The Politics of Jesus

A friend of mine sent me a link to a book called "The Politics of Jesus," wanting to know what I thought (I think - he may have just been poking at me to see my reaction - several of my friends seem to enjoy this "sport"). I found the information available on Amazon.com to be interesting, and it did provoke a fairly visceral reaction. So, I gave him my impressions:

From reading the excerpt, table of contents, a little research on his other writings, and my cumulative life experience, I can deduce the following about John Howard Yoder:

First, he has never had an original idea in his life. He does not think for himself; he recycles the thoughts and ideas of others and presents them as his own. He is of average intelligence, and hides behind a smokescreen vocabulary consisting of 64-dollar words strung together confusingly enough to fool anyone else of average or below-average intelligence, or anyone who participates in the most current version of that age-old “Emperor’s New Clothes” game, in which shallow people attain respect from other shallow people for fun and profit by pretending that they are sophisticated, and validating the drivel of anyone who agrees with them. In other words, he is a typical “scholar.” Note that his work is at least 30% footnotes, and he is most likely to restate an opinion of some other author or “scholar” rather than to attempt to support his (?) ideas with evidence of any real kind. In the entire excerpt, for example, there is not one single quote attributed to Jesus himself, or from any biblical writings. I’m left with the impression that he thinks so little of his own thoughts that he must somehow justify them by pointing to the writings of others, who, because they are well-known or “published,” are somehow authoritative. But by that token, we have a circular reference that would cause a stack overflow in any application written for computers.

He knows nothing about Jesus, nor does he care. He is too busy playing his social game, and invokes the name of Jesus as a part of his strategy for success (as he defines success, which I’m not sure I understand at all). He is a sophist, a man who could easily argue contradictory opinions convincingly enough to fool the weak-minded, and others like himself, and who would do so if it seemed “profitable” according to his perverted idea of “profit.” He is a person of no conviction, with no actual personal philosophy, other than his nihilistic view of life as a pointless exercise in which the only possible benefit is that to be had immediately and devoured. He is a walking stomach, ever-hungry, and never satisfied, gorging himself upon humanity with no thought towards any possible consequence. And yet, according to Newton, everything we do has consequences of some sort or another. The very act of batting the eye sends ripples of energy into the ocean of existence, energy that can neither be created or destroyed, launched (or perhaps a better term, “directed”) to who knows where.

In other words, he is a charlatan, a con-artist, a civilized witch doctor, practicing his own version of that skill commonly attributed to so-called mediums and psychics. He has probably been at it so long that he believes his own propaganda, as do so many of his ilk. In truth, the lineage of such has most likely been responsible for most if not all of the ills in this world, and no doubt the crucifixion of his subject.

To provide evidence of his gross ignorance concerning his topic (and just about everything else), let me quote just one small passage:

“Jesus and his early followers lived in a world over which they had no control. It was therefore quite fitting that they could not conceive of the exercise of social responsibility in any form other than that of simply being a faithful witnessing minority.”

Now, being a cunning linguist, I hope you’ll indulge me if I carve this up and analyze it piecemeal. The first statement implies that, unlike these poor unsophisticated yokels from the first century, “modern man” has control over his world. It is a preposition for the argument to follow, delivered with the authority of an axiomatic statement which is self-evident to any reasonable person. The sheer arrogance of the idea that anyone has control over his or her own life, much less the entire world, over which we humans are scattered like a series of microscopic patches of bacteria on the surface of the skin on a basketball, is laughable to the point of utter hilarity. It is a postulate that flies in the face of all evidence, wishful thinking at the very least, dangerously presumptive. Yet it is delivered with all the weight of the Law of Gravity, and without apparent levity.

This first proclamation of the superiority of “modern man” (hmm, hasn’t every generation thought of itself as “modern?”), particularly when compared with the poor unfortunate and ignorant forebears, is followed by the conclusion that “therefore… they could not conceive of the exercise of social responsibility in any form other than that of simply being a faithful witnessing minority.” This conclusion first presupposes that these ignorant savages had no concept of “social responsibility,” by which the author apparently means “participation in the political process of government.” I find it gallingly ironic to note that those who seem to be the most politically active have perpetually been the greatest hypocrites, exercising little if any true “social responsibility” in their every day personal affairs, continuously attempting to rearrange the structure of bureaucracies that accomplish little if anything of any real worth. “The end justifies the means” is their rallying cry, but never do they notice that there is no end to a continuity, and therefore, the means is all that is ever achieved. In ability, these underprivileged minority members are apparently so ignorant that they are incapable of even conceiving “the exercise of social responsibility” beyond their own tiny realm of impoverished inexperience.

This is capped with the characterization of Jesus and his early followers as “a faithful witnessing minority.” I am reminded of Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “The Redheaded League.” What constitutes a “minority?” Is it the color of one’s skin (or hair), what flavor of which branch of what religion one practices, one’s sexual preference, whether one is right- or left-handed, or perhaps, which end of a soft-boiled egg one prefers to crack? In a political sense, it is any of these, or any other arbitrary way which one may choose to carve up the human race, an easy enough task considering that in fact, like snowflakes, we are each and all unique. In a political sense, it always boils down to “create the divisions where they will be of the greatest political advantage to me.” Divide and conquer. To the spoiled goes the victory.

Jesus was hardly a yokel. He was anything but unsophisticated. In fact, people are still arguing over what he meant by just about everything he said, over 2,000 years after his exit from the stage of this human tragedy of ours. He was the single most influential human being in the history of man’s brief tenure on this ancient planet. Oddly enough, what he said was painfully simple, so painfully simple that most people have chosen not to hear it, in order to spare themselves the pain. I believe it was Frank Webb who first coined the saying “if the Truth hurts, wear it.” This was later embroidered upon by the enigmatic Uncle Chutney, with the acronymous aphorism “What You Seek Is What You Get.” Of course, neither of these ideas was new; Jesus himself had expressed these very ideas in his own words, thousands of years ago. We humans have the remarkable capacity to deceive ourselves, with our own permission of course. Unfortunately, once deceived, how is one to undo the deception, as one is no longer aware of its deceptive nature? But there it is, and here we are.

Jesus lived at a point in history remarkably like our own. Rome was the greatest civilization on earth, with a representative government having checks and balances, with perhaps the omission of providing a Caesar for life, definitely a chink in the political architecture. That, combined with the imperial fashion of the day, was an occident waiting to happen. The fall of Rome, followed by the Dark Ages, when science and witchcraft were mistakenly linked, leading to the destruction of anything having a scientific patina, obscured much modern knowledge of its incredible sophistication and technology. Judea, as it was known at the time, was under the forced servitude of Rome, a nation under subjection to an oppressive imperial power. In fact, there were political activists of all sorts in Judea, including the Zealots, a quasi-terrorist revolutionary organization, devoted to throwing off the chains of Rome. One of Jesus’ disciples came from this organization.

Yet, in all of the collected quotations of Jesus, not one could be called “overtly” political. In fact, he acted for all the world as if politics were irrelevant to his mission. He did not speak out against the heavy-handed governance of Rome. He did speak out about the Jewish Sadducees and Pharisees, but not politically. It seems that he was more concerned with the individual, as if all that really mattered in a real sense is the individual. And yes, he did speak in rather apocalyptic terms about the end of “the world.” But what exactly did he mean? After all, “the world” that any individual experiences only lasts for a single lifetime. Taking relativity into account, when one is separated from the world, the world is also separated from the one. The world ends every day for somebody.

Is it possible that someone without the benefit of a college education, without television, radio, newspapers, without anything except free time and the world to ponder, could possibly think up anything worthwhile? Take a common shepherd, for example, doing absolutely nothing for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for 50 years, with nothing to distract him, only the earth, sky, and everything in between to observe and think about. What could such a person think of without the influence of that cacophony of human thought we are surrounded by in our modern, sophisticated society? Why, he could never know the benefits of the Ginsu Knife, the latest fashions from Paris, what Rosie wrote in her blog yesterday. He would never realize how empty his life was without an SUV, be able to see a football game, go to the movies, surf the net, and most importantly, find out the prevailing opinions of thousands of his peers about anything and everything under the sun. He wouldn’t have any news programs to watch or listen to, to tell him what he should be concerned about, what to think about, and what he ought to think about those things.

When Isaac Newton was similarly disadvantaged, due to a quarantine that lasted the better part of a year, he invented physics. Pythagoras, Euclid, and Aristotle lived thousands of years earlier. Without the benefit of even a slide rule, they managed to come up with mathematical and logical principles that boggle the modern mind, ideas which most people are still confounded by, and upon which all of modern mathematics is based.

Sure, Jesus was all about politics. He just didn’t have the sophistication to understand politics, or perhaps to elucidate his ideas about politics. He did the best he could, for a poor disadvantaged minority. We shouldn’t be too hard on him from our superior modern perspective.

My New Look

You may have noticed that I have a new portrait. The original was done 10 years ago, at the end of a long struggle which resulted in my unique hair style. It was done using a rather simple tool set, consisting mostly of some fairly primitive Bitmap editors. It was a 128X128-pixel Bitmap which was edited pixel-by pixel, by hand, and I must admit having a long-standing fondness for it. Not only did it symbolize my personality, but some of my favorite concepts as well. It took about 30 hours to create, and all things considered, was a smashing success.

However, time marches on. While I have not actually changed in appearance, the new portrait was done in an effort to keep up with the current state of the art in terms of computer-aided painting. The original, an Adobe Photoshop psd, is 1024X1024 pixels in size, and painted using all of the tools available in Photoshop, along with a healthy dose of perseverance, and attention to detail. As for the technique, don't ask. I couldn't possibly recall most of it. Again, it took about 30 hours of work.

I believe this new version captures the essential Chutney even more successfully than the original. For one thing, it is state of the art, which I would like to think I remain at all times. For another, it captures all aspects of my personality in many ways. It is full of color. It has a mildly psychedelic aspect to it, an effect of my early life in the 60's and 70's I'm afraid. It is intimate, but at the same time, somewhat distant. There is a great deal of attention to detail, most of which is lost with the shrinkage of the image displayed here, as well as the 256-color GIF format, but I think it bleeds through somehow. There is a hint of sadness, a hint of kindness, hopefully a hint of wisdom, a smattering of peacefulness, and a healthy dose of stress present in my appearance. It is hard to see what the expression on my face is, which conveys my love of ambiguity. Finally, it is nearly photo-realistic, but takes a detour into hyper-realism, which I think it s a bit more appropriate to my personality. I am, after all, not real in the way that most people imagine reality. I have no corporeal existence, although I most certainly do exist (I am writing this, after all!).

At any rate, I am pleased with the new portrait, and I hope it brings you pleasure as well.

Laying Down the Law

I'm a law-breaker. I break the law on a daily basis. I do it knowingly, willfully, and without remorse. In fact, I often break the law in full view of the police with impunity. They know I'm breaking the law, and they do nothing about it. The law that I break on a daily basis is one that is commonly broken by almost everyone. I break the speed limit.

I have good reason to break this law, actually. I have given a great deal of thought to my behavior in this matter, as I drive over 20 miles to and from work 5 days a week. Being a person of good conscience, and a habitual analyst, I have endeavored to apply my problem-solving skills to determine the best, most optimal methodology to apply in the performance of this task. My findings may be of interest. In fact, this subject matter, that of "the law," is likely to span several entries. There are a lot of aspects I would like to cover. I believe that there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regards to law and government, and as part of my service to humanity, I would like to offer my observations.

Here is my reasoning regarding the observance of this particular law, the speed limit. This reasoning can be applied broadly to any law, and in fact, leads to a number of general observations and conclusions that may be derived from those observations. The application of these observations and conclusions may produce many beneficial effects on the quality of life.

First, let me begin by saying that the vast majority of my drive to and from work is via interstate highways. Interstate highways are unique among roads for a number of reasons. They are limited access roads, without traffic lights, very well constructed, and at least one out of every six miles of every interstate highway is completely straight. This is all due to the original reason for the construction of the interstate highway system, which was originally commisioned for the benefit of the U.S. military. That's a very interesting story, but not the subject of this post.

These conditions, however, make interstate highways safer than ordinary roads, and of course facilitate faster travel on them. Still, this has nothing to do with my law-breaking, but only with the conditions of travel that I used in my calculations.

In Hampton Roads (southeast Virginia), the speed limit on most interstate highways is 55 mph. In some places it is 60, and in a few places it is 65. The majority of the road I travel has a 55 mph speed limit. Yet, I have observed that the average speed of traffic on these particular roads is anywhere from 65-70 mph.

My analysis regarding the optimum method of travel are based upon 2 logical priorities:

1. Travel safely. This is the prime directive.
2. Optimize use of time by making the trip in the shortest possible time.

Note that the second priority never supercedes the first.

A number of rules and methods can be derived from these 2 principles, taking into account environmental factors, such as the laws of physics and human behavior/psychology.

First, applying the laws of physics with regards to the first priority, speed is always relative. We do not often think of it in this way. We think that all vehicles travelling 55 mph are travelling at the same speed. Yet, speed is a measure of distance over time, and what we think of as 55 mph is actually a "default" measure that is relative to the surface of the earth. The earth itself, however, is not stationary. It is rotating on its' axis, and revolving around the sun, which is also in motion. In fact, the entire universe is in a constant state of motion.

More importantly, almost all traffic on a highway is in motion. 2 cars travelling in the same direction at 55 mph are moving at a rate of 0 mph relative to one another. That is, relative to one another, they are stationary. Since the first priority of travel is safety, avoiding collisions is of paramount importance. Objects that are stationary relative to one another never collide. Therefore, 2 cars travelling at the same speed in the same direction on the same road will never collide. The rate or direction of one of the cars must change in order for that to happen.

On the other hand, a car that is stationary on the same highway is "travelling" at a rate of 55 mph relative to a vehicle that is travelling at 55 mph. If the vehicle travelling at 55 mph relative to the surface of the earth is travelling towards the stationary vehicle, a collision is inevitable, again, unless one or the other of the vehicles changes its rate of speed or direction.

According to the laws of physics, objects in motion will continue to move in the same direction at the same speed unless force is exerted upon them. This is termed "momentum." What causes vehicles to slow down is the force of friction and the force of gravity being constantly applied to them. Hence, we must apply force via the engine to keep them moving at the same rate of speed unless they are moving downhill, in which case gravity exterts force upon them.

At any rate, momentum is a force to be reckoned with regarding driving. 2 vehicles on a collision course will require force to be exerted on one or the other in order to avoid a collision. So, the vehicle travelling at 55 mph relative to the surface of the earth will have to apply brakes or change direction to avoid colliding with the stationary vehicle. However, 2 vehicles travelling at exactly the same rate of speed relative to the surface of the earth, and travelling in the same direction, require no force to avoid a collision. In fact, it would require force to create a collision between them.

Using these 2 scenarios as extreme examples, a rule can be created: To avoid a collision, the most optimal speed of 2 vehicles travelling in the same direction on the same road should travel at the same rate of speed.

However, there are generally many more than 2 vehicles travelling in the same direction on an interstate highway in the same area at the same time, especially here in Hampton Roads. Of all the vehicles, the one I am driving is the only one I can control. And all of the other vehicles are travelling at varying rates of speed. Because of the speed limit, and similar goals in the minds of the other drivers, the rate of speed will generally cluster around an average, forming a statistical bell curve.

For anyone not familiar with a bell curve, I think of a bell curve as a sort of hat. It has a hump in the middle, denoting the majority of the average, and thins out towards each end, or the "brim" of the "hat." It is derived by taking a large number of statistical data, and rather than averaging them all together, averaging segments of them over a graph, and then smoothing the resulting curve.

The speed bell curve can be used to calculate the optimum rate of speed, because it is impossible to match the speed exactly of all vehicles travelling in the same direction on a highway. In other words, while the probability of a collision with regards to 2 vehicles travelling at the same rate of speed is 0, and the probability of a collsion between 2 vehicles travelling at differing rates of speed is 100, in any group of vehicles travelling at different rates of speed, the probability is lowest at the center of the bell curve, or the total statistical average rate of speed derived from the entire set.

