I find my mind reaches to many areas of thought thinking and analyzing about many things but one particular area arises a particular interest. It is a paradox, not that there are paradoxes which I do not recognize so far, yet this one seems special. It is a paradox that I feel represents the most fundamental abilities of human understanding, yet gets overlooked in some manner. The paradox I am describing is the conceptualization of "nothing". Nothing by definition should not exist, therefore why give it a name? For example we could say that: here in this basket we have some fruit and in this basket we have nothing. Some may argue it is more appropriate to say we have "no fruit" or "fruit is lacking in this basket". On the surface it sounds like a resolution, that we should simply change our words in order to reflect an absence of "something" rather than to recognize that particular lack of something as something itself, that is by giving "it" a name.
However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.
The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?
So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Force vs. Fraud
Thomas Hobbes once pointed out that "force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues". This is true for competition in general, after all what is war but a competition with the highest stakes. Human beings are constantly competing against one another for resource and recognition and we compete in teams as well as individually, that is mono e mono. Competition seems an obvious consequence of inherently selfish creatures and if we look closely enough we can see degrees of competition everywhere. Competition happens from two different angles. There is force and then there is fraud. Force is the ability to physically overcome your competitors and fraud is the ability to outsmart them. To possess them both is to have quite the team.
Competition in the human universe is extremely complex. It goes from Wrigley Field to Wall Street to your local bar. Sexual competition is particularly interesting and has some interesting patterns to note. Scientifically speaking, men are on average physically stronger than women, it's a matter of genetics and it is obvious. What may have been overlooked, ironically though, is that in the competition between the sexes if the men had a monopoly on force wouldn't the women find some way to make up for this deficit? Of course, they had to adapt to utilize fraud.
Think about this. Men compete as body builders and women compete as pageant queens. The body builder goes for muscle definition and nobody cares about his personality or his mental agility. The pageant queen is a different beast however. She must possess both good looks and charm. The pageant queen must prove herself as a mental force, so to speak. She must speak eloquently, carry herself well, be charming, possess good social skills, etc. Keeping this in mind we can examine other notions we have about women in general. Stereotypically, they are known for their gossiping qualities, that is the passing on of social information and often the manipulation of such "information" in a way that is beneficial to them. Manipulation is the key to understanding fraud and there is an entire history of contraptions meant to manipulate the woman's figure to make her look, smell, feel, and even taste more attractive. There are push-up bras that make their breasts seem fuller and more desirable, gut tuckers that hide flab, cosmetics which enhance features and cover up blemishes, perfumes that smell pleasant, even lotion to keep the skin feeling smooth to the touch. It is safe to say that for all of the 5 senses women have a multitude of products to manipulate them.
It is true that men have also learned to manipulate the sensory perceptions we all share but comparatively the industries for each sex don't even compare. However, just as women have become very well suited to manipulate their environment through fraud the men had done very well to manipulate the environment through physical force, or even the mere threat of force. Countless statistics on the general behavior of males outright labels us the aggressive counterpart to the human species. Testosterone is a naturally occurring chemicals in our bodies however men have far more of it than women do and through scientific research we have determined that it plays a key role in male social habits. It makes us more competitive, more likely to take risks, and more aggressive. Far more men are charged with crimes related to physical violence than women. In men their is an inherent drive toward physical dominance, so it has been force from which we have gained our historial standing.
Since man has gone through the process of self domestication we can look at the rest of the animal kingdom for a quick case study on male social interaction. The male beasts of the jungle and of the Serengeti still battle for physical dominance. In the proverbial animal kingdom it really pays to be big and strong. To this end the male who comes out on top is first to feast and first to mate thereby securing his genetic future.
Competition in the human universe is extremely complex. It goes from Wrigley Field to Wall Street to your local bar. Sexual competition is particularly interesting and has some interesting patterns to note. Scientifically speaking, men are on average physically stronger than women, it's a matter of genetics and it is obvious. What may have been overlooked, ironically though, is that in the competition between the sexes if the men had a monopoly on force wouldn't the women find some way to make up for this deficit? Of course, they had to adapt to utilize fraud.
Think about this. Men compete as body builders and women compete as pageant queens. The body builder goes for muscle definition and nobody cares about his personality or his mental agility. The pageant queen is a different beast however. She must possess both good looks and charm. The pageant queen must prove herself as a mental force, so to speak. She must speak eloquently, carry herself well, be charming, possess good social skills, etc. Keeping this in mind we can examine other notions we have about women in general. Stereotypically, they are known for their gossiping qualities, that is the passing on of social information and often the manipulation of such "information" in a way that is beneficial to them. Manipulation is the key to understanding fraud and there is an entire history of contraptions meant to manipulate the woman's figure to make her look, smell, feel, and even taste more attractive. There are push-up bras that make their breasts seem fuller and more desirable, gut tuckers that hide flab, cosmetics which enhance features and cover up blemishes, perfumes that smell pleasant, even lotion to keep the skin feeling smooth to the touch. It is safe to say that for all of the 5 senses women have a multitude of products to manipulate them.
