Philosophy:
Emo data
(1/3/10) common example data favor
“I’m not happy Bob…ask me why.” And the answer is in data form.
Logic might proceed like this: emotion is determined and not random, it is not just determined by other emotion, the only determiner category left is data, so emo is dat determined. (influences of other emotion we say are just data in packages).
(5/11/09) triumph of the descriptive powers of data over emotion
The difference between emotion and data is that data can be controlled in the face of conflicting emotion (see ‘will’ in C5.10) and emotion cannot be controlled in the face of conflicting data. (‘Angry’ idea: not wrong to be angry Jesus trash temple) Data can move independently of emotion, and emotion cannot move independently of data. With full disclosure of data, emotion can be determined, but not the converse. Data will describe all, emotion won’t.
Victory!
Emotion is seen as the sum of data. Love is defined as ‘wanting the best for another person’, which is data. In further support of descriptive powers, data can be seen as waves. Different events have different waves. Emotion is the averaged wave, and if there are equal but opposite waves, the result is no emotion, while a lot of data could be occurring.
(5/13/09) new def for emo
Emo = change in data. Emo was seen as large data, but now, that is only because you didn’t know of it before. When you se the Aswan high dam, the world gets bigger, a change in data. That’s why the world doesn’t have emotion.
(4/28/09) emotion
Positive emotion is caused the knowledge of the efficiency/cohesiveness/unity of a system/object or the gain of said efficiency.
Emo vs. Data section 2# (4/10/09)
Train of thought: What if emo trumps data by same process data trumps emo? Religious property, we love others via JC love, so love came first, but God couldn’t love something that didn’t exist, so we (data) came first, then he loved us. But, Why were we created? All the universe was created to glorify God, probably a emo thing. So data exists for emo. Data is the evidence for, method of for, and tool of, emotion. Got it?
(8/25/08) Emotion/Mechanical
Currently we think that emotion is the human method of dealing with large amounts of data or many variables. So when drawing the form of an object, one has a lot of proportions to think of, so one gets the ‘feel’ of it. Or as you think of the many justice/contracts between family and their varying levels of dependence, as you consider increasing levels of it, the emotion of love, trust, etc forms.
Side not, since one would naturally assume the mechanical follows from the emotional, how do you work that equation backwards?
(6/22/08) Emotional theory self defeat
The current emotional theory holds that emotions are greater than quantities because they are what we experience. It is okay if you are happy in a tornado and not okay if you’re sad on easy street. But, then that means we should focus on emotional effect, which ignores empirical stuff, which would imply their neglect or abuse and the doom of the utilitarian premise. [9/8/09, no, abuse of material pollutes the emo affect in the end.] (However, you may assume the focus on emotions does better for the world that focusing on quantities, as embodied by the Christian way and somewhat heretically explained by the indirect military strategy.) And, the focus on emotions under a theory of all things, sort of kills the emotions, and hence the theory both, but it may still be useful, if not in practice, something to build on. (after watching the play, High School Musical (and the effects of its closing and short contact with Josie), see also: ‘Emotional theory and Christendom’ under Religion)
(6/5/08) material and emotion
Which is more important, the quantities of the material world (armies, houses, possessions, etc.) or the emotions they elicit more important? (The general consensus is currently in favor of the latter)
(6/16/08) Answer: The emotions. For it of course how we feel about the empirical quantities that matters. Our perceptions and consequent emotions are relative to the real world but not dependent on them. That’s the fancy statement. To state it simply, if you can be happy in a pigsty, go for it. (after watching Mr. Holland Opus)
(4/26/08) emo quote
That which is novel (new), is enjoyable. That which is extreme, is exhilarating. That which is noble, is lovely. And that which is all three, is positively wonderful.
[Take for example, the almost universal enjoyment of new people, the extremities taken in sports and the like, and the deep spiritual pleasure of the right.] (after viewing Narnia-LWW)
Love and Art
(4/14/10) home dynasty
home as dynasty where mother is administrator magistrate but man leads. Men love women who seek motherhood. Women hold fort, not beaver mom.
Man work not lazy, training, like 6 make earth. [this may be a reference to new book I’m writing]
(4/9/10) love cannot be tool
Grandma t: “they tried to show him love” about boy found with . One does not use love as a tool. One must love because of something else. And that something will be a logical strongpoint for the child to hold on to, rather than some fluctuating emotion.
(3/25/10) modify art, augment emo/dat
Art we may say is a lot of data (emo) but with order (beauty) such that humans can make and understand it.