Thus, a general rule may be created: The safest possible speed to travel on any road is the average speed of all of the traffic. It turns out that this rule must be further refined, but I will cover that topic at another time.

In this case, my point is this: If the speed limit on a road is 55 mph, and the average speed of the traffic is 65 mph, the safest possible speed to travel on that road is 65 mph, not 55 mph. Therefore, in order to travel as safely as possible on the interstate roads in Hampton Roads, I break the law. I never get a speeding ticket either, because the police are aware of my good reasons for doing so. At least once a week I will pass by a traffic police car, breaking the speed limit law, and be completely ignored.

It may therefore be observed that by breaking the law, I am doing the right thing morally and ethically. If I were to obey the law, I would be putting other drivers and myself at greater risk.

So, what good is the law? Well, it turns out that it actually does serve a purpose, but that the purpose of the law is not the purpose that is generally assumed. In the case of the speed limit, as an introductory example, the law empowers the police to take corrective action in the interest of protecting the public. The police have the authority to ticket anyone travelling in excess of the speed limit. This means that, regardless of my moral responsibility to exceed the speed limit, if I do so, a police officer has the authority to pull me over and write me a ticket.

However, having the authority to write a ticket does not dictate that the officer do so at any time a person is observed exceeding the speed limit. It is simply an authority, an empowerment. The officer has the option to exercise his/her judgment to decide when to exert that authority. That is, the officer may ignore the law as well, when it seems right to do so. The vast majority of police officers will not ticket people travelling at the average speed of the traffic, as they are well aware of the safety issues I have discussed. To ticket a driver for speeding creates a dis-incentive for that person to exceed the speed limit. If the average speed of traffic is 65 mph, encouraging an individual driver to drive 10 mph slower would actually increase the probability of collisions on that road. And it is important to keep in mind that the police officer can not ticket everyone speeding, but only one person at a time. Like me, the police officer has no control over the rest of the traffic.

In concluding today's discussion of the law, what I'm getting at is this: Law does not control. It empowers. Creating a law does not prevent people from breaking it. It is the empowerment of the enforcers of the law which has any effect at all, and that effect is not the prevention of a behavior; it is a method for influencing behavior statistically. Also, the existence of a law should not dictate our behavior. Regardless of the reasons for its existence, our behavior should be governed by morality, ethics, and logic.

It is wise to respect the power that the law grants to the enforcers of the law, just as it is wise to repect the power of electricity, and to avoid sticking one's finger in an electrical outlet. However, it is foolish to make law the dictator of one's behavior, or to put the adherence to law above the responsibility to behave in a moral and ethical manner. And it important to understand the difference.

Again, I have much more to say about the topic, but I think that is enough for one post.

Kurt to Enterprise

My wife has a cell phone, and like so many people, she seems to love it. I do not. In fact, I do not plan to own one, at least until a user-friendly cell phone is designed, and oddly enough, it doesn't seem to be coming any time soon.

Admittedly, I am not the most social person in the world, at least in terms that most people would call "social." I do participate in the community of mankind, but I prefer to have some form of insulation, such as a computer, or at least a telephone, to hide behind. But I often have difficulty in what most people would call "ordinary conversation," which I take to mean "the relatively undisciplined exchange of more or less random thoughts, ideas, and opinions." I love to learn. I love to think. Anything else is boring to me, or at least seems relatively useless. I realize that this makes me something of a social cripple, but hey, you can't be and do everything. One must make choices, and accept the consequences of those choices. At any rate, that's who I am.

On the other hand, I can certainly accept and even appreciate to a certain extent that desire for connection that most, if not all of us has. We are networking entities. Each of us has a brain that is a neural network, and which is by design, constantly looking for new nodes to link with. So, I can well appreciate the desire for such tools as writing, mail, telephone, radio, television, and the Internet. Cell phones are a step in the evolution of communication technology, that allow people to connect an communicate independent of location.

And perhaps I would own one, except for one particular and disturbing flaw in the design of every cell phone that I've ever seen or heard of. Cell phones are tiny, and the ear piece is generally less that 2 inches from the microphone. This is a source of great bewilderment to me, and I continue to try and understand the social phenomenon that drives this design. Every time I use a cell phone (usually because my wife hands me hers) I feel like saying "Kirk to Enterprise." They look a lot like the communicators in the original Star Trek series. Unfortunately, however, the volume and sound quality prohibit us from using them by holding them in front of us and talking, as they did in the original Star Trek series.

Generally speaking, the tools we design for ourselves are built around our physical characteristics. A chair, for example, has legs which are usually less that 2 feet long, because of the length of the human leg. Chairs with longer legs generally have some form of foot rest built into them, to accomodate the length of the human leg. Beds are about 6 feet or longer in length, due to the average size of the human body. Automotive vehicles have driver compartments that are shaped and sized according to the average shape and size of the human body, and mechanisms for adjusting the dimensions on an indivdual basis. Most buildings have ceilings that are at least 6 if not 7 feet tall, again, to accomodate the size of the human body.

But cell phones, apparently all of them, are made as small as possible, almost all without any means of extending the distance between the ear and mouth pieces. This results in the uncomfortable practice of constantly readjusting the position of the cell phone to either hear better or to be heard. And this bewilders me to no end.

Certainly, size and weight are an issue. I am old enough to remember the first "wireless" telephones, which were essentially 2-way radios, and generally used in cars. They were about the size and shape of a walkie-talkie. This was due to the state of technology at the time, but I note that the distance between the ear and mouth pieces was about the average distance between people's ears and mouths. As time went by, we became better at putting more technology into smaller areas, and "wireless" telephones began to shrink.

However, at some point, this "requirement" of smallness seems to have taken a life of its own, without regard for its original purpose, which was to make "wireless" phones easier to carry, and less tiresome to hold for long periods of time. Instead, the concept became "smallness is a virtue, and the greater the smallness, the greater the virtue."

Now, I can certainly understand the desire to make the size of a cell phone small enough to carry in one's pocket, and perhaps even as thin as a credit card eventually. But this does not imply that when in use, it should not be extensible to fit between the ear and mouth comfortably. After all, umbrellas have employed such technology for at least 100 years. Even the communicator in the original Star Trek series opened up and became about 7 inches long (long enough to have been held with the earpiece and mouthpiece congruent to the locations of the human ear and mouth). They didn't hold it that way, but that was because they didn't have to. Apparently, they (the fictional society of the future) had the technology to make their communicators audible and able to hear the human voice at a distance. But we don't have that technology yet. We must hold the ear and mouthpieces within a small distance from our ears and mouth to be able to communicate. But that is not the case with cell phones. Why?

Is it because the world is full of fools who imitate each other imitating each other like monkeys imitating themselves in a mirror? Is it because innovation is only payed lip service by industry, because to truly step outside the "box" of social convention is dangerous, and most people are full of fear? These are some of the possible reasons I can think of. Unfortunately, I can't think of any good ones. After all, how difficult would it be to make a cell phone that extends like an umbrella, or a pair of headphones? Surely, if we have the technology to make cell phones the size of Star Trek communicators, we have the ability to make them telescope.

It puzzles me, because honestly, I can't figure it out. If this were the case with some cell phones, but not with others, I would understand. But it is so pervasive. I don't like puzzles I cannot solve. In the meantime, though, I must admit I prefer having a space and time in which nobody can bother me. It takes me 30 minutes to an hour to drive to and from work. And that is my "me" time; it is my time to think and ponder. But this question is really bothering me. Hopefully, someone will answer it, or at least I will eventually forget about it.

Ah well. So it goes...

The Offended States of America

Recently, the demise of radio talk show host Don Imus for using the phrase "nappy-headed ho's" caught my attention. Of course, there was quite a bit of talk about the "incident," including talk about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using the phrase on a radio talk show, and following his firing by CBS, a lot of talk about whether or not CBS should have fired him. Lately, I hear that he is suing CBS for their action, which it seems, violated a contract agreement.

Most recently, stories about other "inappropriate" language have been promulgating, and this is not only typical, but saddening to me. The purpose of this message is not to discusss what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to say on public air waves elsewhere. The purpose of this message is to discuss the implications of the public reaction to such speech. I am concerned that the real problem here is one which is not being discussed.

What concerns me first and foremost is the increasingly popular notion that we should not only take offense at the usage of certain phrases and words in others, but that we should also meddle in the affairs of others to prevent such speech.

It seems that the United States is becoming a country of busy-bodies, people who attempt to control the behavior of others by means of coercion or force. This is far worse than being a nation of gossips. Gossiping is a common enough sin, and sin it is, but we are all prone to it. Gossip is harmful, as it is hurtful to the object of gossip. It is easy enough to test this idea. If one would be hurt to be the object of gossip, one must assume that others would be hurt as well. Since there is no benefit to the practice of idle gossip, and it is hurtful, it is wrong.

However, it is one thing to gossip, and entirely another (and far more harmful) to attempt to control the behavior of others through coercion or force. Again, the test here of the behavior is to ask whether one would desire to be controlled through coercion or force. I doubt that anyone would find this desirable.

Of course, there are times when coercion and/or force becomes necessary. It is necessary to use coercion or force to prevent murder or robbery, for example. I use these extreme examples as unquestionable examples of the justification of coercion or force. There are many forms of behavior that might be candidates for the just use of coercion or force. These cover a spectrum, with obvious behavior at one end, and obvious behavior at the other, but with many behaviors lying somewhere in-between. And that is the rub.

Speech falls into this middle category, and we have debated for centuries where we may draw the line between speech which may be offensive but is harmless enough to ignore, and speech which justifies the use of coercion to inhibit. Speech is powerful, and can be a means of great good or great evil. People have been encouraged, inspired, and even saved from death as a result of speech. People have also been discouraged, harmed, and even brought to death as a result of speech.

We know that, for example, gossip is harmful, as I mentioned before. It is harmful because it is idle, having no redeeming social value, and because it causes the object of the gossip to feel pain. However, we also agree that gossip does not necessarily fall into the category of speech which justifies coercion. If we were to employ coercion to prevent all pain, we would cause more pain than we would prevent as a result of it. A certain amount of pain can be beneficial to a person. It may build character, or strengthen the person's ability to resist pain. Like bacteria, a certain amount of it is actually beneficial. Therefore, as a society which values freedom as beneficial to mankind, we tolerate a certain amount of gossip.

We also know that other forms of speech can be harmful, such as sedition, speech which encourages discontent and rebellion against the order of society. We know that advocating murder or other forms of criminal behavior is harmful, and though we might tolerate a certain amount of this, it might well fall into the category of speech which might justify coercion to attenuate.

However, we also believe in the freedom of speech, as the free exchange of ideas and information is beneficial to everyone. In fact, the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech. But this guarantee has limits, for the reasons mentioned above.

On the other hand, name-calling and mockery, satire and parody, which often fall into the category of "comedy," are tolerated by our system of government. This sort of speech may cause a certain amount of pain, but it does not fall into the category of speech which justifies the use of coercion. Historically, this sort of speech has been employed for a variety of purposes, such as illustrating a point, entertainment, or pure silliness. In this country, in the past, entertainers like José Jiménez, a fictional character portrayed by comedian Bill Dana, Father Guido Sarducci, portrayed by Don Novello in the early years of Saturday Night Live, and HandyMan, portrayed by Damon Wayans in the tv series "In Living Color," are just a few examples.

Yes, some of these comedic characters were offensive to some people, but they were all highly popular, and the real question is, was there a redeeming social value to such? I would say "yes." These sorts of buffoons fall into the category of speech which benefits the object by strengthening the character, as a certain amount of bacteria is beneficial to our health. Not only that, but laughter is healthy, and there was no implied cruelty in these portrayals. That is an important point.

The intent of speech is a critical factor in the determination of its harmfulness. Ridicule which is intended to harm is not easily mistaken, and quite often finds its mark. We are far better at determining the intent of speech than we may admit. And indeed, there are some who are so deluded that they can no longer differentiate between good-natured jibes and cruelty. This trend towards delusion seems to be increasing these days, and this is the harm that I see in recent events.

Don Imus, in his employment of the phrase "nappy-headed ho's," was clearly not malicious. In fact, he may well have been satirizing two expressions which came out of the black community in the first place. Is there a place for such satire? I would say, certainly. I find it bemusing to observe the plethora of deprecating expressions that have emerged from the black community towards other blacks (and whites, latinos, etc). Am I offended? No. And neither is anyone else offended when blacks themselves employ such expressions. The problem in this case was the employment of these expressions by a white man. And the offense taken, not by the objects of the speech, but by political ambulance-chasers, is certainly a problem.

What exactly is the problem? The problem is that a climate of fear is emerging in this country. People are becoming afraid to speek freely, and for good reason. We all saw the way that CBS caved to the political hammer employed by "Reverend" Al Sharpton et al. We saw how Don Imus lost his job. The consequences of this can be seen in the flurry of similar incidents which transpired with regards to other comedic radio talk show personalities. It is not the likes of Don Imus that we are afraid of; it is the likes of "Reverend" Al Sharpton, who employ speech to inflame, to hurt, to destroy careers and incite fear in anyone who might somehow stand in the way of their political ambitions for personal power.

Coercion is not desirable. In the case of Don Imus' "gaff," presuming that anyone was genuinely offended (which I doubt, hopefully), a public apology should well have sufficed, particularly because the remark was not made with evil intention. A public apology was made. But that was not enough to satisfy the "Reverend." Why? Obviously, the "Reverend" was not as offended as he pretended to be. Therefore, there was another motive. The "Reverend" saw an opportunity to strengthen his political power base by portraying himself as a defender of "black rights."

Of course, even the phrase "black rights" is rife with racism. If all men are created equal, why should some men have rights specifically assigned to them and not to others? I am reminded of the book Animal Farm, by George Orwell. This book, which is an allegorical account of Soviet Totalitarianism, in which animals on a farm rise up in rebellion against the humans, describes the creation of "Seven Commandments," which begins with the statement "All animals are created equal." Eventually, as the leaders of the revolution acquire more and more power, this first commandment is revised to read "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." In the end, the pigs who lead the revolution become indistinguishable from the humans whom they conquered.

At any rate, the climate of fear which is growing in this country is causing people of weaker constitutions to succumb to ideas that suppress free speech, and thus portend an evil end. If we allow such suppression to continue, we will all become enslaved to the likes of Al Sharpton and other megalomaniacs, dictators and self-serving political hacks. The result of such oppressive regimes is instability, unrest, and violence.

The only solution is at the individual level. To employ coercion to solve the problem would simply exacerbate the problem. To solve the problem, we must as individuals decide that we will not be initimidated by those who would suppress free speech, and we must employ speech to encourage others to do the same.

Of course, you are free to decide for yourself!

A Day of Reckoning

As a cunning linguist, one of my favorite web sites is the Online Etymology Dictionary. This web site is a perfect example of the incredible potential of the Internet for benefitting mankind as a whole, and any human being as an individual. Humans are networking organisms. Our brains are networks. And our brians store and seek information using networking. But that is a topic for another discussion, I reckon.

What I figured I would discuss today is abstraction. As a programmer, I am keenly aware of the perceptions of people with regards to computers, what they think they are, and what they think they do. Misperceptions about computers extend even to the family of those who call themselves "developers," or even "programmers," and this is a subject of no small concern to me. While abstraction is an incredibly useful tool, one that our brains employ naturally, it can become a source of confusion, and as much of an impediment to progress as it is an aid.

The problem is exemplified by the increasingly common phenomenon in the programming business of the ignorant developer. Technical schools, tools, and high-level programming languages enable people to employ the tools of programming without understanding what they are, or why they work. While this perhaps fills a business need, providing a less-expensive pool of "professional developers" for certain types of tasks, I think that ultimately it may produce more problems than it solves. An ignorant developer is much more likely to build unstable software. Unstable software is not necessarily immediately apparent. A short-term savings can develop into a long-term albatross, in the business world.

