[172] The People Around Me

Friday, February 27, 2009 at 6:19am

For multi-layered reasons of not-so complexity I find many of the people I surround myself with being upset, depressed, or angry. My feeble attempts at having parties seemingly unable to penetrate this self repudiating thought pattern in some, and frustration with the world in others. While my sense of happiness and well-being are not contingent upon the people around me, one can't help but to invest in those they consider friends. Given that I've been rather stooped in thought the past few days, and seeing as how there must be something screwy with how the planets are aligning, taking down my friends one at a time, why not write?

A few moments ago I made a little list of everything that could currently be categorized under stress. Four of them had to do with money, three with the system, and seven with me. Granted the last category is rather inflated by seemingly trivial things, but things weighing on my thoughts no less. I've been trying to think of what could make me absolutely miserable. I remember what things I used to think could, but now all I can come up with is the inability to enjoy life. If I couldn't laugh with my friends, be entranced by a story line in a video game or movie, or get excited planning on how to take over the campus, then I may as well kill myself. I wonder if people either don't have or simply don't choose to engage in the simple things that can bring them happiness. I think when people aren't focused on themselves and what makes them happy, they both knowingly and unknowingly affect the people around them. One must take a moment to state that when it comes to "things that make us happy" it doesn't always mean in a way that's necessarily healthy or generally condoned. Perhaps I should be more specific. One of the biggest things that can pull me away from self loathing or borderline depressed introspection is the prospect of being able to contribute towards someone else's happiness. Take the difference between that and say, doing drugs, as the "kind of happiness" I'm focusing on. A manifestation of happiness, not supplementation.

So onto my next question. Are there things providing that kind of happiness to which people have identified with and then tried to strive for? This could even be only for the means of self preservation at the very least. My initial thought is to say no. If that's true, then I wonder the consequences. I for example, fall back on the plans I have with Mystik and potential fun in random encounters and adventures on the days where I feel disgustingly bored. If one of those stressors starts to creep in, I try to fit it in my framework that doesn't leave room for excuses, but fights to see opportunities. I remember what it was like to have overbearing thoughts that made me think unbelievably low about myself. But what then? Why choose sadness or lasting anger? They don't feel good, they don't provide fun, and they alienate you from the part of yourself that truly does recognize what it wants and how it will get it. I guess I just wish for people to be more thoughtful when they're normally depressed. There should be an eagerness to find happiness because they know this low point is only going to last as long as they'll let it. Instead of being crushed by the big picture, simply recognize it and then move on. It really boils down to being honest to the point of exhaustion, at least to yourself, then actively working within the choices you make as a result. The biggest opposition to that is the easiness in which we find ruts and others propensity to help us settle in them farther.

I've made several references in blogs and conversations about the failed system. I wish there was a better way of making reference to it without sort of glancing over the striking fact that we are the system. It's an overhanging metaphor for all the reasons we fail ourselves. We betray ourselves, and we refuse to accept the knowledge which may indeed save ourselves. Those "moral underpinnings" of "civilized" society are imposed by people who I would venture to guess have the most naive and scattered understanding of why they believe in them and how, when pitted against those with more "radical" ideologies. Why don't we like murder? Besides the fact that we did, those in power decided they themselves wouldn't like to be murdered, therefore murder is wrong. It isn't "because murder is wrong, murder is wrong" like some religious sect could harp at you. This stems from the selfish, self preserving, very basic introspection of those with a disposition for power and control. You can apply this line of reasoning to any "atrocious" act. This idea is so intertwined with empathy I am hoping someone will challenge it and show me why it fails. It's so easy to say that you can understand and feel for someone else, but if the moral obligation to care was so deeply entrenched in our hearts and souls we'd be unable to laugh at a motivational poster saying "404 food not found" underneath a picture of starving African kids. And if you can't laugh at something like that, then to me you actively deny and are scared of the part of you that could. Recognizing that you don't want to be as sad, hurt, or as angry as the person you perceive is hardly an equally mirrored empathetic suffering.

So then what of this suffering? People ask these broad "why is there evil" "why is there suffering" questions and they're overwhelmingly met with cliches like "that's life" or nods to some supernatural battle between sky daddy and pyrogoatman. These things exist because we actively choose to engage in them. They make sense to us within the framework of our failed system. In some capacity, that's the only thing they need to do is make sense. For some they provide purpose, a chance to be some valiant knight through their self-righteous moral obligation. Others get use them as every excuse. That's why they're there. It's like riding a wave that's going to drown you regardless of the path you choose. If you don't recognize, accept, and change how to view yourself in light of it, then the system will not see fit any reason to change either. We no longer have the same kinds of selection pressures that got us this far. We need to take on the cold, anxiety ridden, but now thoughtful process of naturally selecting ourselves. It's easily viewed and understood what happens to our lives and society when we just kinda go with whatever gives us fleeting moments of marginal happiness and distraction. Is this what you want? Is it something you're willing to fight?

What does this mean for how and why we lie? The easiest lies are the ones you believe. If to you society, you, the system, etc. can be solved with arbitration, spiritual enlightenment, and a little bit of hope...please, just never talk to me. Right and wrong are absolutes?...develop an imagination. Who am I though to say my view is so right? Why should my method of thinking or elaborate scheme be taken seriously? The simple answer is that it shouldn't and can't. My ideas can only come true and be worked at by me, the same push is your own choice. You'd have to come to the same independent conclusions from a preponderance of evidence. Your introspection, your study, and your honesty are at the corner of what matters. Do I expect that a perfect exercise of this will have us all nodding along accordingly and just "getting it" as it were? Absolutely not, and to think so would be to completely miss the point of the exercise. Given that I believe those "on the level" can understand how this works I'll call it a "secret" for the people I've all but completely lost up to this point.

All I do is start with what I feel are relatively easy questions. What makes me happy? What appears to make those around me happy, and why? What is it about myself that is enabling or preventing me from one act or idea and another? When you literally feel like you can do, think, or say anything and then dignify active work towards one of your choices, you can find happiness. You can find a sense of self with purpose properly secured. You can overwhelmingly find all the reasons why, and you can be confidant that they are "right."