Experienced emo may be likened to our new of physical work and power. Where power emo is experienced, but work/energy really counts.
(6/21/08) Another definition for love
It may be that love is defined by obedience. This is another closely related subject to the rest of the ideas on this subject but I’m trying to find the central one. If you put the others need before your own you will obey the other, so since this definition is a cause of the other it may be secondary. All these definitions may also be a conduit for exploring our relationship to God (quite useful, don’t you think?). (after singing, “I am yours” at the REBELution conference) [9/8/09, I’m thinking obedience is just saying that the person knows what is best for them, so you do that, or just to make them happy as a ‘best for them’]
(6/18/08) Definition of love
Love means putting others needs before yourself. Why would you do that? Because the other is more valuable than yourself. What defines more valuable? More powerful. But a son that a father protects isn’t more powerful than himself. It is potential power that is value. Potential power, augmented by the later date at which it reaches equinox, is greater than current power. Potential is greater than kinetic, if you apply it to physics. A cube of length 34 (v = 40k) of 5-ton semi truck driving at thirty miles an hour stopped instantly is equal to one kilogram, < ¼ a pound, of potential energy in mass. [9/8/09, kgm2/s2, take difference in speed, mass, and we have m/s still left to deal with] See also the heading love under religion for a simultaneously generated idea.
Some forms of art (i.e. not war) may be representations of reality. For instance music that has a quick, drumbeat tempo may be running feet. To a more roundabout method, most music, I think, does the same. So the question would be, what emotion do you wish to convey, what represents that best in reality, and, how best do you represent that? (i.e. excitement, war and adventure, drumbeats and running.
(edit on 6/5/08) art
There are two definitions of art, one broader than the other and including the other.
An art is a perfection of a trade, where the emphasis is on quality rather than productivity. The art of war is dependent upon efficiency of , the art of drawing to create the most pleasing composition regardless of its worth or cost of creation, etc. There is a fine line between a trade and an art, since often perfection and production levels go hand in hand.
Art in a narrower sense is designed purely to elicit a given emotion. So obviously the arts of war, masonry, etc are not narrowly defined. This art is a form of communication so it can take forms in all the five senses (though mostly in just visual and audio). Hence one art that can be defined both in and out of the narrow sense [9/8/09 think only broad] is the culinary one, depending on the motive. If you desire the most pleasure or the most efficient satisfaction of need, it is the broader, if you seek to remind the taster of something, it is in the narrower, but even the finest restaurants in Paris do not seek to do this. (Heavily edited)
Is Art is purely for the purpose of eliciting emotion, communicating ideas, communicating emotions, expressing oneself, taking up space, developing the mind, reaching a goal, or all of the above?
Human need, goal, infinity.
(4/4/10) worship
During Vespers I stood apart and let loose hand signals. Now, to any worship song I can relive Avatar basically. This is a primary evidence of Gods existence I can fall back on.
(3/18/10) Israeli again.
There are various pleasures God has given us. , music, nature, intellectual pursuits, etc. Through my book I may be able to strate another: physical exertion, which is largely alien to modern humans due to our frequent exhaustion, etc.
(3/17/10) enhancement to TSM
Atheist say that God is not obvious. We counter M from TSM and design argument. They say that’s extrapolation beyond the obvious. We counter by saying that all science is outside the obvious. On the observed level, M + design + perception te science. On the deeper levels unobserved, TSM tes science.
(3/14/10) listening to Israeli music (and still in the aftermath of Avatar)
Creation is gods gift to us. We delight in yo Shabbat. (your Sabbath). We are missing this great resource, this embodiment of gods greatness in a language we can understand and feel.
(2/29/10) god origin
God truth = origin fixed in Cartesian coordinate planes, used to define all else (direction, b/c infinite distances] Story for glory. Even if not work, then ok. “Rest of eternity” J no ‘rest’ b/c time does not exist.
Soundtrack for the glory of God
(2/4/10) defeat of progress
Thomas Aquinas sizes: can make an improvement seem arbitrarily small by ‘zooming out’ as far as needed. Primarily, sizes defeats goal, but this defeat progress. In fact, I think this ought to defeat all derivatives.
(1/29/10) ravings on free will
Atheist do philanthropy, why? Humanity deserves it. What is the sense of deserve? Right or wrong?
Theist does philanthropy, why? B/c God desires it. God deserves obedience. Deserve b/c so big or God make humans to like it. It is fufulling design.
Why does anyone like anything? Do anything? It must have a goal. How do we determine a goal?: By design? Choose goal?