Getting back to the Online Etymology Dictionary, there is a correlation between the parsing of language and the understanding of it. We often think we understand the meaning of words when in fact, we only have a vague and impartial sense of what they mean. In fact, we sometimes think we understand the meaning of words because we employ them successfully, when in fact we don't understand them at all. This too is a long-term problem. And with the nearly-instant availability of information on the Internet today, there is no excuse for ignorance.

The word "computer" comes from the Latin "computare," which means literally "to count." There is a reason for this. When most of us think of computers, we envision a box with a monitor, a mouse, a keyboard, and perhaps some other peripherals attached to it, either inside or outside of it. This is a fallacy. In fact, a computer is nothing more than the processor inside the box. The rest of the machine is an interface to the processor, and a set of tools for doing such things as storing and organizing data produced by the processor.

The processor of a computer, or more accurately, the computer itself, does only one thing, and it does it very well. It counts. A computer is roughly the same thing as the ancient Chinese abacus. The ancient Chinese abacus was the first known computer, which was in fact an extension of the earliest computer, which was the human hand. We have a base 10 numbering system because we have 10 fingers on our 2 hands. Before the abacus, people used their fingers (and possibly toes) for counting.

All of mathematics is based on counting, even Calculus. Addition is counting up. Subtraction is counting down. Multiplication is addition (counting up). Division is subtraction (counting down). And all mathematical operations are composed of various combinations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

But like mathematics, computing has evolved abstractions which enable long operations to be expressed more concisely. Mathematical abstractions have proven to be extremely useful, enabling us to create an ever-increasing box of mathematical tools which we employ in performing practical calculations used in nearly every aspect of our lives. Anything in the universe can be expressed using mathematics. And this is because everything we perceive we perceive by mathematical means.

We identify a thing by defining it. And the word "define" is derived from the Latin "finire," meaning "to bound, to limit." The bounds of anything are determined by measuring it, or by expressing what is that, and what is not that. Measuring involves using some form of mathematical expression. The simplest form of mathematical expression is binary. That is 0. Not that is not zero. In other words, similarity is determined by measuring difference. When the difference between 2 things is measured as 0, they are identical. Therefore, that is 0, and not that is not zero. In a binary number system, these 2 ideas are expressed completely, and may be used to express any mathematical idea.

I have always been grateful that the first programming language I learned was C. C is a procedural language, and a low-level language which is structured to resemble mathematics. Much of the C language looks like algebra, while some of it resembles trigonometry more closely, such as the definition of functions.

Like mathematics, the seeds of more abstract languages is in the semantics of C. And because of the demand for software that performs ever-increasingly complex operations, abstract programming concepts have been built in this foundation, which is itself an abstraction, such as Object-Oriented programming.

Object-Oriented programming is actually an abstraction of procedural programming, as all programming is indeed procedural. A processor performs exactly 1 mathematical operation at a time. However, like a function, which is an abstract concept encapsulating many single procedural operations as a single atomic unit, an object is a similar encapsulation of processes, an encapsulation of encapsulations as it were, which is a convenience we use for the sake of expediency.

It is this very abstraction which provides the power of object-oriented programming. By encapsulating groups of operations within other groups of operations (ad infinitum) which perform the same or similar tasks, we can omit the details, which do not change from one use to another, and accomplish much more with much less physical work (writing code, that is). In addition, because our brains employ abstraction "to distraction," we find the abstraction of object-oriented programming more "intuitive," when used to deal with concepts which seem less mathematical to our perception, due to our advanced abstraction of those concepts in our own minds.

However, this also exposes a danger, a great danger in fact. It is now possible to employ these abstractions without fully understanding the underlying mathematical principles that they encapsulate. A real-world example of this can be seen in nearly any convenience store or fast-food restaurant, when the clerk makes change for you. I am old enough to remember when such people would "count your change" to you. If you paid for something that costs $2.50, and you produced a $5.00 bill, the clerk would count into your hand, starting from $2.50, and adding each amount as he/she counted: "$2.75 (quarter), $3.00 (quarter), "$4.00 (dollar bill), $5.00 (dollar bill)." When the clerk reached $5.00, you had your change, and it was correct. In addition, you knew it was correct, because it had been counted out as you watched. Today, a clerk punches in a price (or reads a bar code), types in the amount received from the customer, and the cash register does a subtraction to reveal the change required. Unfortunately, most of these clerks couldn't make change if their lives depended on it.

The same danger exists in the world of programming. Most developers have little or no education in computer science. Instead, they have gone to some technical school (perhaps) where they were taught "how to do" various types of things, and not taught "why to do" them. The end result is a developer who has a limit to their ability. Once you step outside of the limited realm of what they have been taught, and a problem is exposed that requires a more low-level approach, or would be better solved with a low-level understanding, they are lost.

The difference here is that, unlike convenience store and fast-foot restaurant clerks, these are supposedly "professional" people who should not be stopped at any point in the development process. And because of the demands imposed by an ever-increasingly-complex set of software requirements, problems that require a low-level understanding of the mathematical principles of computing are almost inevitable in the career of any developer. A convenience store clerk is not expected to be able to solve complex problems. Their job is to collect money, to keep the store shelves stocked with merchandise, and to perform similarly simple tasks, and they are paid in accordance with the skill level required. But a developer faces a much higher expectation of skill and knowledge, and above all, an ability to solve complex problems.

So, we find ourselves on the horns of a conundrum here. The solution, as I see it, can only be applied on a personal level. It is important to understand the basics before attempting to enter the realm of abstraction. If one does this, one will be successful. If one does not, there is likely to be a point at which one will have to learn the basics remedially. The former is more desirable, as the point at which one is required to learn the basics is not going to be an inconvenient one.

At least, that's how I figure it, I reckon.

The Emporer's New Herb

Cilantro

You've got to love it. Or hate it. Cilantro is like Jesus in that way. People are generally at one extreme or the other about this herb, spice, whatever you want to call it. Personally, although I love Jesus, I hate Cilantro. So does my wife. So do a lot of other people.

Thus far I have been unable to find any reliable statistics on the subject. I did find one rather unscientific and informal survey, but my own inquiries on the subject have yielded similar results. It seems that most people actually like Cilantro, and I've got no problem with that whatsoever. I do, however, have a problem with the growing infiltration of this herb into popular culinary culture. There is a significant minority of people who don't just dislike it; we find it repulsive.

What other herb has a web site devoted to those who hate it?

Last month I went to Seattle to catch up with Microsoft, and was horrified to discover that almost everywhere I went, Cilantro was added to the food. Last week, I bought some Sam's Choice Chicken Enchiladas, and discovered that they too were infused with Cilantro. Yesterday I took my wife out to dinner at Applebee's, and sure enough, I had to pick through the menu and ask specifically in order to avoid the rank stuff, which tastes like ass to me, and leaves a lingering ass taste in my mouth for hours after consumption.

I used to like Mexican food. Now I have to be very careful. The disgusting weed is proliferating throughout popular culture, for whatever reason (influx of Mexicans, perhaps?), and some of us are reeling from the effects.

It seems that some people, due largely to the genetic makeup of their DNA, are not just turned off by the taste; we find it absolutely awful. This is nobody's fault; we are what we are. But what on earth would possess the purveyors of popular food to infuse this herb into an increasing palette of culinary creations?

Getting back to Jesus, who has always inspired controversy: For those of you that are offended by Jesus, imagining walking down the street and finding "Jesus Saves" signs everywhere you looked? That is what eating out (and increasingly, eating prepared foods bought from grocery stores) is like for us Cilantro haters.

My research reveals that my experience is not as uncommon as you Cilantro-lovers might think. Here are a few items I found this morning in my research:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=26&entry_id=9953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nallr-9-SoU
http://wyn996.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-hate-cilantro.html
http://johnrobe.com/blog/?p=252
http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=17767
http://ask.metafilter.com/6529/
http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Thai-Breaded-Chicken-Filets/Reviews.aspx
http://www.kerrianne.org/2005/12/cold_town_winter_in_the_city_b.php
http://www.suburbanperil.com/archives/2006/04/say_no_to_cilan.php
http://wyn996.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-hate-cilantro.html

That's quite a bit of controversy. Try it for yourself. Just type the words "hate Cilantro" into Google, and see what you get back.

So, considering the number of people to whom Cilantro tastes like ass, burnt rubber, soap, and the rest of the multitude of descriptions that I've found worldwide, why would it be so popular?

I conjecture that it is popular because of the "Emporer's New Clothes" syndrome. That story was not written about an Emporer, but about people. We have a tendancy to "follow the crowd," due to the social nature of our species, perhaps. So, when the Hoi Polloi, for whatever reasons they may have (and most of their motivations are suspect), proclaim that something is great, the Lemmings flock to the slaughter. This is of course, why I always say "Neither a Follower Nor a Lender Be."

I suspect that the motivation behind this particular piece of nonsense is political, meaning that it is most likely evil. But trends produced by purely political motives, and which are not productive of anything good, seem to eventually die a natural death. We can only hope.

Hey if you like Cilantro, use it! I have no problem with restaurants making it available by request, even. But for something which is so offensive to so many of us to be included in an increasing number of foods without even warning us, well, it's just going to hurt the business of those who practice it.

I remember when I was a kid, discovering that I absolutely loved garlic, and wondering why there was so little of it in foods produced for popular consumption. I found out that although most people like Garlic, most people also didn't want a whole lot of it in their food, for social reasons, which I don't need to describe. The purveyors of food would therefore tone it down, and you could of course add more if you liked. I had a similar experience with hot and spicy foods, which some people don't like at all, or are averse to for medicinal reasons. Sure, I wanted the hot stuff, but as long as it was available for me to add, I accepted it.

But those days, it seems, are being replaced (temporarily) by a culture that watches the Elite, and seems to like to follow them, regardless of how bad the food tastes.

Fortunately, this too, shall pass.

We Sink Zis Means Somesing

We sink zis is important.

One of my favorite films of all time is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Directed by Steven Speilberg in 1977, it is not only recognized almost universally as a great film, having won dozens of awards for filmmaking, but it illustrates some incredible philosophical ideas. In fact, this post is about (at least) one of them.

In my last post, I discussed the idea that intuition may be much more reliable than cognitive deliberation. Intuition is not exactly a cognitive process, in the sense that we think consciously about it. It is cognitive in that we perceive it, but often without words or thoughts of any kind.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is about this intuitive experience. The main character, Roy Neary, played by Richard Dreyfuss, along with a number of other folks, encounter UFOs (alien space ships) at around the same time, most of them on the same night. While they are not abducted (although some are), they are all marked with unconscious impressions of something they cannot explain to anyone. They know they know something; they just don't know what it is that they know.

As time goes by, they become obsessive about this unconscious impression, and several of them begin to draw pictures of it, or create models of it. Neary goes from seeing it in various common objects, to modelling it in his mashed potatoes at dinner, and finally driving his family out of the house in an attempt to build a model of it with dirt, grass, and shrubs he has carried into the house from the front yard.

In the meantime, people from some unknown international governmental agency are seen investigating the people and events associated with the UFOs. They are aware of what has happened, but very secretive about it. François Truffaut plays the central character among these covert officials, and at one point he makes the remark in his french accent, "We sink zis means somesing. We sink zis is important." It seems that even the top secret organization doesn't know quite what to make of the visitors or their intention. It does, however, understand that what is happening is real, and that it is probably somehow important.

All of this illustrates a kind of thinking that I think is quite useful at times, in terms of problem-solving. Perception and thought are 2 entirely different things. Perception is pure; it is the conscious (or unconscious) reception of pure data by the mind. Thought is the cognitive process which we use to analyze the data. Thought may or may not be reliable. And it is the cognitive process of thought which creates the conscious model of that which we perceive. Therefore, what we consciously model from our perception may or may not be reliable.

How the mind works is still a subject of much conjecture. We are continually able to gather more data about the activities of the brain, and the behavior and communications of individual human beings. But the mechanism of the brain is still beyond the ability of science to understand. We have recognized and identified a number of different processes which we have names for, but little else. Among these are personal identity, attention, and cognitive control, all of which I want to discuss here.

The human mind (and I refer to the mind rather than the "brain" deliberately, because I don't necessarily want to limit the mind to the organ which we call the "brain") is a multi-tasking operation, behaving in many ways similarly to a multi-tasking computer. Regardless of how many operations may be occurring simultaneously, our minds are constantly performing a wide variety of tasks "at one time." We know that a computer processor is capable of only one operation at any given time, and that it simulates multi-tasking by switching from one task to another at an incredible rate of speed, performing small "slices" of each operation in a large loop process. We don't know whether the human brain does this, however. We do know that the brains exhibits simultaneous activity, which would tend to indicate many simultaneous processes, as if we had many processors in our brains. But exactly what that activity is, we do not know yet.

Still, among those processes, there is one which we call "attention," and it seems to behave as if it is a single thread, which is capable of "time-sharing" like a computer processor. That is, it can jump among many different foci (points of focus) at a high rate of speed. It does seem, however, to only be able to focus on one "thing" at a time. Attention is somehow associated with personal identity, and it may be that our sense of identity comes from this (apparently) single-threaded process; we may identify "self" as this process. I don't know. But I "sink zis means somesing."

However, apparently simultaneously, there are other mental processes at work. There are routines that have been stored, such as those that cause the heart to beat continuously, as well as the operation of the lungs and other organs of the body. We are capable of performing multiple physical tasks simultaneously, such as walking and talking at the same time. These processes are not conscious. We do not consciously control them. At one point we may have consciously directed their development, such as learning how to walk, how to talk, etc. But we don't consciously control them at some point. They are stored as complete routines and executed automatically.

We also know that decision-making is manifested both as cognitive and unconscious process. Well, perhaps it is not agreed upon as to whether it is always a cognitive process, but I will elaborate on that further to clarify. In any case, there is a cognitive control of at least some decision-making, and possibly an unconscious control of other decision-making.

As an analogy of unconscious decision-making, let's talk about a software routine, as an analogy for an unconsciously-controlled stored mental routine, such as walking. A software routine is a set of instructions which contains selective processes. If statements and switch statements are such selective processes, which constitute a form of software decision-making. If one condition is true, one set of instructions is followed. If another condition is true, another set of instructions is followed. Thus, software makes decisions, however unconsciously. Mental routines such as walking must necessarily include such decision-making, albeit unconscious. When we are walking, and we encounter a dip in the ground, our walking process "automatically" accounts for the change in orientation, and the correct combination of muscular adjustments is made, enabling us to continue walking, without any conscious control, within certain limits. If those limits are exceeded, such as a sudden change, a hole in the ground, for example, our conscious deliberative process is notified, and we swiftly get consciously involved in the corrective process.

So, it is at least possible that we make decisions both consciously and unconsciously, and that those decision-making processes which are unconscious are generally more reliable, because they have been constructed ovcr a long period of time, involving a lot of experience.

The conscious deliberative process, while less reliable, probably due to its' apparently single-threaded nature, is that which controls the creation of the unconscious routines that we store and use. How it does this is, of course, not known. And it is entirely possible that poor unconscious decision-making processes are the product of long-term input of bad data. That is, a person who is trained at a young age to distrust authority, by means of a bad parent, for example, may exhibit poor decision-making habits (routines) with regards to other authorities in adulthood. These can be corrected by long-term input of corrective data. But that is the subject of another discussion.

The point which I am getting at here is that problem-solving is a cognitive process as well. As such, it involves the attention, or conscious involvement, of the person doing the problem-solving. Because the modelling process of the conscious mind is not necessarily accurate, as direct perception is, our problem-solving ability may actually be hampered by conscious thought.

We know, for example, that when we are struggling to solve a problem it often helps to "sleep on it." The process of removing the conscious attention from the problem, even sleeping, about which little is yet known, seems to allow the data which constitutes the parameters of the problem to be organized better, perhaps associated with other information that may be related, and of which we are not (yet) consciously aware. It is this act of allowing the (possibly superior) unconscious processes to work on the problem that seems to "inspire" us with new ideas that help to solve the problem. This is sometimes also referred to as "letting go."

