add some more to this later. Please feel free to do the same.
Wednesday, July 6th, 2005
7:23 pm
[aquiethope]
Point for Ghandi
The Voice of The Dodecahedron.


I believe that pain is good. I know why people cut themselves, and why bleeding is such a relief.

If you're at all spiritual, you can turn this same principle inwards, and realize that sometimes emotional pain is good too. It makes you feel alive.

But turning the pain out onto someone else is not right. You simply don't have the right. We do it anyways; which is interesting and cruely pleasurable, but ultimately useless. It doesn't gain you anything. It's like seeing a flock of chickens pecking a small one to death. What do you end up with? An unedible dead chicken.

Sometimes I think Ghandi had the right idea, and sometimes I think Hitler had the right idea.

We all need our daily dose of drama or else, quite simply, we get bored. And when we get bored we become self-analytical and 95% of the time we really can't stand what we see. We find ourselves to be fat, lazy, dependent, weak, self-centered, slutty, insecure or arrogant, or both. We don't want to be that way, but since it's always difficult to change, we just occupy our minds with other things. When the reality of ourselves begins to filter through, we turn on the tv, the computer, we call a friend, we take out the razor. Or we just sit staring at the wall, or the ceiling, letting the self-disgust roll over us and trying in vain to sort the shit out.

Well we've been trying that for 20 years now people, isn't it time to do something different?

They used to tell us to go out and do something, try to better ourselves, and we don't, mostly because they told us to and we think it's useless. Well damn. We've never tried so we really don't know.

Go paint a house. Mow a yard. BUILD a house. Just take a little time and do something purely physical and FORGET about your drama, and your pain, and other people. Don't like doing it alone? Call up a friend and make them go too. Go to a gym; go running, go on a road trip with only 200 dollars and a few buddies.

I realize that you can't do this all the time; you have a job and family and eventually school or other responsibilities. But if you take the time to balance out your life, you will feel better for it.

No one is going to have the same solution. But hell... if you're on the verge of suicide, or you just hate your life, what have you got to lose?

There should always be struggle in life. Our lives are so easy that we have to SEARCH for a struggle, and the simplest way to find it is interpersonal drama. Which is good, as long as it doesn't become your ENTIRE life.

Non-religious and need some kind of spirituality? Go take Yoga. Meditate. RELAX!

I know this is a distasteful idea to ANYONE who is suffering, or feeling like the world is horrible. So don't try any new approaches right away because honestly, you'll fail and you'll feel even more miserable than you already do. Just shove the idea into the back of your mind, and drag it back out when you're ready. What have you got to lose? You've tried everything else.

Let's face it. Depression sucks ass. And if you're a very passionate and emotional person, it's very VERY hard not to get depressed. And it's just a damn shame, because there are such better things to do with your passion that to turn it inwards.

Love is the best thing. But it's not the ONLY thing. This world is too big for it to be. It all depends on your own personal philosophy, but I'm sure all of my readers believe in some form of higher deity. Try to get in touch with it.

I believe that there's a lot of power in your state of mind. You can do any of the things I mentioned, and if you concentrate on bad things, you're going to be miserable. Your thoughts influence your reality. They also influence other people's reality.

I like it when people are nice to me. I like it when they pay attention to me, when they notice something about me. I like it when they see, but don't linger over my faults. I like being appreciated.

So I try to give these things to other people. Maybe I'll get it back, maybe not. Maybe I made someone happier. Leave a poem in a library book for the next reader. Send someone you know a gift; a postcard. Don't expect ANYTHING in return. And if you get something, GIVE something in return.

Point for Ghandi.
Tuesday, May 24th, 2005
6:35 pm
[vieszcy]
hmm so this is in response to cat's last entry about how we wanted to die

so i was thinking the other day.. i don't really want to die.. but i wasn't sure if i could handle that continual grief that would be involved in constantly losing people that i knew.. i think that i honestly could live like that... it wouldn't be pleasent but i could.. how about you all?? do you think you could live forever while holding onto your emotions??... and do you think that my statement about myself is true??.. do you think that i could really do that?
Tuesday, April 26th, 2005
12:03 am
[aquiethope]
A Theory of Recording Technique
I want Madison to pay particularly close attention to this, as music is his chosen concentration.

To understand where this comes from, I ask anyone interested to listen to the radio and try to pick out the songs that you feel are good. By this, I mean songs that make you want to sing along, songs that make you feel better, songs that groove, songs that you can listen to again. Then, think of who sings them. If you do this over an extended period of time, you'll notice that a lot of the time it's the same people.

Now, anyone who studies music knows the the bulk of the really GOOD music never makes it into the popular scene. Why is this? Because the people who pick what gets played and what doesn't are dumbasses who know nothing about music? Because for music to be played on the radio someone has to PAY a shitload and kiss ass?

Well, yes. BUT. There's more to it.

Once you get to the stage of realizing that a lot of the new music is crap, there's another realization to make. A lot of it isn't. Why do music majors prefer older music? (And they do. Anyone who hangs around with music majors, and recording majors, and TEACHERS will find out this is true.)