What is fundamental driver? Live? Design?/Pleasure? Biggest?
All goals of any driver are futile w/no God.
Should start with ‘why do’? or ‘why exist’? or start with
Positive fact? Conscience? Decarte?
What is primary intended path of discovery or refutation?
Supernatural matrix God interevene.
We are discussing the free will interface with reality.
All drivers fail b/c other entities/controllers.
And knowledge.
(1/22/10) life goal
life is not about reaching a certain condition, but reacting correctly to any given condition.
(1/22/10) compartmentalize + phil sum
We have summed up the topic options of philosophy to the single question: human priority or no? The same may be applied to compartmentalizing God, where God is seen as something which you, the human center, owns or acts upon, rather than you the human subject, which God the true focus saves or leaves. DO vs. actor.
(1/18/10) progress futility
Logically, progress must have a direction, a goal. But every variable humans have sought to improve, the goal is infinite and unreachable. Therefore progress is false/relative. In a unified world, science, the human condition, etc will only be better than yesterday, and will never be perfect.
(1/5/10) desires controlled by god
identify kids as in Christ, not materials sums
if identify as material, then goal = random fallen pleasure
align random desires to god
things don’t seem important until done/gone
(5/4/09) The mind of depravity II
What can I do that means anything? Why do I exist? What is the purpose of matter? Matter and action, data and motion, it does nothing. It accomplishes nothing. There is nothing to do. No purpose, no goal. We rip it down to the bare bones. If I am happy I will not despair as I am doing. Why should I seek my own happiness? To not despair. I shall seek happiness. But is happy good? If I do not despair, do I miss the point? What is happy? Which is the greater, data or emotion? What do either mean anyway? Why do they exist? Why does God exist? We, the galaxies, and God are in the universe, and the void is outside. Why is the universe not void? Why did there have to be something inside the sphere we call space, time, and matter? Why is it there? Why is God there?
God is there. But not just there. He is outside. There is a small sphere called the universe, but there is the void outside. God is that void, and the void is not. God is the negative space. He is all that is not the world, and he made the world. God is that thing, that meaning outside of the universe, which needs a meaning. God is God. I am who I am. God is I am. God is meaning. God is is. He is meaning, the thing outside, the space outside the universe, the thing that fills the void. He is the meaning. To know the void, the universe, it, is to know God. You wish to delve into the deepest paths of the world, know God, he is greater than the world. God is the universe outside the universe, know God, know man, know yourself, and be fulfilled.
(4/27/09) The mind of depravity I (or the depravity of reason)
So we begin by stating the widely held belief that there are principles that men must choose between. These are underlying principles that have no proof or foundation such as the existence of God. For can we say absolutely that Jesus rose? Can we absolutely trust in science? Who said that science was true? Who said there was truth? That is an underlying principle: that there is truth. How do we know? We can’t.
So say we chose to believe that there is no God, this leads to lawlessness and total . We all agree that this is wrong. But who is to say that is wrong? Who said what is better than another? There is no basis. Suppose we say that it must be measured by our happiness. Who said we were supposed to be happy? How do we know we were supposed to be anything? There is no basis for the world, no single measurable independent variable that we can run on the world to determine how we should act within it.
What is the question anyway? How we should act? Why do we even ask this question? Why not what we should believe, or why matter exists, or why cheeseburgers are so greasy? There is no concrete reason even to ask the question “chose your unproven premises”. There is no basis for reality, so we must chose. Which do you prefer? Most prefer to use the dependent variable of self-happiness.
Aha! Here is a question. What is hardwired into us? What is in the world that tells us things? For this can be our basis to ask questions. The world exists. Period. There is no reason, no meaning, but yet there is not absolute chaos and nothingness. Something , something else must have made it. Something that is not existential, something not affected by the depravity of reason. That is God. Which God made the world? Which God is not of us, not in us? Which God is so far away that we cannot affect him? Which God is so remote that he stands alone?
LOGICAL BREAK
But all Gods are only perceived from within our minds. We create them, they are of us, and affected. There is not basis. Unless…the God within us creates something totally random, spontaneous. But even that, all that we see and perceive, is still subject to question. In the end, there is nothing left, all can be reduced to perceptions and anyone can reject or accept anything, we must be caused to not question. From outside of ourselves (from the God outside of the depravity of reason), we must be changed to see Jesus. And after that, we immediately see the absolute centricity of Jesus in everything that exists and moves, and we see the fallacy of all else.