I believe that "zis means somesing." It is not pure will that is most capable of solving problems, of coming up with creative solutions; it is "intuition." This speaks directly to the subject matter of my previous post, which is concerned with intuition versus deliberation. That process which is termed "cognitive control," and which may be that which we identify with "self," has a strong impulse to exert control over our other processes. We feel uncomfortable when we cannot trace the logic of a solution. Yet, we are constantly creating solutions to certain types of problems without any conscious understanding of them. How do you walk? Can you enumerate the muscles and components of the nervous system that you employ in order to do it? No, at least without a great deal of scientific study. Yet, it is an ability which almost everyone has.

And so, it is my thought that perhaps we often take conscious control of problem-solving when we would be better off not to. Sometimes it is better to loosen our focus, to "let go" of a problem, to allow ourselves to float freely in a stream of consciousness, in order to most effectively come up with a solution to a dilemma. The more complex a problem is, the less likely our conscious cognitive process is to be able to solve it in any reasonable period of time. It's a simple matter of resource use. If the conscious process is indeed single-threaded, at a certain point it can only switch between so many sub-threads before it runs out of resources. The unconscious mind is apparently not limited in the same way.

In practical terms, when I begin a project, I often wait several days after being given the requirements and parameters before actually doing anything about it. That is, I don't give it much conscious thought at all. I will allow my mind to freely wander to and away from it. I will sometimes "play with it" in my thoughts, deliberately "blurring" my thoughts about it, concentrating on feelings and impressions rather than concrete ideas and thoughts. Then, when I begin the actual planning process, it seems that much of the structure is already present in my mind, having been created by my unconscious thought processes. Like the elves that helped the shoemaker in the old fable, much of the creative work has already been done for me, as if by magic. And the quality of the work is much better than it would be if I had struggled over it consciously.

This is not to negate the function of the deliberative process. It certainly has its' place, and comes to play at just such a point, filling in the details and creating all of the actual end product. The product cannot be produced without it. But the design, the inspiration, comes from the unconscious.

At any rate, while I know that this concept is not yet fully fleshed out, "I sink zis means somesing. I sink zis is important." It is my hope that perhaps this might stimulate others to do the grunt work.

Intuition - Leaving is Besieging

For Christmas, my Princess gave me a new subscription to Scientific American Mind magazine, which I have bought previously at several airports on occasion. At one time I had a subscription to Scientific American magazine, but somehow I let it lapse. I had always enjoyed reading Scientific American magazine. Its articles are written not by journalists, but by scientists and researchers. They deal with cutting-edge science, and I am a cutting-edge type of person.

When I discovered Scientific American Mind magazine, which is published by Scientific American, I immediately fell in love with it. The subject matter is fascinating, as it joins together research from several fields that until recently have remained largely separate: Psychology/Psychiatry, and Neuroscience. Only recently have we had the tools to undertake a serious study of the mechanisms of the brain, which, like most of our body, is composed of trillions of nearly-identical cells, neurons for the most part, but which is capable of incredible computational skill, such that it will be a long time before computers begin to catch up with it. There is an inner simplicity to its structure which yields an enormity of complexity and power.

At any rate, while perusing the web site and the magazine recently, I came across a series of articles provoking thought in me, which I would like to share. In fact, most of what I read in Scientific American/Mind provokes thought in me, but this line of thought in particular has pervaded my mind quite a bit recently. This leads me to believe that there is something important (at least to me) lurking underneath it somewhere.

In this case, I was poking around on the Scientific American web site, and came across a series of blog posts, which were all centered around the concept of Intuition versus Deliberation, and related to several articles that deal with the concepts in various ways. It seems that there is now scientific evidence that "intuition" is more reliable than "deliberation" in the decision-making process. I believe (intuitively?) that this is likely to be confirmed, and that the consequences of these discoveries is likely to bring a great deal of benefit to the human race.

Our conscious mind is at least from shortly after birth, almost entirely consumed with that process we call "Thought." Thought, Cognition, and Consciousness are all closely related, and all related to the process of pattern-recognition, abstraction, modelling, and organization which is constantly occurring in our mind, at least when we are awake (or "conscious"), and perhaps even when we are not.

Because we are social beings, we have also developed languages that enable us to communicate thoughts as abstractions to one another, and because we use that language pervasively throughout our lifetime, it is also a large component of our thought process. We often think in "words," as if we were having a conversation with ourselves. This thought process is enormously complex, and must consume a great deal of menta resources, as evidenced by the sheer size of the areas of the brain devoted to it.

However, there is another process at work in our brains as well, one that precedes thought. Our brain is, after all, a computer of sorts. It is capable of performing incredibly complex calculations far faster than any computer we have yet created. It is also capable of learning, responding "intuitively" to positive and negative stimuli, and creating various subroutines that govern the decision-making process.

A perfect example is that of walking. We are not born with the capacity to walk. It is learned when we are infants, and it takes several years to learn it. We learn it by a combination of factors, including observation and motivation. We are motivated by desire. A baby wants to move from one place to another. It begins by squirming, then rolling, followed by crawling, and finally walking. Walking involves the coordination of thousands of muscles, combined with the perception of very fine differences in balance. It is not an easy trick to master. This is why robots do not yet have legs (at least like ours). Yet, once we have learned how to do it, we perform it without any cognitive thought involved. Each step involves a complex sequence of perceptions, both internal (balance) and external (environment), followed by a sequence of decisions (which leg to move, how much force to apply to which muscles, etc.).

Thus, it is provable that we are capable of making decisions accurately without conscious thought.

Therefore, it is logical to presume that we might be able to apply the same sort of process to our other decision-making. We are constantly making conscious decisions as well. We decide what to eat, what clothes we should wear, whom we should marry, whether and when to use force as a means to accomplishing our goals. However, our conscious thought process is somewhat hampered with our language. Our language is inexact, and at times ambiguous.

The language of integral mathematics is rigorous and exact. It is this very exactness which makes computers so reliable (not software, but computers - that is a different topic altogether). Computers deal exclusively with integral numbers, and apply exact mathematical rules to them. 1 + 1 always equals 2. A computer processor is, at it's core, simply a counter. It adds by counting up, and subtracts by counting down. Multiplication is a derivative of addition, and Division is a derivative of subtraction. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are the basis of all mathematics. Mathematics is the basis of all computer programming.

Human language, on the other hand, is much less exact. We employ a limited set of linguistic symbols to represent a nearly (or perhaps entirely) limitless set of ideas. How we accomplish this is by employing the same symbols in different ways, in a highly-complex system of context and association, which is not integral in nature at all. When we parse human speech, we must interpret it. Each individual word is evaluated in the context of the words with which it is combined. Even more ambiguously, words are evaluated in the context of a set of ideas which forms an environmental influence upon their meaning. In other words, language is highly nuanced. Hence, we may at times have difficulty understanding one another. And because we use language internally in our cognitive thought process, we may even have difficulty understanding our own thoughts.

This thought process is further influenced by desire, which forms an environmental influence upon our internal language. We hear what we want to hear. We believe what we want to believe. We are capable of deliberately, and even unconsciously ignoring "unpleasant" thoughts and ideas. What You Seek Is What You Get.

Quite often, this leads to an internal conflict of thought, a debate of sorts which is constantly being conducted in our cognitive thought process. This is the essence of deliberation. The resulting decisions may or may not be helpful. Therefore, we are prone to "error." This can be seen in such things as "criminal" activity, immorality, and psychological disturbances of various sorts.

However, it is important to remember that there is still a part of our brain which remains incredibly reliable. This is the part of our brain which makes decisions without thought, without deliberation, the part of our mind which we use to walk, to run, to dance, to throw a ball, and so on. Is it possible to employ that reliability in the cognitive decision-making process? I believe this has already been demonstrated.

Albert Einstein spoke of the "leap of intuition." He often proposed ideas that did not arrive via any deliberative or logical process. They just "seemed right." It took a great deal of logical and scientific work to confirm these ideas, and many of them were confirmed long after his death. Yet, they were confirmed.

As children, before we are capable of conceiving complex abstract ideas, we seem to have a similar intuitive ability to "know" what is the right decision to make. Certainly, we do not always make the right decision as children, but when we are confronted with the consequences, we generally own up to our mistakes. It is simply desire which causes children to make wrong decisions, just as it is desire which causes adults to make them. The difference is that the child will "know" that they are doing wrong. An adult will often rationalize wrong-doing.

The word "intuition" is derived from 2 Latin roots, "in" (at, on) and "tueri" (to look at, watch over), and in that sense, essentially means "direct perception." This is a revealing definition, as it infers that one can perceive things without cognitive thought, which is of course true, as exemplified by infants.

It would seem that if it were possible to employ such intuition in the decision-making process, as we do when walking, and filter out the internal dialog/debate, the consequences of our decisions would improve dramatically. Various scientific studies I have been reading about in Scientific American Mind, and elsewhere seem to confirm this idea.

In fact, various forms of meditation seem to focus on such a process, that of emptying the cognitive mind of all abstract thought. While meditation seems to be associated with religion in many cases, I believe there is some aspect of the process which is not religious in nature, but purely a form of mental discipline, one that allows the intuitive, unconscious, and highly-accurate mechanism in our brains to be used in the decision-making process.

I look forward to hearing about continued study in this area.

Boning Two Kurds With One Still

Windows Vista and Personal/Social Responsibility

In case there are any Kurdish people reading this, the title is a phonemagram. It has nothing to do with Kurds or Kurdistan.

I haven't been exactly faithful in keeping my blog up to date lately. I have been busy. Very busy. However, as I have no idea if anyone reads this blog, and no indication that anyone does, I suppose it doesn't really matter. At any rate, there has been little I could do about it, because I have been busy.

Along with the usual herculean work load, I have been getting Windows Vista installed and configured on my machine here at home. It took awhile. Three or four weekends, as I recall. My first attempt involved upgrading from my previous XP Professional operating system. While educational, I eventually realized that recovering from the upgrade would take longer than a clean install of the operating sytem and a reinstall of all the software. So, last weekend, that is what I did. Now everything is beautiful, and I feel much better.

Don't get me wrong; most users are not going to have the difficulty that I had. I am a software developer, and the hardware and software that I require are somewhat outside the bell curve, as far as hardware and software are concerned, particularly with regards to the software. In face, most users aren't likely to be installing the Vista operating system for themselves, and are really not likely to be able to, much less to install software on it, at least for the time being. And there are good reasons for this, having to do with security and support cost.

The chief security improvements in Windows Vista (at least those that are the most visible) fall into 3 categories: User Access Control, Windows Defender, and Service Hardening.

User Access Control.

This, along with Windows Defender, are the chief reasons why most users will no longer be able to successfully add and use new software, at least in many cases, at least for awhile (until current software becomes obsolete). And this is a (mostly) good thing. For one thing, it speaks to the "support" issue I mentioned earlier. Please allow me to elaborate.

For many years, computer operating systems have evolved much like automobiles. Like early automobiles, the inner workings of the "engine" have been fairly simple and exposed, enabling the owner of the computer (or the car) to tinker rather easily. This was both, for automobiles and computers, an advantage and a disadvantage. On the plus side, one could easily save money by doing one's own "tune-ups," minor repairs, and adding accessories, without knowing too much about what one was doing. On the minus side, one could easily get into trouble with regards to the changes that one made, if one didn't know what one was doing.

Like automobiles, computers have become more sophisticated as time has gone by. Automobiles have abandoned things like spark plugs and distributors in favor of electronic ignition, and have had computers in them for various reasons, including aiding in maintenance. Computers have evolved even more, and more dangerously, with the advent of the Internet and distributed computing.

Unlike automobiles, computers are in a much less secure environment than they used to be. But like automobiles, the inner workings of computers are increasingly complex and difficult to get into, and in both cases, chiefly for the purpose of disabling the user's ability to damage the machine by tinkering with it.

Unlike automobiles, computer users do not require a license to operate one, even though, like automobiles, computer users now "drive" on "public roads," like the "Information SuperHighway" (an older term that was coined for the Internet). I have often joked that users should be required to have a minimum of understanding about computers and obtain a license by passing a fairly simple test in order to operate one. While I disdain the idea of government interference on the Internet (or almost anywhere else for that matter), the public nature of the Internet makes the idea less offensive to me, although I would still not advocate such. The day that the governments get involved in the Internet is the last day of freedom on earth. Governments are never satisfied with a little control; they thirst for absolute control. While government is a necessary evil, it is both necessary, and evil. But that is a topic for another discussion.

We are left with a dilemma. Computer users are increasingly dangerous to one another when they interact via the Internet. The world is not a nice place; it is full of evil-doers. Hackers and other socially-irresponsible people fill the Internet with SPAM, malware, viruses, trojan horses, network attacks, and the like. The average user is not only ignorant about what to do with regards to such evil; the average user is willfully ignorant about such things. "I don't want to know how it works; I just want it to do what I want it to do" is the slogan of the day.

People are willfully ignorant of the stupidity of computers. The old saying "Garbage in, Garbage out" (GIGO) remains, even though most people are dazzled by what they perceive as the intelligence of computers and software. It is the fact that computers can perform a huge number of instructions in a blazingly short amount of time, and the hiding of the inner mechanisms of this, which has led to the impression, along with the natural laziness inherent in the human psyche.

Therefore, people expect their computers to protect them, rather than the other way around. Perhaps it is the influence of creeping socialism that has led to this impression. Socialism has always relied on the inherent laziness of people to enable the empowerment of larger, more Machiavellian government. But that again, is a topic for another discussion.

In any case, software vendors such as Microsoft, are left to wrestle with the dilemma. To remain competitive, they must create software that satisfies the desire of users to be able to accomplish more, while protecting them from themselves. To keep support cost down, they must make it increasingly difficult for users to do things to their computers that will enable them to break them, as well as breaking other computers by proxy, via network attacks, spyware, malware, etc.

So, like automobiles, it has become necessary to make the engine more difficult to tinker with. The alternative would be to empower government to handle the protection of users from one another, an alternative that only a government could find attractive.

Enter User Access Control. This feature addresses some of the issues that have been passed down from one generation of operating system to another, issues which have simplified the operation of the computer in the past, but now make it much more dangerous. Users have traditionally run their computers with Administrator priveleges for the local machine, which gives them essentially carte blanche permission to do anything to the computer via any application they run. Users, even administrators, will now run under a Standard User Account, and when an application needs permission beyond the allowed permissions for that account, it will prompt them for the necessary credentials.

While this might seem problematic, with regards to the day-to-day operation of the computer, there are things which can be manually configured to prevent the constant interruption of the user for such things as registry permission. But they must be manually configured, with User Access Control firmly involved in the process. And this requires a more sophisticated understanding of security than your average user is likely to have.

This is going to be a tragedy for mal-ware, which typically assumes the identity of the loggged-on user, and attempts to run processes without the user's being aware of it. It also results in the increased difficulty of users to perform certain types of tinkering, at least without a mimimum of knowledge about the inner mechanisms of the computer.

Thus, not only is the computer better protected from the evil outside world, but also from the willfully-ignorant average user. This means that software companies can continue to provide software that does more without being overwhelmed by support incidents that stem from user error.

Windows Defender

Windows Defender has been available as a free add-on for the XP operating system, and marketed as a tool for protection against spyware (while Windows OneCare Live has been marketed as the Microsoft anti-virus solution). While this is certainly true with regards to spyware, it is not the whole truth with regards to the Vista operating system.

Windows Defender is used by Vista to support other services that monitor the health of the system. It also allows the user to remove or disable any software running on the system that may be suspicious. In a sense, it is the "Software GateKeeper" for the operating system.

Service Hardening

Windows Services have traditionally been a point of vulnerability to the system, mostly due to the fact that they run without any visible user interface, performing tasks in the background, without the user's knowledge. Again, traditionally, a number of factors have enabled Services to perform necessary maintenance tasks in the context of the local System or Administrator account. This in no longer the case.

Most Services have traditionally run under the System or LocalSystem account, which has granted them carte blanche access to almost everything in the local system. Vista runs most services under the LocalService or NetworkService accounts, accounts which have much more restrictions with regards to changes made to the operating system.