Written about a month ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Colin Hampton at 8:18am February 27

Ok. So it's a quarter past eight in the morning. I haven't slept, despite the fact that I've been laying here for hours. So I am going to have to read through this one more time.

lol pyrogoatman <~ that was the entire point of this comment.

 Billy Bowman at 4:12pm February 27

I agree with lol pyrocgoatman, but to answer one of your original points about why the people around you seem depressed, despite all the little things that can bring them happiness, despite the realizations of a flawed system and working to fix it would if not make you happy, distract you from the depression. I believe, at least in my case and I'm ...  sure several others, it boils down to one statement you made.. "..but if the moral obligation to care was so deeply entrenched in our hearts and souls.."

I believe there is some deeply entrenched obligation to care embedded in us. Maybe not for everyone, maybe not even care about a lot of people, but there is something there. You care for the happiness of your friends, the success of Mystik, trying to do something to fix the system. It's not the same level of 'care' as Christian fanatics claim to have, loving every living soul despite everything. No, it's something simpler, a care to be happy, and for those close to you to be happy.

 Billy Bowman at 4:15pm February 27

There's truly some biological need, for lack a better way or wording it, for us to care, comfort, and be close to others, to complete us. Thing about nature for a moment.

Lions, for instance, have their prides. They care for each others, but you don't seem them hanging out with other prides, they don't care about other prides, they just have ...  Read Moretheir close knit circle of lion friends and family, and they are perfectly content to care for them and them alone, and fuck any one else. Sea otters have larger families, their more social creatures. They have fun playing with each other, hanging out, and dealing with issues as a group, but all the sea otters in an area are in the same group, they aren't all 'friends'.

It might be a slightly weird, and awkward metaphor, but I think it gets the point across.

 Nick P. at 4:21pm February 27

I understand your point Mr. Bowman. I guess I was aiming more for the how and why nature of caring and not so much the act in itself. This is why I used the terms "moral obligation" as if to ridicule the idea of it being outwardly imposed as much as intuitively realized and expressed. Basically the root of that caring is either extended or stifled by the amount of benefit you see it carrying.

I called it last night that pyrogoatman would be the main thing people took away from this lol.

 Billy Bowman at 4:28pm February 27

I thought you would, but hopefully you're not the only one reading. Right, the how and why.. I'm not sure I can address as easily. I agree it's not some outwardly imposed idea, and it makes sense that it's tied to the benefit you perceive.. but I think there's more to it. It doesn't explain very well how one might care if they accidentally hurt a friends, or why one would care so much if they made a mistake that affected nothing, but they feel they just shouldn't have made.

 Nick P. at 4:49pm February 27

An interesting point, but I think could still stem from a system eye's view with regards to its "hurting friends" policy. I think the amount of worry one imposes on the situation, particularly if it "affected nothing," is mostly subjective as well. I accidentally elbow and headbutt steev all the time, do I care? Obviously. Will I scold myself about...  Read More what this means for our future, my subconscious "real" feelings, and be put down that I "just shouldn't have done that?" Not likely. I think it comes from an even deeper sense of that person's self. If you just never cry, never fight, never betray, and then something you do or are accused of doing resonates with a life pattern you've worked hard to establish, then the "I just shouldn't have done that" turns into a kind of self hating reserved for Jews.

 Billy Bowman at 4:53pm February 27

Well of course it's subjective, as is happiness, and what makes people happy, but I am inclined to agree with your latter sentiments. Most people, however, don't know themselves, so these things will bother them.

 Steev Young at 7:09pm February 27

I think you should be worrying what that means for our future.... that last headbutt really hurt... thank you.....lol... i had to put it out there..other than that i really have nothing to say. thank you for your time.

 Billy Bowman at 2:52am February 28

Damnit Steev, I want my time back.

 Steev Young at 3:36am February 28

Do you want the unicorns back too? Because those are two things that aren't going to happen. sorry.

[173] Some People Fill Out Surveys

Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:12pm

I got bored and tore apart his letter.

Last year I went to some "arbitrary title for god" presentations over a five day period. I got caught up talking to this guy named Tim who shows up at this years rehashing of the same thing. I spent the next few months "debating" this guy and frankly refuse to keep going. He goes nowhere, he doesn't study what he's talking about, and he likes to think that presenting his position with someone else's title above his makes a valid argument. Both he and the main presenter hold these notions about violence and death and this being "the bloodiest century ever" somehow supported by the bible as well. Here's his last email to me after I sent him this video:http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

If you want to find a time waster, please watch the video, read his response, and then ask me why I spent months of my life in correspondence with him.

Hey Nick,

First of all, thanks again for coming to the meetings and speaking with us.

I finally got a chance to look at the Pinker video on Wednesday (recall my slow connection and the fact that I have to view these at the public library).

It was interesting. I agree with him that technology has brought the world together to some extent and that it can (when used wisely) be used for peaceful and cooperative purposes. However, it is not always used wisely. [This statement has no bearing on the point of what this discussion; referring to "20th Century being the "bloodiest"] Both technology and education in and of themselves have not demonstrably solved the core problems of human existence, but have in fact in many instances added to them, i.e. nuclear weapons, technological warfare, computer viruses and internet abuses including pornagraphy and exploitation, etc. Thus the continued need to address the issues of morality . . .[Someone tell me the relevance of porn]

Regarding the issue of the history of violence: Actually very little of his presentation was devoted to provding evidence for his thesis that violence is decreasing.[His entire presentation was predicated on this question.] Most of it was about providing the reasons for why he thinks it is so. [Statistics, graphs, historical figures, all sound like opinions to me.] Where his evidence was lacking was in the extrapolation from a isolated population of a group who was particularly violent and drawing conclusions based upon percentages. [Please tell me what "isolated population" who was "particularly violent" that was used to skew the data] What would be needed would be a more representative cross section of the world population of all cultures and all previous centuries and a shown marked decrease. This was not done.[One, you can't get recorded data in areas of the world and time periods where they don't/didn't record things. Two, the purpose of the percentages is to level the playing field when making comparrisons as well as get a general idea of how and why people were dying in those more remote populations. Three, Pinker does a deliberate job starting from a millenium scale and extrapolating down to show indeed that violence/death do go down. To say this was not done is simply a lie.]