It took me a while, and a few classes and seminars to realize this, but I think I know why. Recording technique. Now, talent is definitely important, don't get me wrong. Crap is crap, no matter how well it's recorded. But if all you have is talent, well, you can't sell it.

Listen to Motown. Go even further back if you like; listen to Big Mama Thornton, listen to Louis Armstrong.

Then listen to Celine Dion. Listen to Kelly Clarkson's newest song. Listen to (DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME ON THIS ONE) Green Day's "Beaulivard of Broken Dreams". They are good songs. But they leave you wanting something more. They leave you cold. There are a lot of songs like that on the radio, that just... make you feel like you want to crawl out of your skin. Lovers of the old music just chalk it up to "that thing" that old songs have that new ones don't. Rock lovers will say it's because they aren't being real, because they're posers.

I say, it's recording technique. I also say that rock, although a good genre, has done a lot to bring down the quality of music.

Okay, now let's get into what makes a good song, good. There are several things to consider. What it amounts to is human interaction. Why do we listen to music? To interact, albeit passively, with another human being. That's why MIDI's don't cut it. You CAN tell the difference between digital music and real music. It comes through as that cold, dead feeling that you can't understand.

Some will say this is wrong, and point to live recordings as an example. Well yes, there are a lot of crappy live recordings. But that's not because the music was crappy (not always, anyways). It's because live recordings are usually recorded by incompetents who don't know what they're doing.

Motown is the best example of perfect recording. Perfect song structure as well. I won't discuss the lyrics so much, because honestly they don't play a part in what I'm discussing. What Motown did, was take ENORMOUSLY talented musicians, and talented singers, and talented songwriters, and put them together to achieve the best possible mix. Motown used the same band almost throughout, the Funk Brothers. They were the basis for everything; talented musicians NOT SINGERS are the basis for good music. The singers were practically interchangable.

Here's the key thing though. Everything was recorded together. The musicians played in the same room. Many times the singer was there at the same time. They didn't have the equipment to create large amounts of multiple tracks and put them together.

I had a chance to listen to one of the recording engineers from Motown's studio. His lecture lead me to realize another key ingredient to a good song. On the spot mixing, rather than after the fact. This is IMPORTANT. Have you ever been to a live show, and then listened to the same song on CD? There is a huge difference. Want to know why? Because of mixing. Band people, think of it as dynamics; recording reduces everything to the same dynamic level. You have to physically amp up the important parts and tone down the rest. If you're doing this while the music is actually being played, you get a feel for what needs to be done when; you get into it and you get a better interpretation of the real thing. When it's done after the fact, it's clinical. You rely on your brain instead of your feelings, and you get something that may be intellectually okay, but it doesn't affect the senses the way something mixed live does. Human interaction.

Why is country so good? Yeah, don't say it isn't. Maybe you don't like the lyrics, or the singers voice, but the music is GOOD. Want to know why? Hired musicians. Kick ass hired musicians. Nashville, and other centers of recording, are absolutely full of them. Talented people... and you can tell when the singers are singing with them, and when it was added later, because the singer will interact with the musicians when it's recorded together. You can hear the difference.

The really strange thing about it all, is that the good music is very business oriented. But it's a balance, between business, creativity, and talent. That's why rock screwed everything up. It focused everyone on creativity as the sole ingredient for good music... and that's absolute crap. Creativity without talent is nothing. Neither of them are anything in mass media without good recording technique. The business comes into play in how it's all put together. Musicians have to be paid, singers have to be paid, and songwriters/composers have to be paid. No one will do it without the business.

Rock also made a mistake in combining the singers, songwriters, and musicians into one person. There are very, very, VERY few people with enough talent, or energy, or drive to pull of all of that. What we need is another Motown; a system that pulls these things together and combines them into the best possible form.

So recap: Human interaction, live mixing, talented musicians, creative writers, and a good business system to put it all together. Please note that singers are not listed. Singers are generally (not always) expendable.
Monday, April 25th, 2005
12:51 pm
[aquiethope]
Something Mr. Bombardi, my philosophy teacher submitted for speculation:

If there are infinite stars in the universe, and infinite space, why isn't the sky lit up completely all the time?

Of course, my immediate response was that I didn't think the universe was infinite. It's a legitimate issue though, that disturbs a lot of astronomers. What do you think?
Monday, April 18th, 2005
6:57 pm
[aquiethope]
Consider this image. Your life is made up of threads. Some threads are long, some threads are short. Each thread begins every time you make a certain choice. Some threads are practically insubstantial; they are unimportant, and barely effect the other threads.

Other threads are stronger or longer, and as you go on in life, they begin to form a lattice. On this lattice, you place other threads; everything begins to twine together to form something that has shape. Since the threads are all interacting, and resting on each other, they rely on each other. You could not have placed this thread without that one, you could not have had this one UNTIl you had this other.

So by the time you die, you have built this shape, with the choices you've made along the way. Remember that MANY, though not all, of the choices relied on other choices. So in looking back, you think that the later choices you've made could not have happened without the earlier ones. Maybe your shape is beautiful, maybe it is dark and sinister. But it is YOURS, and you have created it.