Because of the depravity of reason, we cannot find the truth on our own. We must be reprogrammed out of reason and into reality. God does this for us in new birth.
(12/10/07) stimuli
For every conduit of human stimuli, nature (God) has the ability to supply it beyond its capacity. This is merely a roundabout extension (corollary) of the infinity of God. [after David’s band concert using “variation on a old English hymn (“what child is this”)]
Humans have a few intrinsic needs: one for infinity - something greater than itself to worship, and for identity - something to love and be loved. [See Shamoo] (Others may be found but are not considered at the moment.)
Stimuli/entertainment is making the present (or whatever is presented) seem more important than all else; that the current emotion is at it greatest possible capacity. It may not always be huge, for one can experience emotions of peace, boredom, anticipation, and mystery without strong outward signs.
TSM:
(4/5/10) 6 basis + laws of dimensions
Stuff > Orientation > Change (semi-linear)
Material > Space > Time (linear)
Data > Logic > Goal (semi-linear)
We assume generally that the more dimensions something has, the easier it is to understand (say arranging boxes, easier to imagine 12 in 2-2-3 than 1-12 or individual). Could there be laws that determine comprehensibility? Thinking in terms of vectors. Sqrt( (length of dim 1#)2 + (length of dim 2#)2 + (dim 3#)2 etc ) = comprehensibility.
(3/23/10) time space material
Material>space> time because to imagine time, one must have material and space (two points changing distance), and to imagine space one must only have material (two separated points) and to imagine material, one needs nothing (one point)
Note that due to the divisional material argument for God, material is defined as a point. Note also that the point may be assigned additional variables such as charge and spin.
Other:
The quickest path from A to B is not a straight line because arcs and curlicues flow faster. [9/8/09, interesting that this only applies when you have your hand firmly placed on the paper to rotate, like a foundation in God]
Law and order is an oxymoron since without law there would be nothing to determine whether the subject is orderly or not.
Civilians and barbarians solve disputes the same way; only barbarians take less time to tell each other they’re angry
Atheism should be properly named egotheism, since, expelling all other gods, they settle on themselves. (Or science, or pleasure)
Nihilists believe that one should not believe in anything. [Any god]
Speech is inversely proportional to knowledge and action. Those who talk the most know the least and act on that knowledge the least; those who talk the least have time to act the most on their greater knowledge. [9/8/09, no, everyone knows the same amount (at least it isn’t dictated by speech), and everyone communications the same amount, just some people do it with a lot of words at low density, others with few words at high density]
Friends are made best through hardship (mink initiatives). It is often only at a parting do you find the friendship that developed. Some (introverts) make few lifelong friends, for they fear loss. Others (extroverts) make many temporal friends and are abandoned and despair in the end. Some have a little joy forever and others much for merely a moment. Thee question is which is better? Only to say believers will have absolute joy forever, and there are both some and others among them.
As the world modernizes, all things seem to get more ambidextrous and popularly so, as the world globalizes and we must include and not insult anyone or anything.
m does not work because the men under its practice seek to be god. ms founder, Machiavelli, taught that one must seek to be both feared and loved. The problem is, and he admitted it as well, those two do not go together very well. However, god provides a real t that cannot be defeated and is perfect. He is both feared as the greatest power, and loved as the beneficiary. Men can try to do both, but they can never be truly feared since there are always greater men, and they cannot be loved since they are fallible.
Description of own Psyche:
I have a legalistic tendency concerning religion and am therefore logical (chess), mechanical (military), just (politics), and obedient (work ethic). I am most susceptible to a fau pau by a false plea for help (retrieve hat incident at youth group). I am a diligent learner and enjoy executing a task for others to the best of my abilities. When I have no taskmaster, I become my own. A breach of justice is one of my greatest fears and irritations (computer time of asking, disregard for priority, etc.). Hence a sacrificial pushing aside of justice is one of the most emotionally stimulation for me (Jesus, Thank You) I tend to seek maxima and minima (“efficiency”) for a utopian state (Utopia.doc). I tend to speak my mind without concern for its effect, assuming all will interpret the statement correctly. I seek universal equations (theocentric , wave theory, etc.)