Services now run with individual security identifiers (SIDs). This gives each Service a unique identity, enabling each Service to be individually configured with regards to what specific permissions it has. Each Service may have its own Access Control List (ACL), which enables it to allow or deny access to its services on a user-by-user basis.

Services are write-restricted on an individual basis, meaning that each service can be explicitly granted or denied write permission to files and registry entries.

Services by default are not allowed to interact with the user's desktop, preventing cross-session interaction, and such things as Shatter attacks.

Services are configured with individual Firewall policies, meaning that each Service has specific Firewall priveleges, rather than carte blanche access to network ports and addresses.

As a software developer, I need to run as an administrator, I need to be able to grant applications such as Microsoft Visual Studio permission to do low-level debugging, and I need to run a plethora of diagnostic and devlopment applications that perform operations on the local operating system and the network. I need to set up Internet Information Services on the local machine, to run a Microsoft SQL Server on the local machine, and so on.

So, I had a bit of difficulty installing all of my software. It wasn't really difficult; it required some research and time to do it. Still, I was able to set up my system and software in a few days. And if I had to do it again, I could probably do it all in a single day.

But as a software developer, I can understand and appreciate the enhanced security in the Vista operating system. I can accept the apparent intrusiveness of User Access Control (which I have turned off on my local machine, but would not recommend it to anyone other than a developer). I can also accept the fact that I will have to perform additional tasks with regards to writing software to run on Windows Vista. This will require more time in the short run, but save much support time in the long run. I'm sure every software developer has experienced the headache of hearing from users who have done something completely unrelated to the software in question, which has had an effect on their software, and had to straighten out a user's self-made mess. At least every developer who has been in this business long enough has experienced this, and no doubt Microsoft has had an earful of it.

Support is by far the most expensive aspect of software development, contrary to what most people may believe. While development itself is costly, the cost is short-term, while the cost for support is on-going, and may go on for years.

So, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you enjoy the play? I have to say that I am highly impressed with Windows Vista. There is far more there than meets the eye, and a lot more than you will hear about in advertisements and commercials for the operating system. Eye candy sells software, but it is power and potential that gives it legs. Vista is well-supplied with both power and potential, more than anyone not working at Microsoft will know about for years to come.

I look forward to the continuing learning experience of working with it.

A Phantom Asparagus

Anyway, as I was at some point beyond the visceral amplitude required for some form of ordinality, insofar as many a hungry and iterative condition would permit me to bewail the pandemonium of a phantom asparagus, I betook me to assail in some small fashion, as it were, absent from any fall plankton, or juice in a flesh gibbon.

The means of such, having befallen upon accomplishments both vicarious and educational, so it was as it should have been perhaps, a glancing backwater host of effervescent personification. No mere impediment would inscribe this invective. Only a shoeshine in a vacuum, and sometimes not at all, of course.

Altruism aside, let us happen upon a grotesque, for only in the event of a vacant idiocy would this imaginative edification find any form of ornamental vice with which to whiten your wick. Sick? Boy, a bowl of basins, not officially so, but more in the vein of a scar victoriously painted inside the phantom asparagus, handling its' own fruit in a stockyard cannibal. It is in such a suit, me a fortunate empty (of course), and only a king with a kind of a certain wild animal.

Assiduously, the vale investing afar of a formal opulence, in the form of a fairy, fell from an apple ordinary and able, belatedly pasted itself by the bare and bony flail. Until such time as would in all honesty, hitherto and frowardly skating over the silken tumbler, such and if as much as might, the candy became a kind of cane, angling about on a single wet and wobbly wheel. But then you might have known from the mangled overture, the vicious wink, the thought of which I stank.

And so upon the leaving of this painted cowboy, let not your best be less than blessed, in case of a crazed and lazy crayon, long and lost in the caverns upon which to play no fluid icon. A smatter of actual happenstance would in all victory be spoiled by the gradual violence in a kettle of kitty litter left behind by a blonde in obvious bob.

Eeyore, about seventh.

Chutney (Uncle)

OK, Maybe It's Me

I had this idea for a short film, something like you'd see on You-Tube (which I never look at, unless someone sends me something). It was what I thought was a really esoteric joke, and funny because it was so inappropriate. But Der Weiderschlaussen didn't seem to think much of it. So, let me know if you get it.

OK, it's about Gerald Ford and James Brown, who are currently touring separately, coming together for a special viewing for folks who are fans of both of them. A sort of "Together for the Last Time - Gerry and Jim!" show.

The opening shot is a large theater stage with a red curtain drawn, sort of like that curtain in that room in Twin Peaks, you know, the room where everybody talks backwards? Anyway, it's a stationary shot of the curtain, perhaps with "I Feel Good" playing in the background.

The curtain opens to 2 coffins standing side by side, one with Gerald Ford, and one with James Brown, facing the audience. There is silence for about 10 seconds.

Finally, the body of Gerald Ford falls forward out of his coffin, face down on the stage. Laugh track. The curtain closes.

So, is that too esoteric? Too obtuse? Too inappropriate? Too sick?

There's something about it that I like. But I do have an odd sense of humor.

Personal Responsibility? Not My Problem.

Programming is all about problem-solving, but so is most everything else in life, depending on how you look at it. I will always be grateful that I became a programmer, as it taught me to see almost every aspect of my life as a task, a set of requirements, and a set of problems to be solved. From my experience as a programmer, I have learned the science of problem-solving, and practice it at every opportunity.

Part of that process is the elimination of factors that do not contribute to the solution of a given problem or task. Anything which does not contribute to the solution of a problem is a waste of time and resources, both of which are finite. To spend time on a problem that is never solved is also a waste of time. Therefore, it is not logical to waste time and resources on thoughts or activites that do not contribute to the solution of a problem, as the very failure to solve the problem would become a waste of time and resources in and of itself.

In other words, take anything you desire, and consider the attainment of that thing a requirement. Consider the cost of solving the problem, and before you begin, make a determination whether you are able to solve it, and whether it is worth the time and resources necessary to solve it. If the answer is yes, commit yourself to the solution of the problem. Otherwise, you will be wasting time and resources that could well be spent on other requirements. Once that decision is reached, eliminate factors that impede the solution of the problem, and begin the task.

So, how does this all fit in with Personal Responsibility? Well, the process of analysis involves the factoring of resources and time with other "environmental factors." These are situations, circumstances, and events over which you have no control, and yet which affect the process. Notice that I mentioned this is part of the process of analysis, which is the preparation phase of any process, and not the execution phase. It is the phase in which all factors are taken into account, and a roadmap or plan for the execution of the tasks necessary to achieve the requirement(s).

Now, we usually think about the concept of Personal Responsibility as relating to ideas which have nothing to do with programming or problem-solving, such as the concepts of blame, fault, and success or failure. But that is simply not the case. In fact, the concepts of blame, fault, success, failure, and similar concepts are general enough to fit into the model of programming and the model of problem-solving (which are in fact the same model).

If we look at our daily struggle in life, our struggle to "succeed" in life, to overcome the various trials and tests we encounter, our ambition to succeed at whatever it is we want to do, as a series of problems to solve, we can apply problem-solving principles to these types of things with equally-useful results.

When we apply the process of analysis to our course of action in day-to-day life, certain common human traits and behaviors emerge as helpful, and as detrimental to that struggle. For example, we are all subject to the activity of looking backwards at our past life. In fact, this can be a useful aspect of analysis, in the same way that a military After-Action Review (AAR) is useful after a battle or other operation takes place. The purpose of this activity is to prepare for future similar activities by analyzing what went right, what went wrong, and why. It enables the individual or organization to review and/or modify plans.

It is important to note that an AAR is not a process of finger-pointing or blaming. It is purely analytical. The problem with finger-pointing and blaming is that it is not useful to the process of planning the next operation. In other words, finger-pointing, blaming, regret, and so on, are emotional reactions to something perceived. If, for example, I were creating a game which involved sprites moving on a surface, and the surface was black, and I had created some sprites that were black, a test of the game would reveal that the black sprites against a black background made them difficult to see. I could, on one hand, look at the sprites and make the observation "Those sprites are black. They are hard to see." If I were to stop there, I would have accomplished nothing. It would be more useful to make the observation that, because the sprites are hard to see, they should changed to a different color which would contrast against the background. At that point, I have formulated a plan to correct the problem, and any further time spent thinking about how black the sprites are currently would be of no profit whatsoever.

In life, we often waste mental and emotional resources by obsessing on things that are past. We hold grudges, and have poor opinions about people who have caused us suffering. However, this is not useful in determining what course of action we must take in order to succeed. It is more useful to think of people who have caused us pain in terms of how they may fit in with or affect our plan to succeed. Revenge, for example, is a useless endeavor. It embroils one in a task or set of tasks which satisfy no useful requirements. It may satisfy some emotional desire, but the question is, does the satisfaction of an emotional desire bring me closer to my life's goals? And so, looking at others with some sort of qualitative evaluation, and contemplating that quantitative evaluation is pointless. It wastes resources that could be used to achieve personal goals or requirements.

In this sense, blame, regret, and similar backwards-looking activities constitute an attention to environmental conditions over which we have no control. It is not possible to change the past. It is not possible to force another person to change their behavior. It is only possible to make decisions about what we as individuals will do in the present and future. Recognizing that is a part of Personal Responsibility. I have no control over anything except the decisions that I make now and in the future.

I may or may not be able to achieve my goals, yet I only have control over my own decisions. Therefore, my primary focus should always be on the decisions that I make now, and what decisions I will make in the future. When I conduct a personal AAR, I should be concerned only with what decisions I should make, how I might want to change my plan of action, based upon a review of what has happened, how I behaved in the situation, how enironmental factors affected the success or failure of that plan, and how I should modify the plan for the future, accordingly.

Similarly, this concept applies to our dependence upon other people or groups of people for our personal welfare. Humanity as a whole is a society. We are a vast network of individual human beings who have a variety of unique combinations of characteristics, properties, and personalities. We interact with the Human Race by interacting with those in each of our personal "subnets" of friends, associates, and acquaintances. We exchange resources and support one another to one degree or another. And to a varying extent, each of us is dependent upon various individuals and groups for support in the achievement of our individual requirements. There are precious few isolated individuals in the world who are not at all dependent upon one or more other human beings or groups of human beings.

Some of us seem to be more dependent for certain requirements than others, and this may in fact be the case. This is why there are entities such as charitable organizations and governmental organizations that attempt to meet these special needs. However, it is a mistake to think that any of us is entirely independent.

On the other hand, it is a serious mistake for any of us, regardless of our condition, regardless of our dependence upon others, to make the leap of assumption that we cannot achieve our goals/requirements without them. Note that I am not saying that we all can achieve our goals/requirements without the aid of others. I am saying that to assume we cannot is a mistake. In fact, a good plan of execution includes the factoring in of contingencies, changes in the environmental conditions in which we exist, which may require a change in the decisions that we make.

We have seat belts and airbags in our cars. This is not because we expect at some point to be involved in an accident. These things are built into cars because of the possibility that an accident may occur. When and if an accident occurs, we have a recourse, which enables us to avoid serious injury.

Similarly, in the process of development of plans in life, it is useful to plan for contingencies, situations in which certain resources upon which we seem to depend may change or cease to exist. It is wise to plan for the eventuality that such things will happen, because they often do, to each of us, in different ways at different times.

When I was in my late 30's I was very poor. At one time I had no job, no car, no money, and no place to live. But for a number of years I had been working on a plan to change my circumstances. I had discovered that I have an above-average ability to solve problems, that I had a proclivity to analysis, and realized that I was very good with logic and enjoyed solving puzzles of various kinds. I also realized that I was both fascinated with and good at figuring out how to use computers. So, in my spare time, after work in the evenings, and on weekends, I had been teaching myself programming.

By the time I had reached the bottom-most point of my neediness, I had also acquired a skill. I had an opportunity to pursue this new line of work, and took the opportunity. Before a year had gone by, I had started my own consulting business. A dozen years later, I lack for nothing.

In other words, I took Personal Responsibility for my situation. It was not a matter of blame, of making critical observations about myself, the government, my friends, or anyone at all. It turned out to be a matter of analyzing my own strengths and weaknesses, the environmental conditions of my life, and formulating a plan to achieve something better. After that, it was a simple matter of doing those things that I could do under the circumstances.

Note that I am not taking credit for this achievement. I am simply pointing out that I made the decisions that I was able to make, took the actions that I was able to take, and took responsibility for those decisions and actions. Logically, that was the only choice I could make which would have any effect on the outcome. In other words, to have wasted my time and resources considering anything else would have been counter-productive, and diminished the probability of the desired outcome.

To take Personal Responsibility is not a guarantee of success. Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, in the spectrum of probability, the best course of action to take is one which increases the probability of success. And because the only things that each of us has any control over are the decisions we make, and the actions we take, Personal Responsibility is logically useful. To dwell on anything over which we have no control is logically useless.

Asperger Surprise

the beautiful hat or the ugly hat

There is a certain pâté de fois gras to the following somewhat ambiguous tale. In the original language, for example, it is often deliciously unclear who (or what) the subject of a given sentence is, to the point where the king might reasonably be confused (by the reader?) for his hat. These subtleties fall through the cracks, alas! in the descent to English, the hoodlum progeny of ancient Germanic ancestors. There is a certain Bratwurst, if it were, as it were, were it not, notwithstanding; the inescapable, though unintentional new emphases are nonetheless engaging. At least, in the brainmatting of this wistful nannyhammer. If nothing else, possibly a rejoinder to render unto Caesar and in the very least, humbly, a German koan. For your perusal. Ever humbly yours, Der Wiederschlaussen.

the beautiful hat or the ugly hat

by Friedrich Achleitner (translated by David Stiller)

1
the king is at the narrow door of his darkened house. he takes the yellow key out of the aristocratic pouch. that is the one. and that is an aristocratic pouch. he has the yellow key in hand. he will put the yellow key in the imprecise keyhole. he puts the yellow key in the imprecise keyhole. now the yellow key is in the imprecise keyhole. and soon the king will give the narrow door a push. soon the narrow door will be open. now he gives the narrow door a push. now it is open. now the king can peacefully put the yellow key back into the aristocratic pouch. the king puts the yellow key peacefully back into the aristocratic pouch. the king put the yellow key peacefully back into the aristocratic pouch. now the king steps into his darkened house. he stepped into his darkened house and the narrow door is once again locked.

2
soon the king will enter a cold room. the cold room has a narrow door. that is the cold room. the king entered the cold room. he steps to the excellent table. he will lay his beautiful hat on the excellent table. is his hat now on the excellent table. where is the queen. she is in another room. who is that. yes, that is the queen. her name is ann. this cold room has two narrow doors. that is one of the narrow doors of the cold room. that is the other narrow door of the cold room. and that is an important window of the cold room. and that is another important window. one window is open. the other is more important. the queen is not in the cold room.

3
the king came into the cold room. the king put his beautiful hat on the excellent table. people say this hat is ugly. an ugly hat. the ugly hat is unworthy of a king. o, this ugly hat of the king. the king went through this narrow door. he left the cold room. the queen comes into the cold room. she will see the ugly hat. she will go to the excellent table. she goes to the excellent table. she sees the ugly hat. what is that. the king’s ugly hat. when did she see it. she saw it while standing at the excellent table. she will take the ugly hat from the excellent table. she takes the ugly hat from the excellent table. she has the ugly hat in hand. she leaves the cold room. with the ugly hat, she left the cold room. she had the king’s ugly hat in hand.

4
those are green hooks. an ugly hat is on a green hook. it is the queen’s ugly hat. she puts the king’s ugly hat on another green hook. now the king’s ugly hat is also on a green hook. the king comes again into the cold room. he goes again to the excellent table. his ugly hat is no longer on the excellent table. he says. where is my beautiful hat. i put it on the excellent table. i put it right there. where is my beautiful hat. i do not have it. it is not here. where is it. queen, where is my beautiful hat. the queen will come into the cold room. she comes.