Another problem was isolating windows of time and place, i.e. Europe and the Middle Ages. [Please reference this point in the talk to discern for yourself how this was "misleading." One would think that detailing just how misleading it was and how would lend credence to the statement.] Also misleading were the statistics from "deaths from armed conflict" as if this is how all violent deaths occur, and that this provides evidence for general improvement. This is not so. Deaths in concentration camps are not in "armed conflict". Deaths in Siberia and Gestapo or KGB raids, or terrorism are not "armed conflict." [One, "armed conflict" is not what Pinker particularly addresses over death due to violence in general. Two, to isolate "armed conflict" (which after watching the video four times I can't seem to see where he spends a significant amount of time espossing) is to again misrepresent and lie about the presentation. Three, Pinker made very direct points about including the deaths from the World Wars and genocides both past and current in his analysis. Is this man deaf, retarded, or clinically admissable for denial?]

The statement at issue by Justin (and many others) is that the 20th century has been the bloodiest in history (this is not just about war). I didn't find evidence that contradicted this in the video. [Neither Justin or Tim provide evidence of thier claim. They barely "site" examples like the holocaust, the wars, the genocides, etc. to which when directly addressed by Pinker's video, they seem to pretend doesn't work.] Also misdleading was his quoting of Bible passages out of context and mentioning torturous practices of the past. [Tell me jury, when eras of people use the bible to justify they're violence, and a presentation on violence alludes to the same passages used then as are sometimes even used today, is this "out of context?" Also, please grant to Tim that they were used out of context and ask him what the "appropriate" or "right" context therefore is, because he won't tell you anymore than he told me.] As if people don't torture animals for entertainment today! [Torturing animals today because of sick pleasure or mental instability is not the same as making a show in the middle of a French square, laughing and applauding, but this difference is wasted on Tim.] As if the Nazis didn't torture sadistically! As if torture is not common today in certain societies![There is no point in bringing up torture. I never made a claim about torture, the video is not on torture. The only thing that could be said about torture is that the amount of it is assuredly going down, not that it doesn't still exist or should somehow be non-existent if we were getting better as a society. This is what Tim implies, and in case you havn't talked to him whole heartedly believes]

David Fraser noticed some of the same things I did:[Who the hell is David Fraser? I'm not refuting David Fraser]


"This presentation proves that selective use of readily available data can create anything but a history. The pattern of violence (too narrowly defined by Pinker) is more on the order of an inverted U curve: low among hunters-gatherers, much more common among horticulturalists (which are the groups from which his examples came--and even then from the most violent examples among those), peaks in agrarian societies and then begins a gradual, though extraordinarily bloody decline in modern industrial orders. What is missed in his presentation is that the 20th century is the bloodiest century of human history on the scale of killings (the major and minor wars; the civil conflicts; the revolutions; the terrorists). Even norming it by the percentage of population does a disservice to the state-induced killings. One wonders whether 20th century genocides, the deaths from conflicts in the lake region of East Africa, southern Sudan, the "honor" killings in Islamic societies, the violence of the drug trade or the trafficking in human flesh, the forced labor of children, the deaths from toxic pollution by major industrial concerns, the death of women at the hands of abusive husbands -- and whole spectrum of violence was included in his reckoning.
What to say of then of his ethnocentric treatment of biblical material? As though legal statements were enacted practice. Taking texts and even practices out of their socio-cultural context and time and ridiculing them does not amount to proof of levels of violence. How many instances are recorded of any of the provisions of the Mosaic legislation he mentions? What were the customs of the surrounding ancient middle East?
I do not find this presentation to be credible in its argument. It should be titled a brief modern "myth" about violence. Its Euro-centric and ethnocentric presentation of selective data minimizes the extraordinary violence of the present and maximizes the past, unfairly."


Regarding empathy: Granted we have impulses of empathy. We also have impulses for self-preservation. What is the third impulse which tells us we should empathize and do the right thing even at our personal peril? [Still empathy, as well as group selection]

Examples: Save the drowning man even though you are endangering yourself.[No one ever qualifies the people that don't in fact try to save this drowing man when they themselves can't swim or will obviously go down with him. Throw somone into Niagra Falls, place Tim on the edge, tell me if this analogy is still workable.]
Wistle blow on the corrupt company though you lose your job and even your family in the process.[Because we knows this happens all the time]



Why have all societies (regardless of religion) recognized adultery and sex before marriage as wrong[STOP. Such an unbearably ridiculous statement shouldn't have to be tolerated in an intelligent discussion/"debate." Most societies, including ones alluded to in the bible through god's will fucked everything that moved as often as they could as early as the girl had a hole to put it in. If anything our modern understanding of sex shows that it is both normal and healthier to have sex when your horny, safely, and often, if your both consenting] when according to evolution [get ready for it] the idea for men was to "spread his seed around" to as many women as possible?[Evolution is the change in species over time. It doesn't say a damn thing about males spreading their seeds in as many women as possible. What mythical air he pulled this from is beyond me. If anything haveing hundreds of bastard children you couldn't take care of would lead to many of them being unprovided for and therefore unfit to carry on your genes.]

Many acts are known to be wrong though they have no bearing [They may and do] on the survival of the individual or the supposed benefit of the race as a whole: To murder [Murder the people who are going to murder you. Methinks this will make you live longer], commit adultery [How this is violent, leads to death, is relevant, or is viewed as wrong in more ways than meager infidelity is still beyond me], steal [If stealing food means you get to eat, your going to live longer], lie,[When you like to the SS about where your hiding your Jews, they get to live longer] or cheat[This word implies you are working within a sustainbale and just system] are all known to be wrong regardless of the ostensible survival benefit for the individual or society as whole.

But why should someone even care about society as a whole if it conflicts with his personal survival or interests? [As a social non-retarded animal, we understand our survival is intertwined with how well our enviornment(society) runs. Who really needs this fucking explained to them?] Where did we get this idea that we should put others before ourselves and not be selfish? [Probably from people who understood the mutual benefit of cooperation, another grotesquely complicated idea I know.]