(6/16/08) Holland Opus conflict
Conflict is sometimes the healthiest thing for a group. It unites it, mobilizes its assets, etc. It creates a purpose in life, something to do so that something is done. But the problem is life is ordinary and without conflict. Even in the poor countries, a phenomenon of psychology drives emotions to bland. The constant crisis, the goal that can drive one constantly, is the need to convert others. It is for others and is therefore more evident, easier to conduct (since operating on yourself is totally different from others unless you are the Dali Lama), and infinitely satisfactory in the religious realm. It multiplies (like most influences) in the persons one affects, is accompanied by great emotion (if you try to grasp the effects of accomplishments and failures) and is not solely empirical. (after watching Mr. Holland Opus)
(6/23/08) camp vehe
Chick flick “definitely maybe” is improperly named. Sort of. He bounces between 3 s far too fast. Predicted his final love, the most distant, interests alike, casual, etc. Did not try predicting why his final love was divorcing him, but found it was his first love he settled on, then he end he settled for final.
“The others” despite all the practical differences of living normally as a person, halfway decent. Several point where subject was blind to obvious solution. Several points where they could have scared you more with simple movement behind curtains.
“Rat race” quite funny, decent premise. No moral though, but you don’t need one in a comedy. But trying to force one in the end? It seemed okay but seeing it on paper it sounds bad.
Girls kept me up until 2:00 am Saturday, (Friday night) by talking overheard several lectures on how many kids they want to have, what boys they’re dating, etc etc. But it wasn’t as bad as it might have been. For the or mill, Megan mentioned the duckers then everyone hushed down, possibly Becca was talking then Natalie always louder then all, mentioned their two older brothers.
Megan spoke the most surprisingly. Rained before bed and dumped 4 cups water in our tent so everyone moved out. I mopped it up with the towel and slept alone, comfy and dry.
Written Saturday morning, 7:08, 22 minutes before breakfast.
“league of extraordinary gentlemen” technical difficulties, weak plot, bad characters, everything wrong.
(11/23/08) mechanical upbringing
It has occurred to me (actually, I will admit, brought on by father) that I (and for that matter, Stephen and David) do not necessarily love our parents. I do not go about thinking about what might be best for them. We (or I) operate on specific orders. This is an interesting part of our upbringing. Have we been made mechanically minded? Even this documentation (BTW, considered philosophic or augmented mechanical output?) strates a mechanically minded upbringing.
Going far deeper, was I naturally designed to be the straightforward interpretation of input/upbringing (since David is artistic and Stephen schizophrenic)?
There was a second thought on the subject but I forgot it in an interval of syntax.
(Created after reprimanding of dad for not picking out lunch, not helping with lunch, watching Gilligan’s island while he made lunch (which should not be relevant because he could take it away), and not saying thank you for lunch when served. The last issue occurred because father made the lunch for mother at mothers request, only to be later informed that she also intended for us, so in her defense he reprimands us. Follow a discussion about thank you which I argue for the negative, anti-social side which I know is wrong but will not give up. Reminds me that I am controlled by non-mechanical mechanisms (how’s that?) [end date ref.])
Conclusion, to say ‘thank you’ etc whenever it comes to mind. Hopefully devos will help with that. MUGA (May us God absorb)
(12/23/08) Emo self
Lately (prev day) have been in sour mood. Questioning Christianity (not really), usefulness, etc. Probably due to second failure in email chess game w/Paul, forgetting times of departure, and other self-discipline things. One wonders whether this is a teenage mood swing (which might not exist anyway) and whether other kids have such deep thoughts.
(12/24/08) Prince Caspian
Watched movie second time. Note on ending: leaving is very awkward and sad, must look to when we shall have perfect relationship with God later that shall not be parted. (unfortunate that it cannot exist between humans, but think that the other relationship should be better) I only wish that we could have a taste of it. (5/11/09) so annoying that the positive emotion while in the attachment is not so vivid as the loss.
(3/9/09) Global/Linear example
A global and a linear person find the object ‘Monday’ by being told that it comes after Sunday. To the global person its relationship to Sunday is ‘come after’. To the linear person, the object ‘Monday’ contains the identity ‘comes after Sunday’ which is independent of the object ‘Sunday’ itself. (5/11/09) Correction: both of these may be linear. These might describe the architectural/mechanical and the electrical engineer respectively.
(4/9/09) Attitude
Can a difference in attitude affect your enjoyment of life, or will the adaptability of humans deter it?
(4/21/09) Change
After reading ch18 “When Stole Pink Rabbit.”: change is exciting when it occurs, but it breaks the ties (or weakens them) with the past. Therefore if you never really can belong to the new environment, but have changed quite a bit towards it, you are a stranger to all and very forlorn. This is one the principles of the sad effect when leaving friends at say challenge camp. Another, interpreted logically, is the lack of information from rich sources. In every face you see a future, a relationship, and it is then cut off. If only we could simultaneously pursue each! However, in heaven we shall know all people. Won’t that be boring! There will be nothing left to learn! Except for stuff about God, which is sufficient.