The fact that it seems to fit into itself maybe comes from nature itself; animals construct things with form and shape, even fungus can grow into a beautiful shape; seemingly random things have beauty and purpose as a natural trend in the world... why not our lives? We don't seem to have many natural things about us, but maybe this is one of them.

I don't know. This is a wholy imperfect theory that just randomly came to me on my way to class today. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005
11:40 am
[aquiethope]
Potential
Theory: We are wasting our potential, due to circumstances.

There is a psychology theory that states that people do the things they do in order to achieve their full potential. To become a better person, to be everything that they can possibly be. According to this, happiness is gained by working towards that goal.

In our lives, we are tied down by society, and circustance, into not being able to fulfill our potential. As a young person, living in America in the 21st century, we are presented with a paradox. We are told that we can be anything we want to be, if we just try, but we are not told of the many strings attached to everything.

Our options are remarkably limited. We can go to school, work, or be a bum. You can opt out of these by cheating, but I'll go into that option later. We waste time, and life in waiting for years, before we find our niche, something we can do to be useful. Many don't ever find it.

Imagine this scenario. (I realize it's farfectched, but bear with me) A large portion of the world's population is destroyed. You, your loved one, and the minimum of friends/family that you must keep in order to maintain sanity survive. You have to rely on your own survival skills, mental and physical, in order to live. With fewer people, you are suddenly in demand; the things you know now have value, the skills you've learned are needed.

Assuming that there are enough people still alive in enough varied positions, to keep the research and intellectual advances we have made from being destroyed, but not enough to keep the frivolous and unnecessary things...

Do you think you could survive? Do you think your quality of life would be greater or worse? Could you try to set up a new way of life, or would you leave it up to others?

Observing Madison has basically brought about this line of thought; as a very physical, strong, and mentally capable person, he would thrive in a situation like that. I believe that many of us would.

_Why is that?_

There are too many people in the world right now, condensed into too small of a space. In economics, when the supply of something is too high, the value goes down drastically. This applies to labor as well. There are so many people, fighting constantly for the same positions, with THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS (important) that many of them become expendable.

So when every is equally qualified, that's when people resort to cheating. People do cheat anyways, but at this point, it is not only a choice, it's almost necessary in order to achieve your goal. (I use the word cheating to include dishonesty, kissing ass, lying, stealing, and shmoozing)

And thus begins a generation of people whose only marketable skill is their ability to bullshit their way into obtaining things. Cheating becomes not only acceptable, but encouraged. Employers are so used to being able to pick and choose the best cheater, that they no longer look at the actual qualifications, and those who are NOT cheaters, who ARE qualified, are overlooked.

Intelligent, hard working people are left to such things as working in food service, or mass merchant retail stores. Or, we go to school in an attempt to increase our marketable skills, where we learn, again, that the only truely marketable skill AT THIS POINT IN TIME is cheating.

We are being screwed out of fulfilling our potential.
Friday, April 1st, 2005
10:14 pm
[vieszcy]
in case someone cares
it's strange but these interactive banners that make "winning" free stuff extremely easy got me thinking... America has to be quite possibly the greediest, yet laziest country.. we have a bunch of fat lazy people attempting to win stuff.. by giving a lot of money to people who are trying to get more and more money... which does nothing more except cause inflation.. making the dollar bill less valuable as time goes by.. but do people realy realize that.. maybe.. but that doesn't matter much to them becauase they want their money now.. but what's the point of having all of that money when it just causes us to have to spend more and more of it in order to make it work
Monday, March 28th, 2005
6:40 pm
[aquiethope]
Analog or Digital?
Question posed: Is the world inherently analog, or inherently digital?


Information: Analog is defined as being of or relating to a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities. Digital is defined as of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units.


Translation: Analog is continuous, wheras digital is not. Think of it in terms of VHS and DVD, respectively. VHS is analog, DVD is digital. VHS, or analog, is a continuous stream of data; DVD or digital is made up of parts, the 1's and 0's of the information on the disk.


Interpretation: Digital objects, being made of a small number of identical parts, must have a design or plan in order to have any meaning. The parts themselves do not contribute to the meaning of the object; everything from kittens to potato chips is made of up the same thing, i.e. the ones and zeros of binary code. Manipulation of the parts themselves would destroy the object, because the design, which carried the meaning of it, would be broken.

Analog objects, being made of a continuous medium, can be manipulated without destroying the whole, since it relies on the medium itself as well as a design. You can 'bend' an analog object and it will still retain it's identity as an object. If you play a G on a guitar and bend the string so the pitch becomes F, that is analog, because in changing from one to the other you encompass every single minute pitch in between. In contrast, if you program a computer to play a G, it cannot be changed to F without the code being changed to F. This eliminates every area in between the two notes and does not allow for any variance from whatever note is programmed.

So, is the nature of the world analog or digital? In looking at the world, it would seem like both are true, which cannot be. Something cannot be simultaneously continuous and discontinuous.

I ask for any speculation on the matter, and would delite in hearing some ideas on the relation between analog and digital.
About LiveJournal.com