Indeed, the "benefit of society as a whole" can become very subjective and problematic when moral absolutes are ignored and disregarded.[Or maybe when you impose moral absolutes where none have ever existed.] This is in fact what has precipitated many of this century's bloodbaths.[Of course.] With the disregarding of moral absolutes, power fills the vacuum. Communism, Nazism, and other genocides have all been precipitated upon the idea of "what is good for society as a whole", or the "survival" of the nation or the individual.[Would anyone with even a meager understanding of a social contract or any other "ism" explain that they are not genocides. Also, tied in with any "ism" is a consordium of social factors, psychology questions, extenuating circumstances, misunderstood phenomena, etc that play into the "simple" words of Communism or Nazism] Without an absolute law defining what is evil, it's up to anyone's whim. But many societies still accept the idea of certain moral absolutes and have believed that the nations and individuals who perpetrate attrocites are in fact actually doing evil, regardless of their own excuses for doing so: thus there are war crimes tribunals, international law, etc.[Because we have no other reason to say they are wrong than "because they are wrong" obviously.]

Without moral absolutes, morality is subjective.[Tell me what about our history and individual liveds doesn't tell you this is true to at least some extent especially when considering different circumstances.] When it is subjective, anyone can define it for their own selfish and evil purposes. [As selfish and evil are synonomous] Why should we not be selfish and evil? We've come full circle. Our consciences[Tim's abstract voice in his head that tells him more or less how he thinks is reasonably reasonable to act in certain situations depending on his beliefs about those situations and the people involved not to mention imbued with the "knowledge" that if he is more disposed to certain behaviors an infinate reward is in order] tell us that morality should NOT be subjective, that the Nazis and Communists and Pol Pot and all the rest should have known better[And a wag of my finger to them], that they too know what is right and wrong but chose to do what is wrong.[Again, understanding what is "wrong or right" and doing otherwise doesn't say a thing about moral absolutes the second one and only one person comes to a different conclusion based on the same evidence or situation your theory is refuted. We like to believe we have good reasons to call things like murder right or wrong given the situation. As if we could predict the future...]

Blessings,

Tim

[79] Leave It Up To Scrutiny

I want to clear up my view on things as watching a Beyond Belief 2006 session raised a good point about where people could have a confusion about what I'm against concerning religion.

I am in no way against someone in pursuit of answers. I just don't like it when people think they've found their answers and now its their job to inform the rest of us just how wrong we really are. We are all in the dark when it comes to a lot of things. One thing that makes you feel warm at night doesn't become justified simply because it does that for you. Personally I probably feel more and more "lost" the more and more I realize how much there is to think about. This attests to my disbelief more than any speculations you could make about my pride.

It bothered me to hear about my friend praying for someone who was gay and then flirt with her, jokingly, in class. I was really confused on what she actually thought about this girl. Was her immortal soul in danger and about to burn if she didn't change and so by praying for her it was the ultimate act of humanity and humility? Perhaps it was just going through the motions. "O ya, gay is supposed to be bad so gimme a minute while I show God i did my h/w, (proceeds to kneel)." (please don't get angry of u read this girly lol)

It stems from childhood the need to feel like the center of the universe. All the attention is constantly showered on you every time you cry or get hurt. Your parents may be by your crib when you wake up in the morning. Then you grow up and move out into the world and you learn that not only are you small in relation to the world, but then science comes in and tells you your almost, if not, infinitely insignificant in relation to the cosmos. Obviously not the most agreeable idea. This is what I think people should feel their genuine sense of humility about though. Any time you implement fear, which almost all religions do, you take away from that very real feeling you get by contemplating these uncomfortably humbling ideas.

From what I surmise people believe in anything as long as they feel it pertains to the well being and proliferation of their lives. That seems like an obvious point, but I think it needs to be noted that getting to that status of feeling good about your actions is dramatically different for different types of people. I just watched a neuroscientist talk about his studies done with split brain patients who's right side believes in God and left side is an atheist. When I try to explain to people that the power to feel what you want literally exists in their own mind I'm not trying to be philosophical or talk from a pious and egotistical opinion. It literally is and is being proven.

You could take two hours of your life to watch some documentaries or read a book entitled "Misquoting Jesus" to open so many questions. Again, its not about me converting you, it is about questioning. I could beat you over the head with a dictionary, but if you didn't care to learn English..... Its not the inability to "feel god's love" that makes me angry, its the squandering of opportunity. I hate when I do it, but especially hate when its done after the all the resources are handed to you and are still easily, more haphazardly, ignored in the name of faith.

When people ask about the existence of God my first impulse is to say "Who cares?" If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin you'd still love your family. Whether God stopped you from being hit by a car or not you'd know it was a good thing to feed starving kids. Who really cares? Let's think, if God did exist and embodies all the things people try to attribute to him now lets organize it.

God creates man to be striking close genetically to different animals. He wrote a book, ehem, inspired a book, with mistranslations, horrific depictions of human injustice, historical inaccuracies, and plain animalistic human behavior. He is everything and nothing to someone or another at all times. He is coincidentally always a HE. Anytime he wants to provide evidence for his significance its through a miracle that doesn't stand up to investigation, doesn't relate to anybody but person proclaiming it (unless its a universally general issue), and it groups him into a bunch of sayings that people make about Santa. When you've got all that baggage on your name why is it referred to as intelligent, loving, and omniscient?

The difference between me and the religious is I say prove me wrong, compel me to believe you, convince me of something I may never want to accept. I want more than anything for that to happen. No one depressing life story is proof. No ones miracle is proof. No one book, because it says so IN the book, is proof. People need to take their subjective reality way the hell out of their objective one so we can stop arguing whether or not God told you to minister to someone, and instead about what logical, historical, personal, and brainy scientific reasons are behind that "unknowable voice or feeling."

[78] Random Haikus

My screaming heart aches
Longing, for I do not say
How it torchers me.

Fear the thinking man
Notions spread like a virus
Simple divine eye.

Goddamn butterflies
Insescent chruning insects
Nothing goes away.

Why I am so wise
Too cliche to write at night
Who's missing a clue.

Allah or Buddha?
Jesus is the one true God
You don't love Yourself.