(4/28/09) Goals
What shall you practice every day and make it a part of you? What are you? What shall you be? (EMO has moved from attachments to self-worth, how does that relate to God?) What is the most important part of you?
Should you have a focus of praising God? Is that a project or simply a non-constructive activity? I may build you up, but to what? Why do you build up? Again (see the mind of depravity) what is the goal? We seriously question whether happiness should be the goal, and how glorifying God possibly could be. They both lead to the same actions, but which is true?
Is there a logic process of mine that needs to be altered to answer this question thoroughly?
(4/28/09) Story
What is a story and why do we use them? Why are they emotional objects? Because you feel the emotion of those within the story or the meaning-emotion of the existence?
(4/28/09) derivatives
F(x) = work accomplishment
F`(x) = speed of work = knowledge about work that allows one to work faster = knowledge
F``(x) = speed of learning = principia about how to learn faster = philosophical stuff
F```(x) = speed of principia development = quality of religion which allows humbleness and quick learning of principia and maturity = religion
(5/5/09) thoughts listening to Irish music
Imagine a people hardened by a long life of oppression, but driven by such strength for it that the drums beat and people dance in the high and deep places.
A thought (EMO) also developed earlier, after reading The Snow Goose, a young woman standing into the wind on a rocky shoreline in the Gaelic lands. The dress is very thick, damp, and layered, and the painting is in heavy pastels. Knees and waist are flat (180) at angle c.20 to ground. Barefoot. Calves are defined by a mere two straight lines like the main antagonist in Karate Kid.
(6/12/09) Kon-Tiki quote pg 132
“Time and evolution somehow ceased to exist, all that was real and that mattered were the same today as they had always been and always would be. We were swallowed up in the absolute common measure of history, endless unbroken darkness under a swarm of stars.” The author gets a glimpse of God.
(6/22/09) self-description
Physical: 80 pushups, permanent knee scars, 160lbs bar squat, 70+? sit-ups fast, and back if I try but no other joint problems, SS tech is good but no real results observed last year.
Mental: seem to be in transit from output to input mode. Reading many books (geo, road, com sense). Generally established that I have unique contributions to society via space-time-material theory for God.
Rec: Chess is dormant, so is Iraq and LOTR. Mostly focused on B6-7. Comp = cm2 nearly done.
Spiritual: life is good. Devotions are short and not emo powerful, but keeping me on track. Paul has been absent last week and this, so no calls are made. Current G pic = extends infinite space around small ball universe, plus is (but not limited to) all matter, space, and time.
Ho-hum. This was more self-assigned than spontaneous.
(7/19/09) big sky
Driving out to camp Vehe, the sky is big, the clouds are strong and well constructed, it is folly to think that we have conquered even the surface of the earth, let alone the earth as a totality or the universe.
(8/23/09) phil mena
PHIL book pg 9 para 4 end – power attached to knowledge. Good for Mena.
(10/1/09) peter pan poem
Somewhere out there, on the west side of town,
A boy sits gazing, and wearing a frown.
Out the balcony window, he stares at the sky,
Just sitting and wishing, that someday he might fly.
His aims are great, his motives true,
But helplessness grips him, through and through.
For he feels his small feet, firmly held to the ground,
And he must sit there and sit there, not making a sound.
In his pajamas, in the chilly night air,
He pines and considers, how it’s not fair,
That the world is so large, and he so small,
The mountains a mile, and he – hardly four feet tall.
But then he looks in his house, and considers himself,
His two sisters in bed, and the clock on the shelf,
A picture of parents, sitting on his nightstand,
And thinks of the good he has already at hand.
He flies from his perch, and nearly touches the ceiling,
Full of a tall and wonderful feeling,
And as he descends to kiss sisters goodnight,
Think of adventure tomorrow, and turn out the light.
(11/12/09) pain
Perhaps the perception of pleasure/pain cannot be brought about by evolution. Even perception itself, we would not have it if we had no minds. As non-minds, we would only think, and make decisions (which is the only thing the empiricists should really care about) like one billiard ball will move because another has struck it.
(11/22/09) philosophy of “dark knight”
“Attack” to save life (hit SWAT to save hostages, break infrastructure)
Kill joker when you can?
Beat up Joker?
Boats dilemma. (that seems pretty easy)
Determinant of who to save.
Lie: “It’s all right.”?