5
she says. here i am. the king says. where is my beautiful hat. she says. it was on the excellent table. i put it on the green hook in the other room. i put it right there. it is there. it is on the green hook. the king says. i will go into the other room. i will take my beautiful hat. he takes his ugly hat. did he take his ugly hat. he took it. he has it in hand. he left the cold room. as he saw the ugly hat, he took it from the green hook. he came again into the cold room. he had the ugly hat in hand. he gives the ugly hat to the queen.

6
he says. queen. he says. what is in my beautiful hat. the queen will take the ugly hat in hand. what is she taking out of the ugly hat. what does she have in her hand. money. she has money in her hand. it was in the ugly hat. which was on the excellent table. what did she see. she saw the ugly hat. but she did not see the money. she took the ugly hat. she put it on the green hook in the other room. the king then went into the other room and took his ugly hat from the green hook. who took it. the king took it. does the queen see the money now. yes, now she sees it. she says. king. how did this money come to be in the ugly hat.

7
i was walking on the street. the wind came and took my beautiful hat off my head. i went after that beautiful hat. as i took it in hand, i saw the money. the money was under that beautiful hat. as the wind came, it took my beautiful hat off my head. then it came down again. and the money was there. the beautiful hat was on the money. the money was under the beautiful hat.

Time And A Word

The other day I was watching the movie "Equlibrium," which starred Christian Bale, and it wasn't bad at all. A bit like "The Matrix" in style, with a smaller budget, and a few cliches, but thought-provoking in different ways, and nicely done. Of course, Christian Bale was the best part of the film.

Anyway, it took me awhile to realize that several terms in the film were Biblical in nature. Bale's character worked for "The Tetragrammaton," which was overseen by a man called simply "Father." Suddenly at one point, I remembered where I had heard that term before ("Tetragrammaton"). Yes, I know, if I were younger it would have jumped out at me, but that's life.

In the Wikipedia discussion of the etymology of the Tetragrammaton, I noticed something I had not noticed before, which was the causality implicit in it, which has been some matter of debate. You may read the discussion fully, if you wish, but I do recall among the translations in English, the famous "I am that I am," which also seems to imply causality. This led me to further research on other names of God, such as Elohim (the paradoxically both singular and plural name), El, et al. ;-)

Anyway, I did some new research on the term, and came across this article and some very interesting links in Wikipedia. When, the other day, I was prompted at some point to revisit the term "logos," I couldn't help but see the connection in the original Ancient Greek meaning of the word:

"Logos in Greek means the underlying order of reality of which ordinary people are only unconsciously aware....Heraclitus also used Logos to mean the undifferentiated material substrate from which all things came:"

Note the implicit causality in this meaning of the word. This, combined with my other studies of theoretical physics, mathematics, etc., sparked me to remember such phrases from Jesus as "Behold, I make all things new." If time is but a dimension, and God transcends time, then He is both making, has made, and will make (to our understanding) all things "new" (or all at once). In a sense, it seems that the act of Creation is not something that happened long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, but has always been happening in the "here and now."

And of course, this also reminds me of one of my favorite tunes, "Right Here Right Now" by Jesus Jones:

A woman on the radio talked about revolution
When its already passed her by
Bob Dylan didnt have this to sing about you
You know it feels good to be alive

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history

I saw the decade in, when it seemed
The world could change at the blink of an eye
And if anything
Then there's your sign... of the times

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be

Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history
Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history

More Songs About Elephants and Food

The other day, having my own peculiar interest in elephants, while researching the subject, I stumbled across an interesting page of elephant jokes. Among these were the following:

How do you get three elephants into a taxi?
One in the front, next to the driver, and two in the back.

How do you know there's an elephant in your house?
There's a taxi outside with two impatient elephants.

How do you know if there's an elephant in your refrigerator?
There's a taxi outside it with two impatient elephants.

These excellent elephant jokes were reminiscent of one I had heard and remembered from my youth:

How do you fit six elephants in a Volkswagen?
Three in the front, and three in the back.

Upon reflection, I realized that there is a lesson buried in this seemingly illogical humor, a lesson in problem-solving. Problems often seem, at first blush, impossible to solve. Elephants are very, very large animals. At the time I had heard the joke initially, about 40 years ago, Volkswagens came in two distinct and distinctive types: The original Beetle, and the Bus. Neither of these was large enough to accomodate a single elephant. The Beetle had a time holding more than two people due to the smallness of the back seat area.

Of course, it wouldn't be an elephant joke if it made sense. An elephant joke, like a David Lynch film, doesn't seem to make any sense initially. However, to quote from one of my favorite films by David Lynch, "Lost Highway," "There's no such thing as a bad coincidence." Elephant jokes have an internal set of rules, unlike almost any other joke form. They do not follow the rules of ordinary jokes, but there is an internal logic, and a logical consistency in their illogic.

Okay, where am I going with this? Oh yes, something about problem-solving, and putting six elephants into a Volkswagen. Is it impossible to fit six elephants into a Volkswagen? No, not at all.

Do I see your eyebrows raising? Is this some kind of trick? No, it is not. If we apply the logic of analysis to the problem, we see that the first step is to accurately define the problem. The human brain is a remarkable device, capable of feats of perception and calculation that dwarf the capabilities of the most powerful of computers we have yet to create, and possessing intelligence that artifical intelligence can only mimic in clumsy and minscule ways. In fact, it is so vast and complex that it is somewhat unreliable. We have the capacity (by necessity) of being able to perceive only a portion of something, and construct an intelligent model of the whole, with more or less accuracy, depending on the circumstances.

In fact, it is not the thing itself that we perceive, but the model that we create in our brain. For example, driving down a "Lost Highway" late at night, we may see a small pair of bright lights at a distance, which move only a little, and yet relative to one another, they seem to remain in the same configuration. As we observe the shape and configuration of these lights, and their subtle left, right, up, and down movement, we begin to buid a model of a vehicle in our brains. Depending upon the visiblity and distance, combined with our experience in driving, and our knowledge of automobiles and similar human vehicle constructions, we may begin to fill in some of the details. We "see" a car, estimate its' size, speed and distance, perhaps even something about its' make and model.

As the lights begin to grow in size, we presume that the vehicle is approaching us. We estimate the time it will take before we will be in close proximity to the vehicle, and develop a navigation plan that takes the vehicle, its size, distance, and so on, and includes instructions for avoiding a collision.

The crux of the problem here is, when we get close enough, we realize that we have not been looking at the headlights of a vehicle at all, but a pair of reflectors on the rail along the side of the road. In fact, our model was flawed. Of course, we immediately revise the model and continue with the plan, taking into account the new parameters of the model.

The point I'm making is that, when analyzing a problem, we are presented with limited information, no matter how well the problem is explained to us. Because of the nature of the way we think, we are prone to make assumptions about the missing information. In the case of the elephant joke we are discussing, we envision in our minds a Vokswagen Beetle (old or new, depending on our life experience), and taking into account the context of the "problem" (an elephant joke), we also model six full-grown elephants, crammed into a tiny car.

The image/model we have created is undeniably humorous; it is ludicrous. And, with the proper sense of humor operating, most of us laugh at the silliness of the idea. Of course, some of us lack an appreciation for that sort of humor, and may grimace, look crestfallen, or respond in some other less-than-positive manner. But that is the exception, not the general rule.

However, looking at the joke as a problem to solve, while it may seem at first glance to be a ridiculous impossibility, that is only because of the assumptions we have made, due to the intent of the joke. Good analysis tends to minimize assumptions, a skill which is not easily acquired, because we are trained from birth to make assumptions, and for good reason. Our perception is, after all, limited. Our ability to make assumptions, to build working models that provide intelligent guesses about missing data, constitutes an important aspect of our ability to survive and prosper in life.

In fact, breaking down the "problem" into its' actual consituent components, with nothing added, no assumptions made, we are left with the following:

• The goal is to fit six elephants into a Volkswagen.
• There is nothing specific regarding the elephants in the requirement.
• There is nothing specific about the Volkswagen in the requirement.
• There is no specification that the vehicle may not be altered.
• There is no time limit regarding the achievement of the goal.

Obviously, fitting six fully-grown average elephants into a Volkswagen Beetle is an impossibility. However, elephants, when they are born, are only 2 1/2 - 3 feet tall, and weigh in the neighborhood of 250 pounds. One could easily imagine fitting three of them into a Volkswagen Beetle.

However, the type of Volkswagen is not specified. One could almost certainly fit six infant elephants into a Volkswagen bus. I would not be surprised if, in fact, this has never been done.

But let's imagine that a Volkswagen bus is just a little too small for six infant elephants. Today, there are even larger Volkswagen vehicles made. And a Volkswagen bus could certainly be modified to accomodate six infant elephants.

In conclusion, while I have certainly spoiled the original joke, I hope that I have demonstrated some important skills necessary to successful problem-solving. First, don't walk away from a problem simply because it gives a first impression of being impossible to solve. Second, make as few assumptions as possible. Third, use your imagination to conceive of unusual solutions to the problem. Don't limit your thought, but take advantage of your ability to constuct imaginary models of a huge variety of types to choose from. There is no such thing as a bad idea. There are only ideas which are superior to other ideas. Even a seemingly ridiculous idea may spark thought that leads to a reasonable or achievable one.

Finally, be persistent. Persistence is a virtue that, along with patience, is often responsible for solving many apparently impossible problems. In fact, patience is possibly more important than persistence. Some, perhaps even most problems eventually solve themselves. And sometimes, perhaps most often, the best action to take in solving a problem is to do nothing, at least as a first step.

There's something about nothing...

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Kramer Goes Ballistic

What do I make of it? Good question. It sparks a lot of thought about different things, like "hate speech," "name-calling," "political correctness," politics, media, and humanity in general.

Do I think Michael Richards was wrong? That would be too simple a question to answer with a "yes" or "no" answer. I believe Mr. Richards has some buried racial issues, which he has yet to successfully deal with. I believe that he lost control, in his anger, and as commonly happens, those issues manifested themselves. I believe that he spoke words that hurt, not so much because of the words themselves, but because of the intent behind them, and the buried issues which he revealed in his tirade. Clearly, to speak words that hurt is as sinful as to strike someone physically. As the Bible says, "Life and death are in the power of the tongue." He was clearly wrong to lash out in anger and speak words that cause pain and suffering as he did.

I am also aware that he publicly apologized, and that was the right thing to do. Do I hold it against him? As he publicly showed remorse, I cannot. We are all guilty of doing the same thing in different ways from time to time. If he had tried to defend his actions, I would think that he was unrepentant, and would expect him to continue to make the same mistake over and over again, which would cause me grief, both for him, and for those whom he would hurt in the future. Because he repented publicly, I feel better, more hopeful. In neither case could I condemn him, as condemnation, anger, and retribution are not helpful. They do not solve problems; they only exacerbate problems.

Do I question his motivation for the public apology? Of course. However, I cannot judge that, as I know very little about the man. In any case, it is not my responsibility, nor do I have the authority to "fix" anyone else but myself. If he committed a crime, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, to determine his guilt or innocence, and as to a punitive course of action to take. If he were liable for some form of litigation, again, that litigation would not involve me. And I am well aware that the courts' purpose is not to determine the truth or falsehood of anything, nor is it to determine the morality of anything, but only to render impartial (or as impartial as is possible for any human organization) decisions regarding the law, to keep order in society.

As to the word "nigger" in and of itself, I feel that society as a whole has misunderstood the issue with regards to the word. The word "nigger," in and of itself, has no moral or ethical connotation. It is an old word, which, like many other English words, was originally derived from a mispronunciation of another word, "negro," which simply means "black," and pertains specifically to the color of skin. A hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, it was simply a word that identified members of dark-skinned races. However, over the past 60 or so years, it has been used in different ways, and some of the ways are truly evil, in that they are intended as insult, to cause pain, to degrade another human being. And as I mentioned earlier, verbal violence is violence, and it is almost always wrong.

Therefore, for whatever reason that so many people of dark complexion are injured by the simple use of the word, I would never use it in their presence, simply because it is not my wish to cause pain or suffering to anyone. If I were to use the word, it would not be with the intention to cause pain, but because I know that simply hearing it regardless of the intent with which it is used causes many people pain, I would avoid its' use.

Changing the emphasis here, and speaking more generally, I think it's a shame that "politcal correctness" exists, as it has resulted in a climate of fear in which many terms and words that are used without evil intent are branded as evil, and there are in society many people who would attempt to employ coercion to change the way that other people talk. This is, in my opinion, hurtful in itself, as well as ignorant, because it ignores the cultural aspect of speech. Even in countries where the same language is spoken, words take on different emphases from on culture to another, and from one sub-culture to another.

I believe that many people in the world are lazy in their thinking, and do not want to go to the trouble and work of discerning intent, to take the uncomfortable stance of withholding judgment when there is ambiguity, but would prefer instead to simply identify certain words and phrases as "immoral," "unethical," and "hate speech." It is these same people, because of their lazy thinking, who often cause trouble where no trouble previously existed. They are well-meaning fools, blind to their own sins. This also grieves me.

As for me, if I paid to see someone perform, to watch a movie, listen to a piece of music, or read some literature, and was offended, I would simply avoid the person who offended me, unless and until they repented. I would walk out of such a movie, stop listening to the piece of music, or put down the book. I do believe in freedom of speech. I also believe that I am free to listen or not.

It saddens me to see the media making a "cash cow" out of the incident, and politicians using it as political fodder. This sort of behavior is completely self-centered, and is not beneficial to society. It saddens me that so many people, like lemmings, simply follow these self-serving organizations, believe whatever they are told, and don't think for themselves, simply because it's too much work, and they want to get back to their soap opera, or whatever other diversion they employ to coddle themselves, and avoid dealing with their own personal sins and failings.

As for me, I will take whatever lessons I can from my meditations on the events, and continue to strive to improve myself, to become a better person, to purify my heart, so that I might be a better servant of humanity, because that is my own personal goal.

You Know ... Al Franken...

Saline

Among swollen mirages and the further diffraction of exhaust fumes, hovering glints of windshield and fender shimmer like the chain mail sleeve of a drowned shark hunter, boiled in a thermal current. Sodden palm up, the lifeless arm hangs for miles, terminating in flashing orange barrels, stolid pylon digits that allow but a thin flux between thumb and forefinger. One vehicle at a time idles haltingly around the diesel generator, its clicking billboard (“left lane closed,” “merge right”), and the single roadside worker who boisterously pours asphalt. Beneath his filter mask, the curve of the worker’s cheeks increases. (Mischief!) And then—

A stocky police car boxes along the shoulder and totters at the elbow. When it rolls at last to a stop, opposite the direction of traffic, the driver’s door opens. A moment passes before the officer steps out, straightens his trousers, hat, and tie, admires his gig line, and says hello. The roadside worker holds still. Slowly, perhaps uncertainly, the officer turns back to his car, gropes one hand to the door and braces the other on the roof, then thrusts his head inside. The worker lowers his eyes to the steaming asphalt and feels his bowels lunge. Sucked by an internal undertow, he clenches his rectum and swallows. He rakes the burning grit.

After all, the worker is not employed by the city. He is conducting an amateur social experiment, which is how he presumes to explain it in the event of discovery. “It was inspired, your Honor, by the soda machine at work. It has been so hot lately … yet somebody taped a note to the buttons: out of order, as a joke. I won’t tell who. It was hand written, on notebook paper! And nobody bought a drink.” The worker has set aside five paychecks to rent the necessary industrial equipment. The fishnet orange vest—that, he already owned. There is not actually a pot hole. He desires only to see how far this will go.

The police officer reaches beneath his seat and pops the trunk. He moves to the rear, leans into the gaping cavity. His curse is audible in spite of the sporadic moan of traffic in low gear. After a full minute he gently closes the trunk and chuckles nervously to the worker, “I seem to have misplaced my baton. My … ah, traffic directing tool.” Each man looks the other in the eye.