Haiku about love
You will never surmize it
Pleasantly haunting.

__ __ go away
__ words escape __ lips
__ __ hold my hand.

Is there such as bliss?
Never found by looking for
It must just be shy.

Has my ego gone?
Toss the fatty and ugly
No, here, safe and sound.

Expect one to judge
It's all they can hold dearest
a shield for the heart

If God does exist
He most certainly won't sleep
To many grand thoughts.

[171] Fuck Tests

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 8:53pm

What do tests measure? The basic answer is somewhere along the lines of your aptitude in some subject. They are supposed to show that you can manage time, pick up new concepts, and retain them long enough to get your gold star. I've rallied against tests as long as I can remember, but haven't gone into as much detail for why I hate them so. My recent bomb of a law test will be prompting my digression for my arguments.

One of the most obvious problems I have with getting tested on material is the amount you are supposed to "learn." My law class for example has us read maybe ten pages before class. These ten pages have "relevant" information, at least with regards to a question he may pose to us, sometimes in every other line. Not only are we told to be responsible for this information, we're questioned about the cases that arise as stumbling blocks planted within each section. With law, as I'm quickly learning, you may have pretty straightforward definitions and methodologies, but simply knowing, or at least thinking you know, what that word means, does not mean you can apply it to some theoretical case that may or may not lie within some unsound assumptions. I've only watched documentaries and read about people who are able to take in, retain, and recite back this amount of information, and they all had some form of autism. Also, and I've said this before, if the "answers" are truly in our book, or can be found through google, or quoted back from our autistic friends, the test is only showing us how bad or good we can be playing pretend that we won't have resources. Furthermore, at least with law, you find that those "answers" aren't quite readily available regardless.

The next problem I have is with the types of tests were subjected to. It's relatively understood that if you memorize the answers to multiple choice questions, odds of you missing that question again, if it is presented in even remotely the same way, are not very high. Most of the time I find myself testing my ability to guess and deduce bubble patterns the professor may have slipped in to be ironic. The answer can be wrong or right, without any regard as to how the person was thinking or came to their conclusion. Test don't teach you or make an accurate assessment of how you think. For this they have "short-answer" or essay questions which basically test to see if you can fit in subjective key words the teacher is looking for, and refrain from using l33t text or writing "u" instead of you. The subjective nature behind grading those tests is rarely questioned but still riddled with petty favoritism and writing aesthetic preference.

Another huge issue I have with these things is all that they do not show. A test doesn't tell you if the person is an asshole who regardless of his memorizing abilities would never get a job given his demeanor and propensity to doosh-baggery. It doesn't tell you if that person is wildly imaginative, well connected, or has an unassailable motivation to push their potentially revolutionary self as far as it will go. It doesn't show the caliber of each teacher. It doesn't show how or what would convey to that student the information your school is so desperately trying to get you to learn. Tests completely muddy the idea that maybe you did pick up a lot or did in fact learn from your class, and that it is merely unlucky that the concepts you were questioned about were your Achilles heel. Tests don't even imply that there are other ways of going about living "the good life" or getting somewhere, because if they did, they'd test themselves out of existence.

I also disagree with what tests are "supposed" to tell you and your potential employer. Tests imply, at least when not passed, that you did "bad." They imply that your lazy, unmotivated, and slow to learn. The rational for these tests, keeping everyone on equal playing ground, pits you against people on this inadequate system's terms. Your now not as good as the kid next to you. Your not as capable. You just aren't "with it" or "worth it" in the same way as the ones who are "smarter." In my opinion, this isn't a competition that can be won. For those of you who know how strongly I endorse natural selection, particularly with regards to us, I'm not speaking against competition or means of measuring you against your fellow man, I simply think that tests and grades are an abhorrent ways of assessing that measurement.

I get done watching Slumdog Millionaire feeling ever resolved to elaborate in as many details just how badly this bothers me. A show where the "smarter" you are the more money you can make, turned on its ass by a kid who lived a dramatic, interesting, and compelling life relying on personal experience and guessing to win. No, I don't want the life that kid had, but yes I wish I had the freedom or system to work within that allowed me to learn and live in an equally compelling way.

I suppose my biggest problem, and this is intricately tied in with the school system itself and how people think, is that testing contributes to the litany of things distracting us from living productive and happy lives. When your focused on the test your not focused on utilizing what it is you have learned really well, or what may be intricately tied to your personality and potential. Your forced to subject yourself to their rules and their assessment. My P199 class harps endlessly with speakers telling you how to prepare and submit resumes, what it takes to get into grad school, how potential employers want you molded before they get started refining you. You aren't compelled or taught how to identify and resolve what you see as problems. Your given a task, then either padded on the head or given the task over again until the "correct" answer can't escape you. I'm tired of playing by the rules. I've been tired. It's only been relatively easy to ignore when the a pink questionnaire reminder hasn't been residing in my peripherals.

If I could drop out of school I would. If and when Mystik takes off it will be my focus because it will be an extension of me. It will always be relevant, provide excitement, require me to get better and learn more if I want more. I hope to incorporate and assimilate people who can and want to go as far as their ideas will take them, and use that to undermine and hopefully abolish what we currently understand as the education industry. Every doubter, every failed test, and every minute my focus is overwhelmed with the need to rant or worry makes me want to dart from my seat and pursue what the next step is.

I plan on appealing the wording and answer choices of some of these questions, and I fully accept the ones I label as stupid mistakes. I don't like how going to class, taking detailed notes, and reading don't contribute to what I feel my understanding of the concepts are. And frankly, I outright refuse to "put in that extra effort" as it's so unbearably misleadingly labeled, because to me it's actively killing my, for utter lack of a better word, "soul." I can't do it when I don't want what people tell me it leads to. I don't want grad school, I didn't want college after the first few months, and I didn't want high school or middle school either. I don't want to get a job working for some company chasing raises and recognition. I don't want to put myself under yet another thumb. I don't want to forgo my choice as to who I'm working with and why. (This is the point where you would be justified in worrying if I was suicidal) I don't want this life if I'll be ever surrounded by these unsound notions of happiness and success. I barely understand how I've put up with it for this long.