It is true that men have also learned to manipulate the sensory perceptions we all share but comparatively the industries for each sex don't even compare. However, just as women have become very well suited to manipulate their environment through fraud the men had done very well to manipulate the environment through physical force, or even the mere threat of force. Countless statistics on the general behavior of males outright labels us the aggressive counterpart to the human species. Testosterone is a naturally occurring chemicals in our bodies however men have far more of it than women do and through scientific research we have determined that it plays a key role in male social habits. It makes us more competitive, more likely to take risks, and more aggressive. Far more men are charged with crimes related to physical violence than women. In men their is an inherent drive toward physical dominance, so it has been force from which we have gained our historial standing.
Since man has gone through the process of self domestication we can look at the rest of the animal kingdom for a quick case study on male social interaction. The male beasts of the jungle and of the Serengeti still battle for physical dominance. In the proverbial animal kingdom it really pays to be big and strong. To this end the male who comes out on top is first to feast and first to mate thereby securing his genetic future.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Everyone Wants to be a Hero
We are fascinated by heroes. We adore them in our novels of fiction and we praise them with media coverage in real life. There is a social component to human nature, that is, we seek the approval of our peers. Those who are not leaders dream to be. We are compelled to risk our standings and sometimes our lives for the chance to prove ourselves to the greater audience of mankind. I think this is just a personal security device that is ultimately an attempt to validate ourselves as important persons within the group. Human beings have a strong desire to eradicate or hide our deficiencies and given the opportunity we will accept the challenge which defies our collective values so long as that value is strongly enough recognized by the individual.
People make mistakes though. There are those compelled by ignorance, or faulty conceptions of reality, who believe that their determined efforts will gain the praise they seek. Suicide bombers are an example of a group of people who mistakenly believe they will be rewarded with the praise of the almighty god for such heroism and sacrifice. It is because people are inherently selfish that we do kind acts. We sacrifice our resources, health, and sometimes our lives because we crave the possibility of immortality of praise. So that we do so doesn't mean that we do not care about others and that we care only for ourselves rather it means that we justifications of beneficence are always based or rooted in selfish ends, as all perceived choices in human actions are made.
Superman devoted his life to the greater good, to helping others, to upholding the American way of life. We can put ourselves in his shoes and fashion a taste of the virtues he accomplishes because they are so detailed in the comics and movies. Superman wasn't human but the same rules apply to all life. Life, as it is known is inherently selfish for the reason that evolution necessitates it. Those life forms that weren't interested in survival would not have made it, therefore they would not have successfully passed on their genes.
Heroes are not superbeings. They are normal people who managed to successfully pull off attempts at securing their values, which so happen to be conducive to the majority values of the time. Heroes usually reveal themselves to collect on the praise they expect from their peers but occasionally they are anonymous. Rarely they are anonymous. They usually get interviewed and get all worked up emotionally and sometimes cry not because they made altruism a reality but because their sacrifices were reconized and their values were validated by the greatest audience. For those that are anonymous they are truely devoted to a higher power. They are commited to believing they shall be rewarded in the afterlife. There is however a minuscule fraction that do not answer to man nor god. This is a group that is both rational yet determined in their values yet they still seek something and that is only personal validation. They seek to appease their personal insecurities which rule their lives.
People make mistakes though. There are those compelled by ignorance, or faulty conceptions of reality, who believe that their determined efforts will gain the praise they seek. Suicide bombers are an example of a group of people who mistakenly believe they will be rewarded with the praise of the almighty god for such heroism and sacrifice. It is because people are inherently selfish that we do kind acts. We sacrifice our resources, health, and sometimes our lives because we crave the possibility of immortality of praise. So that we do so doesn't mean that we do not care about others and that we care only for ourselves rather it means that we justifications of beneficence are always based or rooted in selfish ends, as all perceived choices in human actions are made.
Superman devoted his life to the greater good, to helping others, to upholding the American way of life. We can put ourselves in his shoes and fashion a taste of the virtues he accomplishes because they are so detailed in the comics and movies. Superman wasn't human but the same rules apply to all life. Life, as it is known is inherently selfish for the reason that evolution necessitates it. Those life forms that weren't interested in survival would not have made it, therefore they would not have successfully passed on their genes.
Heroes are not superbeings. They are normal people who managed to successfully pull off attempts at securing their values, which so happen to be conducive to the majority values of the time. Heroes usually reveal themselves to collect on the praise they expect from their peers but occasionally they are anonymous. Rarely they are anonymous. They usually get interviewed and get all worked up emotionally and sometimes cry not because they made altruism a reality but because their sacrifices were reconized and their values were validated by the greatest audience. For those that are anonymous they are truely devoted to a higher power. They are commited to believing they shall be rewarded in the afterlife. There is however a minuscule fraction that do not answer to man nor god. This is a group that is both rational yet determined in their values yet they still seek something and that is only personal validation. They seek to appease their personal insecurities which rule their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