Imagine this scene on film, the photographer having stepped back to encompass a vista of jellyfish clouds, tentacles drawing forth pollution, the sunken arm that flourishes though dead, the glitter of wetsuits—and in the foreground, framed low and a trifle off-center, two men in uniform (one soiled, the other spotless) whose faces reveal astonishment. But most epiphanies go unrecorded, and indeed, the keen flash that passes between these two men is a private affair. Without another word, through the saline solution of everyday living, each has recognized the other as a fraud. They revel in the bizarre coincidence, for it is a shared façade.

Pouring asphalt, the worker grins. The officer, donning a serious expression, directs traffic with his bare hands.

Epilogue: Near the end of the queue, the author of “Saline,” inconvenienced by traffic, has plenty of time to think. He has approached this story from more than one angle and considered pursuing alternative emphases. A minor change (if not irrelevant) introduces the officer’s character first. Another, perhaps stronger, follows the same plot but establishes both men as genuine representatives of their respective vocations, who nonetheless recognize each other as frauds.

Politics - Sound and Fury

The Game of Life

Life is not a game. But Life is like a game. That is, Life can be modelled as a game, depending upon the criteria for the model. For example, the word "game" is defined variously as "An amusement or pastime," "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators," and "anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules," as well as other nuances and variations of the idea. Perhaps a bit of etymology would be helpful. The word's English origins are apparently from the pre-Germanic prefix "ga" - meaning "collective," and "mann" - meaning "person." It implies a collective human activity, and has multiple derivations in modern English. However, it is in the sense of a "contest played according to rules" that I am interested in, for the purpose of this discussion.

It is in this sense that I want to model Life as being like a game. In fact, as a fan of role-playing games, I see that Life is much like a role-playing game, in which each of us has a role, or identity, and a quest, or a set of quests, goals, a set of requirements, if you will, that we endeavor to fulfill. Among the most common of these are simple survival, enjoyment, peace of mind, the acquisition of wealth (perhaps in the pursuit of other requirements, as wealth is more a means to a variety of ends, rather than the ends in themselves), acceptance by other human beings, sexual fulfillment, and a variety of less-common (but certainly common) goals/requirements, such as power, knowledge, physical strength, admiration, the acquisition of material goods, and so on.

At any rate, most of the goals/requirements that we seek are most likely sought in pursuit of the more basic and common goals/requirements that we all share. Indeed, some of the more unusual goals that are pursued by individuals most likely in some way originate from the most basic and common of goals that we all share. That is, at some point, we are almost (if not entirely) all diverted or distracted from the pursuit of the most basic of requirements by a subjective impression that some less common goal is a means to a more common goal, and the more common goal is eventually forgotten in the process. But that is the subject of another discussion.

Getting back to the Game of Life, we are left with, at the purest level, a set of goals/requirements which we seek to fulfill, an environment in which we "play," which forms the "rules" of the "game," a combination of unique gifts, abilities, talents, resources, and handicaps, and our own ability to make decisions, to strategize, etc., in pursuit of these goals. At times, the game seems competitive, and at others, it seems cooperative. At all times, it is a matter of making decisions in pursuit of some set of goals or requirments.

So, looking at Life as a game, society forms an environment with rules that we must navigate in order to succeed, whatever each person's individual idea of success may be. While many of these rules are not hard and fast, such as the influence of peer pressure, local customs, etc., there are rules that are determined by those whom we collectively place into positions of Authority, such as Kings, Presidents, members of Congress, Houses of Parliament, City Councils, Police, and so on. These Authorities operate under a set of rules that are generally referred to as "laws," and these rules are enforced by various sorts of threats to freedom, life, liberty, etc., such as fines, imprisonment, censure, exile, pain, and death.

To succeed in the game, one must successfully navigate the environment, exploit the rules to one's own advantage, and employ a strategy of action determined to obtain that which one desires. This is no small task, for human beings are exceedingly complex, which makes the environment complex, and the rules complex.

However, the best strategy in any game is to be aware of the environmental conditions, to be aware of the rules, to keep one's attention on the goal(s), to formulate a plan that prioritizes the various goals, recognizes the dependencies of goals upon the achievement of other goals in an organized manner, employs the situational influences, environment, rules, etc., to work the plan, and to be able to modify the plan accordingly, as the situation changes.

In other words, playing the Game of Life is a lot like the process of writing software. Writing software is originated by a set of requirements. As the developer studies the requirements, the developer must also be aware of the situational/environmental conditions under which these requirements must be met. The process of analysis involves identifying resources, such as time, manpower, money, etc., limitations of these resources, breaking the set of requirements down into manageable "chunks" or sub-tasks, identifying the conditions under which each task must be met, and prioritizing the tasks according to their dependencies one upon another.

Because of this, most programmers that I know of both enjoy and are adept at game-play, problem-solving, puzzles, mathematics, etc.

Now, every programmer is aware of, and dreads, those changes in the conditions and/or requirements that arise during the development process. These changes can have catastrophic effects upon the plans and procedures implemented, and certainly impede progress. Yet, they are painfully constant. As a result, every good programmer is adept at adjusting plans, planning for changes, and what we often term "workarounds," procedures developed ad hoc to surmount an unexpected and blocking change.

So, how does all this relate to Politics, and why the reference to that immemorable verse from William Shakespeare, from his play "MacBeth," here quoted more or less in full:

"Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

This quote is very much like many of the verses of King Solomon's book Ecclesiastes:

"All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Politicians are people who, for one reason or another, set out to change the rules of the game of Life, to enact new laws, occasionally to even repeal existing laws. They haggle over the equity of laws, the oppression of the poor, however "the poor" may be defined (since everything is relative), the need to punish "oppressors," whoever they may be identified as, and - oh yes, one of my favorite political phrases - "to level the playing field."

Yes, even Politicians seem to understand the Life is a game. They strategize amongst themselves, hold their caucuses and their huddles, and of course, in their own self-interest, make every effort to appear to be changing the world for the better. But what is the end of all this brou-ha-ha? Sound and Fury, signifying nothing.

The Game of Life continues; only the rules and conditions change. The goals of each individual quest change rarely. But ultimately, no one else is responsible for our lot in Life. No Politician has ever solved anyone's individual problems, made anyone but him/her self a success, and in fact, is merely another player in the game, seeking his/her own goals/requirements.

We seem to enjoy playing "The Blame Game." Oh, if it were not for this or that condition of Life, if only so-and-so would behave in such-and-such a manner, if only the Government would take over (fill in your favorite political cause here), or get out of (fill in your favorite political cause here) Life would be so much better."

Let me tell you something. If you're lost in the woods, your goal is to find your way out. Discussing the complex web of conditions and decisions that led you to the middle of nowhere is not part of solving the problem of being in the middle of nowhere. And changing the rules of a game is not going to make you any more likely to win at it. After all, when the rules of the game are changed, they are changed for everybody. Not only that, but changing one rule or condition has repercussions, unintended consequences, that affect many other conditions, and even rules that previously existed.

Ultimately, changing the rules of the game simply makes the game more difficult to play. One must be in a constant state of re-adaptation, constantly be revising one's game plan, changing the course.

So, am I saying that the solution to this problem is to have fewer politicians, or to somehow prevent any further changes to the rules and conditions of the Game of Life? God Forbid. First, that is a pipe dream; it can never happen. Second, it is an idea which falls into the very same trap of attempting to change the rules and conditions of Life in order to succeed.

Ultimately, success comes from discarding those thoughts and ideas that drain one's available mental, physical, and emotional resources, and to concentrate on the goal, as one did from the beginning, to adapt to changes in conditions, and to constantly be re-formulating the strategy for attaining one's goals.

The past cannot be changed. The future is in the process of creation. We are faced moment by moment with opportunities to make small decisions that can affect the outcome of our own personal Game. It is wise to ignore politicians and politics, or at least to look upon them as mostly entertainment. Yes, we often have political responsibilities to exercise, such as voting, and these small opportunities, like so many of the choices we make, have an impact on our individual outcome.

I cannot change your life, or make you successful. Neither can you change mine. We are responsible for those decisions that we as individuals make, and we experience the consequences of those decisions as individuals. This does not mean that we do not have responsibilities toward one another; we most certainly do. But, since I cannot make the decisions of others, and since I am responsible for my own success or failure, as is everyone else, my responsiblity to another does not imply any responsibility on my part for ensuring that the responsibilities of others are exercised with wisdom. We each have control over the decisions that we alone, as individuals, make.

By keeping this idea in mind, our mental, physical, and emotional resources may be freed up for more useful purposes, those things which we can do, in pursuit of our own goals, whatever they may be.

Help Me Somebody!

There's no escape from Him.

He's so high you can't get over Him.

He's so low you can't get under Him.

He's so wide you can't get around Him.

If you make your bed in Heaven He's there -

If you make your bed in Hell He's there -

He's everywhere!

Help me somebody!

- From "My Life In the Bush Of Ghosts" - Brian Eno and David Byrne

Who Is Mighty Abbott? A Twin-Turrent Scallawag

Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

It isn't often that one has an opportunity to introduce a new literary form to the linguistic community, as it often seems that everything must have already been done. In fact, I can't even be certain that this is in fact, what I am about to do. If anyone knows of this literary form by some other name, please let me know. If not, I'd like to introduce you to the Phonemagram.

I'm sure that many of you are familiar with the Anagram, and the Palindrome. An anagram is a word, phrase, sentence, etc. formed by rearranging the letters of another word, phrase, or sentence. The word "evil" is an anagram for the word "live." A palindrome is a somewhat similar device in which a word, phrase, or sentence, when the letters are reversed, results in the same word, phrase, sentence, clause, etc. For example, one famous palindrome reads "A man, a plan, a canal, panama." I'm not sure of what value these sorts of literary devices are, but they can be fun.

The Phonemagram is a distant bastard cousin of the Anagram. In an anagram, the letters of a word, phrase, sentence, etc., are rearranged to form a different word, phrase, yada yada yada. In a Phonemagram, it is the phonemes of the structure that are rearranged. Like the anagram, the rules for a phonemagram are that all phonemes must be used.

Now, I've linked to the definition of phoneme for those of you who want to puzzle over its exact meaning, but in a nutshell, phonemes are the bits of sound that result from breaking a word apart into its constituent sounds. This is quite a bit different from the letters that make up a word. The same letter can sound completely different in the context of a word. But a phoneme will always sound the same.

The title of this post is a phonemagram for the sub-title. The sub-title of this post is "Ambiguity has a certain quality to it." By rearranging the phonemes, one can derive any number of more or less sensible phrases, such as "Who is Mighty Abbot? A twin-turret scalawag." Or, perhaps, "A brute awe as you, a metallic hag entity, eat us."

Which brings me to the next logical extension of the Phonemagram, which is the Phonemagraph. A Phonemagraph is a poetry form. The rules of it are (relatively) simple: The title of the poem is the basis for the poem. The poem has the same number of lines as the number of phonemes in the title, and each line of the poem is a Phonemagram of the title.

To date, I have only successfully written one such poem, with the help of my nephew, Jon Blalock, entitled "Giftless Christmas."

Giftless Christmas

by Uncle Chutney and Jon Blalock
Miss Rugs felt sick-
Girl stuff, sick mess.
Cuss lifts grimace-
Firm guts still sulk.
Smug self - Risk it!
Muster slick fig!
"Some fiscal grits -
Phyllis gets crumbs!"
Some Elf kiss grits,
Mugs if skirtless.
Sick, Meg flusters -
"Glyphs suck, Mister!"
Guilt miffs sucker,
Must fix gristle......

I would enjoy hearing of any other successful attempts at this admittedly, most difficult "art" form. I might even publish them, so that your work could be read by the tens of people who read this blog!

Remember that the rules are, but are only slightly subjective, as pronunciation may vary slightly from one dialect to another, and of course, it is poetry. But remember also that reckless drivers may lose their poetic license!

The Microsoft MSDN Wiki

I am something of a fan of Microsoft. Yes, I have been known to be politically incorrect from time to time. If the Truth hurts, wear it.

I just came across this bit of news in my morning "paper" Due to the vast size, sparsely-filled sections, and difficulty in searching the (now 2) MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) Libraries (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp and http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.aspx), Microsoft has quietly been creating their own equivalent of Wikipedia for Microsoft - The MSDN Wiki:http://msdnwiki.microsoft.com/en-us/mtpswiki/default.aspx

According to what I've been reading, "In this version of the online documentation, every page ends with a community content section. Anyone can post community content to any page. If you have a tip, if you have more information than the docs provide, you can just add your expertise right in-line with the product documents."

They also plan to eventually replace the MSDN Library with the MSDN Wiki completely.
Seems they still have a few things going for them!

Popular Quantum Mechanics

As I was going to Saint Ives, I met a man with the Mental Health Services Department. How many wives he had, I'll never know. But he was not wearing any pajamas. He did, however, upon hearing about my interest in all things scientific, recommend a movie to me: "What the Bleep Do We Know?" I liked the fellow, so I rented it...

I must mention to begin with, that I am a cinephile. Yes, I do obscene things to films. Mostly, I like to watch. In any case, of all the thousands of films I have watched, there were only 2 that I can remember walking out on after paying to see them. One was "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation." The other was "What the Bleep Do We Know?". I don't remember exactly when I watched the first 15 minutes of "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation," but it was when it was first released, and I was in a movie theater. Thankfully, I had only rented "What the Bleep Do We Know?," so I saved myself a few extra bucks.

The fact that the film was recommended to me by a man with the Mental Health Services Department tends to prove Einstein's statement regarding infinites: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I'm not sure where they got their so-called "scientists," but one of them was apparently Ramtha (J.Z.Knight).

The film was ostensibly an AOL-User-Level explanation of Quantum Physics. However, I never did hear anything about Quantum Physics, during the 30 minutes of the film that I did watch. I did hear a lot of references to Quantum Physics, but no actual science. Instead, I heard a lot of hair-brained presumptuous conclusions that were drawn from the lack of understanding that Science still has regarding Quantum Physics. The study of Quantum Physics is at this point still at the stage of Ten Blind Men examining an elephant. If The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith, or Richard Feynman were (still) around, one or both of them would straighten all of those so-called scientists out. The fact that one can make predictions about behaviors of something with a certain uncertainty does not indicate that one understands what one is observing. Any gambler can tell you the odds of rolling snake-eyes. Nobody can (yet) tell you why those odds are what they are. And anyone that pretends to tell you is a fool, or a con artist.

Science, like Religion, is a search for Truth, the ultimate nature of reality. It is a search for the underlying Principles that govern existence. And coincidentally, there are as many charlatans involved in the field of Science as there are in the field of Religion. These people are opportunists, taking advantage of the principle What You Seek Is What You Get, and luring the weak-minded into their orbit, in their own search for self-aggrandizement. And like everyone else, What They Seek Is What They Get. They do not get the Truth; they get a cult of worshipful followers.

What I mean is this: Everybody wants to know the ultimate nature of reality. However, most people are lazy. They are not willing to discipline themselves and accept the Truth regardless of how much it hurts. Therefore, they settle for less, because their desire to not work and discipline themselves is greater than their desire for the Truth. One of the hardest Truths to admit is simply "I do not know." Therefore, in both Science and Religion, there are those who are willing to supply a ready explanation for almost anything. From pseudo-Quantum-Physics to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, explanations abound for things which are not yet explained, or those Truths that are the hardest to swallow.

I am going to go just a little deeper now, and discuss some of the particular ideas expressed in the film. Some of these ideas are quite popular, and even taken for granite (pun intended), but erroneous just the same. One of these was the idea that on a sub-atomic level, atoms are composed of extremely small particles in a relatively extremely large vacuum. Now, I suppose that depends on what one means by "particles," and what one means by "a vacuum."

The word vacuum is defined as "a space entirely devoid of matter." But what exactly is "matter?" The word matter is defined as "the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed." But what is "substance?" The word substance is defined as "that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material." And so, like the science of Physics itself, we discover that even language is relative, because we have now come full circle, from defining the word "vacuum" as being relative to the absence of "matter," and "matter" as "substance," and finally "substance" as "matter." In the end, we have defined a way to talk about things of which we know absolutely nothing. We have a perfectly circular reference.