Written about 2 months ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Billy Bowman at 9:29pm February 10

Yup.
One rant of many, all covering the same idea, and yet some how they never get old. It's all still relevant.

I completely agree with your sentiment against tests, and our current educational system. I empathize with your feelings toward 'the system'. Preparing myself for a job so I can do repetitive meaningless tasks to earn enough money to have all the things I won't have time for because I'll be working 40+ hours a weak at best a disheartening and in reality a completely backwards and fucked up way to look at things. Learning for the sake of knowing, expanding your knowledge, and using it to learn more and better society is what our educational system should be about. It should most certainly not be about how to play (not even how to win) in a broken game.
...  Read More
When Mystik gets off the ground, we must put a stop to this game.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:53pm February 10

Why can't all classes be like Schrimer's accounting class?

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:53pm February 10

Shrimper, Schrimper, however it's spelled.

 Billy Bowman at 10:53pm February 10

Schrimpers accounting class still has tests. A better 'test' of knowledge would be a practical problem you had to solve with the knowledge and skills obtained in a class IE. here's a bunch of business transactions, account them.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:54pm February 10

Well, aside from the tests I suppose...

 Nick P. at 4:11am February 11

More teachers like Schrimper, but the lives to go with the knowledge he's imparting on us. Not just following along in book only to relearn what you need when you actually start taking care of your business.

 Chris Cashel-Cordo at 1:11am February 13

Man, Schrimper rocked my world.

[75] Word Frivolity, Contemptible Logic (I Need To Start Smoking)

 Category: Religion and Philosophy

WOW. I just found the site Godtube.com and let me tell you….
I'm bereaved by the idea that people can use the bible for insightful looks into their lives and still remain coherent so I'm officially throwing it out. This one kid started talking about relationships and for a second I was going along with him right up until he started making those, for lack of a better word, bullshit statements that reside nowhere else but the bible. Textbook example "Know who you are in 'christ' before you figure out who you are with someone else." This is so logically incoherent and devoid of sense to me that I have to take a stab at it anyway. Why does no one ever decide to define how they view Christ? Are they aware Christ means anointed one, not Jesus? If I pretended to be a complete layman's person when it came to this sentence all I'd say is that I'm trying to be a good person and forgive. Apparently I'm wrong though, it's something so deep and profound that only you can convince yourself that it makes sense.

This speaks to the frivolity of words. Try one day to not speak and see if you can finally and truly express how you feel towards people or your needs. If you couldn't spout every dumbass catch phrase like "the bible is perfect" "jesus loves you" etc. how would you convey to someone that their eternal soul is in danger and they need to understand what your all about for their own good. My views about imposing that sort of thing in the first place aside, I bet you'd ACT and fucking do something besides crap in the face of basic logic and struggle with finding power behind statements like "Where you there?" and "Why can't you keep things in context?" If I can't convince people to get over the hump of pretending like we're not using the same language, then I'm completely fucked if I'm trying to make a (not usually vague) bigger overreaching point about the inadequacies about certain trains of thought. If I can put this more simply, I contend its bad to chuck apples at an infant and you come back with "well if you don't throw it that hard…." Your ignoring the fact that you don't throw shit at infants for reasons your pretending are in some different context.

After my ethics class and reading Sartre and Kierkegaard I walk away sort of recanting my idea that doing drugs or drinking are the same kind of excuse that faith provides. If man is simply the sum total of his decisions and by making those decisions, in a way, represents the whole of man then the substance abuser takes a backseat to the faithful. At least those things are conscious acts with evident results to everyone. The faithful denies they're role in making the decisions that glorify themselves, and thereby denies the idea that they significantly represent man. How they hold this conviction and still profess the truth and sanctity behind believing your nothing without acts in the name Christ is beyond me, but hey. They are this pitiful beleaguered majority that would simply love to emulate their god if it weren't for that pesky sinful nature. In other words when common sense and human experience actually give them a clue, it's just so much easier to pass the cup to their kids or bible or savior. If there is a bigger roadblock on the path to human progression please tell me.

I start my relationships with people trying to get to know them. I don't care to hear catch phrases of faith if you profess you're a Christian. Remember, I CAN and DO read people and as quickly as I see through my own bullshit I can see through yours. I'm well aware that you believe what you're talking about, I'm not convinced you realize how extensive you've become in your talk. There's a kind of honesty that people don't seem to care about anymore. I was asked why I take this whole god talk so seriously twice in the past two days. The short answer is for pursuit of that honesty. If you can pretend like everything is fine on the inside because you had the methodology handed or preached to you, I can't feel like I'm being a fair or true friend to you on the outside.

[77] Christians Are Rational (Not Mine)

I stumbled across the article which will hopefully emphasize why I do not wholeheartedly agree that everyone within the Christian faith is simply deluded or in need of an emotional crutch. What I thought was important about this article though was its use of examples to back up its ideals. The reason it is a problem when we talk about rationality and evidence is that it remains in a biblical context. After reading this I want people to realize that I am not saying they can't find good reasons and "proof" within their faith that makes sense to them. What I want people to realize is that every example, every stitch of evidence, is from the bible and therefore cannot (overtly) be considered scientifically or historically to be the truth or credible outside of the religious context.

Christianity is Rational
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

What do people mean by the statement, “That’s just your interpretation”? Many mean: “You have your view of what the passage means and I have mine. Who’s to say mine’s wrong and yours is right? We should not condemn each other’s views. We should allow each other to hold different views.”

We live in a “pluralistic” society. “Pluralism” simply means that various differing, even conflicting, views are permitted to coexist. This attitude is quite prevalent in today’s world. television talk shows constantly stress that there are no absolutes. Truth is subjective and relative to many people. They insist that there are very few, if any, definites—very little black and white, but a lot of gray.

The matter is muddled further by the fact that on any religious or moral question, there are knowledgeable, sincere authorities on both sides of the issue. The general posture of the American mindset is that since truth is so elusive, no one should be judgmental of anyone else; no one should be so arrogant or dogmatic as to insist that a certain viewpoint is the only right viewpoint.

Without even examining God’s Word, we ought to be able to see that this attitude, and this position, is self-contradictory and unacceptable. Why? Because those who espouse it insist that they are correct. They are dogmatic in their insistence that no one should be dogmatic. They hold as absolute and certain truth the fact that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold their viewpoint!

Only in religion do people take the foolish position that truth is elusive and unattainable. Only in the task of interpreting the Bible do people take the position that truth is relative, always changing, and something of which we can never be sure. We human beings often “reason” in religion in a way that differs from the way we reason in other facets of our lives—like driving our car or picking up our mail.

For example, when we go to the doctor because we are not feeling well, we communicate to him our symptoms and expect him to understand us. We expect him to gather all the relevant evidence (the verbal information we give, as well as the signs our bodies manifest) and then properly interpret that evidence to draw the right conclusions concerning our ailment and proper treatment. He then writes out a prescription that we take to the pharmacist and, once again, we expect the pharmacist to interpret properly the doctor’s instructions. We take the prescription home and read the label, fully expecting to understand the directions. The fact that doctors and pharmacists can make mistakes by drawing unwarranted conclusions about our condition does not change the fact that if they gather sufficient evidence and reason properly about the information, they can know the truth about our situation.

Every single day that we live, we interpret thousands of messages accurately. We read the newspaper, fully expecting to understand what we are reading. We read novels with the same expectation. We watch the news on television. We go to the mailbox, get our mail, and browse through it, fully expecting to interpret properly the messages being conveyed. The fact that misunderstanding sometimes occurs does not negate the fact that more information can be examined in order to draw the right conclusions and arrive at correct interpretations.

We go through this process constantly—every waking hour of the day, day in and day out, year after year. We give ourselves credit for having the ability to operate sensibly and communicate with one another intelligibly. Yet we turn right around and imply that the God of heaven, the One Who created our minds and our thinking capacity, the One Who is infinitely wiser and more capable than humans, is incapable of making His will known to humanity in a clear and understandable fashion! When we come to the Bible, we suddenly do an about-face and insist that we can’t be sure what God’s will is, we can’t be dogmatic on doctrine, and we must allow differing opinions on what is spiritually right or wrong!

Many people who claim to embrace Christianity ridicule and denounce logic, debate, argumentation, and emphasis upon being rational and reasonable. The practical effect of such propaganda is the upsurge of subjectivity, emotions, and personal taste as authoritative standards in religious practice. The Bible as the comprehensible and unchanging source of religious authority is thereby supplanted, and the Satanic severance of human culture from the God of heaven is complete.

The term “logic” refers to nothing more than correct reasoning. A person is logical when he/she reasons correctly. Being “illogical” amounts to engaging in incorrect reasoning. Does the Bible reflect affinity with the laws of thought and logic? Did Jesus, Paul, and other inspired speakers and writers argue their cases, prove their positions, and engage in rational, reasonable discourse? Please consider the following scripture references.

Jesus demonstrated incredible proclivity for rationality in His sharp, potent, penetrating use of logic and sound argumentation. His first recorded responsible activity consisted of a logical dialogue between Himself (at the age of twelve) and the Jewish theologians. Everyone was amazed at His understanding and answers (Luke 2:46-47). On the occasion of His baptism, He reasoned with John in order to convince John to go ahead and immerse Him (Matthew 3:13-15). He advanced a logical reason to justify the action!

Immediately after this incident, Jesus faced Satan in the desert. Satan posed three arguments, urging Christ to act on the basis of the erroneous reasoning that Satan set forth. Notice carefully the sequence of the disputation between the two, with special attention to Christ’s superior (i.e., accurate) use of logic to defeat His opponent.

MATTHEW 4:1-11 (NKJV)
Argument #1:

Satan: “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

Jesus: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ ” (Deuteronomy 8:3). Christ offered authoritative Scripture as evidence to contradict Satan’s conclusion. In other words, satisfying the legitimate need of hunger never must take precedence over the need to obey God and tend to spiritual needs first.

Argument #2:

Satan: “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.” This time, Satan offered Scripture (Psalm 91:11-12) as evidence to justify his proposal.

Jesus: “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ ” (Deuteronomy 6:16). Jesus countered with additional Scripture that demonstrated Satan’s misapplication of Psalm 91 to the situation at hand. In other words, Psalm 91, though intended to convey the care and concern that God manifests for the faithful, was not intended to apply to deliberately placing oneself in peril in order to force God to come to one’s rescue. God will take care of me, yes. But if I purposely walk in front of an oncoming car just to see if God will miraculously prevent my being struck—I’ll be struck! In the context of Deuteronomy 6:16, God was referring to the kind of testing/tempting that the Israelites did when they murmured, grumbled, and challenged Moses to produce water—as if God were unable or unwilling. For Jesus to have complied with Satan’s challenge would have placed Jesus in the same condition as the weak, unbelieving Israelites who “strove with” (chided, tempted) God (cf. Exodus 17:2). The only logical response to such a challenge was the one that Jesus, in fact, mustered: “Do not tempt God! Do not put Him to the test since such indicates your own lack of faith!”

Argument #3

Satan: “All these things I will give you if You will fall down and worship me.”

Jesus: “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord Your God, and Him only You shall serve.’ ” Jesus, for the third time, marshaled scriptural proof to show the falsity of Satan’s position, while reaffirming the Truth. In other words, based upon Deuteronomy 6:13, it would be sinful to worship Satan or anyone else except God. He alone is worthy of worship.

This marvelous demonstration of Christ’s mastery of debate and logical disputation is not an isolated instance. Jesus employed logic and reason throughout His earthly sojourn. He consistently responded to His contemporaries with piercing, devastating logic. He continually was besieged with questions and verbal tests to which He consistently displayed rational, reasoned response (Luke 11:53-54). Consider these few examples:

1. The exchange with the Pharisees over eating grain (Matthew 12:1-9).

2. The dialogue with the chief priests and elders over authority (Matthew 21:23-27).

3. The interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22).

4. The response to the Sadduccees concerning marriage and the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33).

5. The argument posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46).

6. The demonstrations of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14-16; 14:1-6).

7. The response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14-26).

8. The answer concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39).

9. The handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50).

10. The exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40).

11. The comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53).

Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when hard-hearted Jews declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, others countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John 10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). How could anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ consistent use of logic and correct reasoning? He was, and is, the Master Logician Who created the human mind to function rationally! His inspired disciples followed His example.

The apostle Paul was a master of logical argumentation in both oral and written proclamation. Shortly after his conversion, he entered upon a life-long career of debate and rational discourse. Examine carefully the terms that the Holy Spirit selected to describe Saul’s verbal activities:

“confounded” and “proving” (Acts 9:22)

“reasoned” (Acts 17:2)

“explaining and demonstrating” (Acts 17:3)

“reasoned” (Acts 17:17)

“reasoned” and “persuaded” (Acts 18:4)

“reasoning and persuading” (Acts 19:8)

“explained and testified” and “persuading” (Acts 28:23).

These terms all connote rational, logical activity! Paul’s magnificent defense of the resurrection was couched, by inspiration, in logical thought forms. Identified in formal logic as a series of hypothetical propositions (“If...then...”), Paul carefully brings the reader to the irresistible conclusion that “Christ is risen from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

How typical of Spirit-inspired writers! When Paul charged Titus with seeing to the appointment of qualified bishops on the island of Crete, he noted that elders must “be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). Elders must be debaters who can refute false teachers! No wonder that, when Festus accused Paul of being crazy, Paul coolly countered: “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). Paul was answering the charge of insanity by arguing that his words were sensible, logical, and reasonable! Compare the same word in its verb form (sophroneo), used to refer to the demoniac after the expulsion of the demons, rendered “in his right mind” (Mark 5:15).

Luke engaged in the same sort of rational enterprise. He wrote both his gospel and Acts that Theophilus and subsequent readers might “know the certainty” (Luke 1:4), and to identify “proofs” (Acts 1:3) for the purpose of convincing. These terms connote rational activity! Apollos, likewise, employed logic and reasonable discourse. Study the terms that are used to describe his verbal activity—“vigorously refuted” and “showing from the Scriptures” (Acts 18:28). Peter followed the same logical approach to his religious work. On the momentous occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ in Acts 2, Peter advanced four lines of argumentation, meticulously based upon scriptural evidence, in order to drive at the conclusion: “Therefore...” (Acts 2:36).

The reader is urged to pause and read the following passages: Proverbs 14:15; Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:11; Philippians 1:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15,25; 1 Peter 3:15; 1 John 4:1; Jude 3. These passages demand rational, logical, cognitive activity! They, in fact, make absolutely no sense if attention to logic is unimportant to God or unnecessary!

We must not succumb to the humanistic hurricane that is assaulting our country. With this destructive storm have come the winds and waves of existentialism and pentecostalism. These violent and damaging forces have seeped into the church of our Lord. We must awaken out of our slumber and do all that we can to salvage and save all who will manifest receptivity to the reasonable truths of our God. Now, more than ever before in recent history, we must remain unwavering in our proclamation of “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). We must understand that living the Christian life means living a rational life.

[74] A New Kind of Calculator

Can one put a value on experience? Is knowing what drinking or smoking will do to you worth that "five minutes of your life" when you tried them just for the sake of knowing? I'm confused on what should be considered valuable.  Granted, we could all potentially drop dead at any given time, but is that thereby an excuse to indulge? Want does our experience grant us? Not necessarily anymore applicable knowledge, but knowing and feeling apparently don't satisfy happiness on the same plain.  Is it perhaps better to forsake such experiences aspiring to something greater; if there is such a thing. It's killing me to actually start believing that people who smoke, drink, try "just that one time" a certain drug or another could really be understanding something greater about life that eludes me. Are they even bothering to compare whatever it is they get out of those activities to something better? If so, why bother wasting time, money, and effort on something that isn't going to give you the most out of life? Suppose your madly in love, are those months or years which have been taken off your life worth it if they would have instead been spent growing deeper in that love? Perhaps there is a different sort of affection, a different love you can only get from each sweet drag. Is there a different love in making catch phrases like "insufficient cancer" with your friends to mock the threat; some kind of love of one's work or family can't touch?

After watching Resident Evil of all things I start to think. The worlds essentially getting there sooner or later and by that time who cares how quickly you can degrade your body. It struck me as interesting to see the characters still had time to put crosses over sandy graves. What is this faith? The worse and worse things appear, the more grounded people can become in it. Conversely, you don't believe any of it and remain content doing whatever, secure in thought you're going to die anyway. Either method to me, seems as though it's a back road. The faithful can miss that job opportunity, move on from failed love, find peace with death. The non-caring nonbeliever can say fuck the job, she was probably a whore, let's party till we die. Isn't there something huge missing from both routes? Actions and lives are being excused, not expressed. When something doesn't work its disregarded, degraded, to the level of perhaps how the people view themselves. "I'll be good enough in the next life, I'll be forgiven and happy then" and down goes the immediate stress of the problem. "There's nothing else to do, I really like it" and then who needs a fact sheet from some truth guy or warning label. Is it not the allure of feeling high or being drunk that's so tantalizing, but instead the chance to find an excuse? Not just an excuse, but one you didn't have to think hard about justifying. One that is reinforced and exalted by 95% of the people you will ever meet.

So now maybe we're all just (good) excusers. Those that can handle the freedom do what they want, those that can't find an institution to (help) them handle it. I've no problem believing there are people of faith who don't live within the excuses realm and are at the helm of why good things get done. I've an even easier time believing that many more fit in elsewhere. What are the non-believers options? Are there not just as many who mirror the headliners of faith? Of course there are. So what is so fundamentally different about these kinds of people that truly keeps them at ends? I think the answer lies in the reward. The religious person has something to answer to. They have consequences, quite serious ones indeed, and for all their worth must fight to stay on that track to heaven. The non-believer gets the feeling of being righteous, good, and loving for their own sake. They get to wrestle with where and how knowledge fits in relation to those things and not treat it as an endowed truth to frequent to the masses.

I've heard enough personal testimonies of how wonderful a certain pill is or how uninhibited jungle juice will make you. I know how deep and meaningful people talk about their "relationship" with Christ and his overflowing love. Neither road would take me to the level of experience I'm after because, both are used to excuse why others aren't finding it.