So, how about the word "particle?" The word particle is defined as "a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount; a tiny or very small bit." Of course, this definition begs the question "a piece of what?" Why, matter, of course! In fact, the science of Physics is not so much about the ultimate nature of things, but about how to measure them. And measurement is always relative, as Einstein so eloquently pointed out.

So, where am I going with this? Well, first of all, doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous that the universe is composed almost entirely of nothing? Why, if it was composed of all of these separated particles with vast expanses of absolutely nothing surrounding them, how on earth would they have any influence upon one another? It shocks the senses to think of it. It sounds like magic. These "particles" would have to be entirely telepathic with regards to one another.

Don't get me wrong; there are good reasons for thinking in terms of "particles" and "vacuums" and these circular definitions of things like "matter." In fact, we owe a lot to the sciences, and the various disciplines of Physics in particular. We are able to interact with the universe more successfully and accurately as a result. That is, we are able to obtain those things we seek with greater success.The mathematics which describe Physics are accurate as far as they are able to go, and that indicates a degree of accuracy in the science itself.

However, it seems to me that we should constantly be aware that these words, and our thoughts themselves are not the things about which we think. They are simply conveniences, constructs which we use to communicate in our minds and with one another about these things. Which brings me to my second point, the discussion in the film of "uncertainty."

From the film, it would appear that all is uncertain, that uncertaintly opens up a realm of possibilities regarding life itself, consciousness, perception, and our ability to "create our reality." These sorts of ideas are pure rubbish. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is astounding in and of itself, with plenty of far-reaching implications, without having to encroach on the "macro world" in which we live. In fact, it purely relates to the sub-atomic level of things, and to the concept of measurement in particular. Now, before I continue, I want to make it clear that this does not imply that the sub-atomic level of things is irrelevant in the "macro world" - only that it is a specific realm, and that the conditions within that sub-atomic realm are necessarily different than the conditions in the "macro realm" of existence. Certainly, sub-atomic conditions have an influence, but that influence is not necessarily of the magnitude that is often implied.

In a nutshell, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is an inverse relationship in the accuracy of the measurement of position versus momentum of a physical object. On a sub-atomic level, this indicates that the position of a sub-atomic particle may be measured, but that if the position is measured, the momentum will not be known. Conversely, if the momentum of a particle is measured, the position will not be known.

That explanation is both simple and complex, depending on how you look at it. It is important first to understand what is meant by "position," and what is meant by "momentum," and these concepts in and of themselves are difficult to comprehend, because they involve 4 dimensions, the last of which is that mysterious dimension we call "time," a dimension unlike any of the other 3, in that it seems to travel in one direction only, and that is forwards. Of course, it is not time that travels, but we who travel in time. But I digress.

In order to understand Physics, one must necessarily include Time in all equations. For example, the classic Newtonian formula of F = ma (Force = mass * accelleration) necessarily involves time. Accelleration is the increase in velocity of an object over time. Velocity is the rate of change in position of an object relative to another arbitrary object over time. For example, one cannot describe the speed of a car without using time. If a car is moving at 50 miles per hour, this means that in the time span of one hour, a car will have changed its position relative to the earth's surface by 50 miles. So, while the number "50" suffices to communicate the speed of the car, the actual mathematical formula for the speed of the car is (50 * 1 mile) / 1 hour. Think about it. How does one divide miles by hours? And yet, the math holds true.

But, if one is measuring the position of an object, one must necessarily speak of the position of that object at a given point in time. Let me repeat myself: To measure the position of an object, one can only do so by measuring the position at a single point in time. The concept is not as simple as it sounds, because time is a continuum. It does not stop. It cannot be subdivided into distinct moments, for each of those moments can be subdivided infinitely into smaller and smaller segments. There is no such things as a "particle of time," any more than there is such a thing as a "particle of matter." It is a convenience, a means of thinking and communicating about the phenomenon. Yet, paradoxically, we continually seem to exist at a point in time which is constantly in motion. We are trapped as it were, between the "past" and the "future." There is no present; it is infinitely small. Yet, it is only in the present that we seem to exist, due to the nature of the way we perceive reality.

Let me give another example, that of taking a photograph. As you may know, to take a photograph, a light-sensitive medium is exposed to light for a brief period of time, determined by the shutter speed of the camera taking the picture. The "sharpness" of the photograph is affected by the length of the interval of time during which the shutter was opened. We see what seems to be a moment frozen in time in the photograph. But that is not at all what we see. We are seeing a brief interval of time frozen in the photograph. We are seeing the visual effects of a continuous interval of time in which light was allowed to bombard the surface of the film, and during that interval, everything in the photograph was in motion. Yet, if the shutter speed was quick enough, it looks for all the world as if we are seeing a single "moment" in time. On the other hand, if it were possible to open the shutter for the infinitessimally small point between the past and the future, what would we see? Nothing. No activity could have taken place, for motion cannot exist without time. Motion is the change in position that takes place during an interval of time.

Now, this all relates both to the Uncertainty Principle, and to the Wave-Particle Duality problem with which theoretical Physicists have been wrestling for many years. This problem is centered around the fact that, depending upon how one measures, a sub-atomic particle such as an electron or a photon will behave like a particle, a distinct "piece" of something, and a wave, a continuum in a medium which has mathematical characteristics of frequency and amplitude. Sub-atomic particles indeed seem to behave like either of the 2, depending upon how one measures them. That is, if one measures the frequency of a light wave, there is no position, as the position must change over a period of time, and therefore is unknowable. On the other hand, if one measures the position of a particle of light, theoretically, one must discard time, since the position will change with time, and if the position changes, the position is not known. Yet, it is sometimes convenient to speak of photons and electrons as particles, and sometimes convenient to think of them as waves.

This brings me back to the idea that atoms consist mostly of empty space. This is purely a crock of s**t. In fact, there is no such thing as empty space, since empty space is nothing, and nothing is the absense of anything, including space. The pure fact is, if there is nothing between this and that, this and that are in contact with one another, by definition. So, in fact, the fact that whatever is between electrons, protons and neutrons is not measurable does not imply that it does not exist. It simply implies that it is not (yet) measurable. There is nothing we know of which can perceive its existence.

These concepts are indeed difficult to understand, and theoretical physicists have been wrangling over them for decades now, without any final success, as of yet. Anyone giving serious thought to these ideas is likely to wind up dizzy. Anyone without sufficient discipline of thought is likely to go wildly astray, and at that point, they are no longer scientists; they are simply kooks. Which brings me back to the film (at last!).

This is a film filled with kooks. It was kooky to think that Quantum Physics could be explained to the average AOL User, Joe SixPack, or your average everyday couch-potato. Anyone watching this film is likely to be lured into some sort of New Age Cult, or simply confused and/or disgusted (I was disgusted). It was kooky for any of the people who apparently thought of themselves as "scientists" to participate in the making of the film, since it is patently obvious to any real scientist that these concepts are unresolved, paradoxical, and require years of discipline to understand at all. It was insane for anyone in the film to think that one might apply the concepts of Quantum Physics to life in the "macro world" in which we live, at least as far as its having some influence over our day-to-day life. These concepts are only applicable with any real influence on a sub-atomic level.

And so, we are left with a modern-day, quasi-scientific equivalent of a bunch of pajama-clad Hari Krishnas, dancing madly backwards in an airport, selling copies of the Bhagavad Gita to unwary travellers.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to throw up.

Quite Possibly a Perfectly Formed Joke

http://themot.org/gallery/d/58721-1/pacmanchart.png

The Ten Blind Men, The Elephant, and The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith

I once knew a Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. However, we were friends for a time, and in the course of things, he mentioned that he was once the king of a ficticious country. This struck me as a particular distinction, because there are many kings of actual countries, but this was the first person I'd ever known who was king of a ficticious country. Of course, he was no longer king of this ficticious country, as he no longer resided there, but he was happy to regale me with tales of his experiences there.

The name of this country was Deagolia, and it came by its name honestly. In the land of Deagolia, everyone was blind, except for one person, a wanderer who had come to Deagolia from unknown parts, known only as The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith. The blindness of the people was congenital; that is, everyone born in Deagolia was blind from birth. In fact, had it not been for the Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith, the Deagolians would never have known that such a thing as Sight existed, for they had never experienced it, nor had they ever known anyone who had.

It was inevitable that The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith would become king, as he was the only sighted person in the country, and as Desiderus Erasmus once coined, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Actually, The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith had both of his eyes, but that only meant that he had one to spare, in case anything should happen to the other one, as was the case with his legs.

In any case, before he was made king, it was quickly discovered that he had a perceptual ability that nobody else in Deagolia had, or had even been aware of, and he was often sought for advice concerning matters which were best resolved by a sighted person. For example, he was often asked to determine whether a person's t-shirt was on backwards. Oddly enough, it had never occurred to the people of Deagolia that a t-shirt could be worn backwards until The Man With A Wooden Leg Named Smith pointed out the fact to a few of them. They were also amazed to discover that there were images and text on some of these t-shirts, and that the text could be interpreted by The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith. Thus were the people of Deagolia introduced to a great number of new jokes and consumer products.

The story of how The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith became king begins when an elephant somehow wandered into the land of Deagolia, a land which had heretofore never seen an elephant, or even heard of one. In a land of blind men and women, you can imagine what a stir such an event might raise, as well as the inherent danger involved in having an elephant in the midst of a country full of blind people.

It was inevitable that someone would encounter the elephant, and sure enough, a group of 10 Deagolians who were walking down the Damascus highway were startled when the first man in the group walked straight into the elephant and fell flat on his back. Blind they were, but not deaf by a long shot. Being blind had made their remaining senses sharp and sensitive, and they all heard the muffled thud, and the sound of the poor fellow falling backwards into the dust.

"Good heavens!" the first man exclaimed, "Someone's built a house in the middle of the highway!" He slowly picked himself up and tentatively reached out in front of him. "Doesn't feel quite like anything I've ever heard of a wall being made of, but it's a wall, alright." His hands spread slowly and cautiously over the elephant's side. "Feels like some kind of hard leather. Must do a great job of keeping out the rain."

Another man walked slowly up to the elephant, and came across the trunk. "I don't know what you're talking about. This is no wall; it's more like a tree."

By this point, the other eight men were more curious than startled, and they all began to edge towards different parts of the elephant. As one of them approached it from behind, the elephant flicked its' tail. "Too thin for a tree, and not a wall either. It might be some kind of snake, maybe. I think it may have tried to bite me!" This remark frightened several of them, who drew back warily. The first one, still feeling the elephant's side, shook his head. "You all must be crazy. It's much bigger than a snake, a vine, or even a tree. And it's solid, but not entirely hard. I'm telling you, it's a wall. Some kind of building."

A fourth man ventured forth and felt the tip of a tusk. "Ouch! It's got some kind of giant thorns on it!"

Within a few minutes, they were embroiled in a spirited argument about the nature of their discovery. Most of them didn't want to approach the elephant, but one or two of them kept exploring the small areas that they had discovered, and reported with confidence their theories about the nature of the thing, ridiculing one another for their ignorance and lack of discernment.

It was at about this time that The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith walked up on the group. Now, The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith had never seen an elephant before, but he could certainly see, and although the Deagolians had no idea what sight was, they knew that The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith had a special sense which enabled him to perceive in some detail things that could not be felt, smelled, heard, or tasted, and at some great distance. They heard him coming, and recognized him immediately, due to the sound of his footsteps.

Rushing up to him, they immediately began to clamor for an explanation of what he saw. "We have encountered something strange, and possibly dangerous! What is it?" The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith looked at the animal, for he could immediately see that it was an animal, although he had never seen one quite so large in all his lifetime. "I do not know what it is," he replied, and began to walk slowly around the creature at a distance, wary of what such a large animal might be capable of if he were to get too close. The crowd of ten men followed behind him.

Finally, he spoke. Being a man who cared deeply about being completely truthful, he avoided making any guesses about the elephant, and told them as much as he thought they would understand, enough to ensure their safety. "I can tell you this much: It is alive. It is huge. And I would not want to get in its' way, or make it angry."

With these remarks, the group of men were somewhat relieved, as they had found someone in their midst who could see the creature and tell them something about it. They ran hastily back to their village and reported all of these events to the rest of the people. Each reported his own experience of the encounter, and what he had perceived. There was much confusion amongst the people when they heard the variety of perceptions that were related to them. However, there was complete agreement regarding the words of The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith, whom they had all come to know as a man who had an ability to perceive much more than they, and a man who cared deeply about being completely truthful.

That night, they had a meeting, and unanimously decided to appoint The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith king of Deagolia. And from that day forth, The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith ruled the land, which changed nothing really, in terms of his relationship with the people, as he was not inclined to wealth, or to exert control over people. But, to him, "king" was as good a title as any, and he was happy to be of service in any way that he could. He continued to provide whatever information his experience and perception afforded him when he was asked, and was called upon from time to time to resolve disputes among the people.

The elephant remained in Deagolia for many years, perhaps because there was an abundance of food which elephants like to eat there, and wandered from place to place, mostly without incident. The Man With a Wooden Leg Named Smith did his best to study the elephant when he could find it, being careful not to get in its' way, or do anything to make it angry. The people of Deagolia for the most part avoided the elephant in their fear of it, but its' constant presence in their land would not allow them to forget about it or ignore it completely. In fact, as time went by, some interesting social phenomena arose among them, regarding the elephant. But that is the beginning of another story. Perhaps one day I shall tell it.

Complex Things are Made Up of Lots of Simple Things

Sometimes You Eat the Elephant; Sometimes the Elephant Eats You

This is actually a continuation of the series "Big Things are Made Up of Lots of Little Things." The title of this post is a correllary of that statement. The sub-title is a reference to the old riddle: How do you eat an elephant? (Answer: one bite at a time). It might also be compared with the old Elephant joke: How do you fit 6 Elephants into a Volkswagon? (Answer: 3 in the front, and 3 in the back).

As a programmer, I am often given a fairly large set of requirements for a software project. These requirements generally consist of an overall requirement and a set of features. For example, I was once given a set of requirements whose overall requirement was to provide a real-time visual picture of the environment in which a small aircraft was flying, in the cockpit of the aircraft, based upon GPS output, in 3 dimensions. In addition, there were a set of features. The visual output should also contain terrain information, aircraft information, and airport information. It should run on a laptop computer, running Windows Vista (code-named "Longhorn" at the time). It should use Microsoft Windows Communications Foundation (code-named "Indigo" at the time) to obtain various data over the Internet, using a satellite connection. It should display Flight Plan information. It should alert the pilot of impending terrain collisions. It should be configurable to display various combinations of these data, and various views of the aircraft. It should alert the pilot as to the location of the nearest airport, as well as the course heading to reach that airport, in case of the need for an emergency landing. It should display terrain elevation data in an intuitive, easy-to-read manner.

As you might imagine, this looked for all the world like a truly daunting task. I was given about a year to complete the project, and had no other developers working on it with me, except for a graphics developer who could create various graphics that I might need. So, here I was, facing the elephant, and getting indigestion just from looking at it. The elephant was looking hungrily back at me. I knew that one of us would eventually eat the other. I decided that I must eat the elephant, and not the other way around.

Thus began my process of analysis. Now, the word "analysis," as technical as it sounds, is not nearly so intimidating as it sounds. It sounds technical because it is most often used in technical disciplines, and that is merely because most technical disciplines involve working with complexity. To analyze the word itself, we can look to its' original Greek origins. In Greek, the word "analusis" means "a dissolving, or undoing," originating from the preface "ana-" (meaning throughout) and "luein" (meaning "loosen"). The literal meaning of the word "analysis" is to break down something "large" or "complex" into its' constituent smaller and simpler components. Big Things are Made Up of Lots of Little Things.

When one is given an elephant to eat, it is important to study the elephant first. It is not advisable to simply start eating; the task will quickly become overwhelming. One must formulate a plan. After all, one is not able to eat the entire elephant in a single byte (pun intended).

Now, the process of analysis is an iterative and recursive process. That is, one cannot subdivide the elephant into its' smallest manageable constituent components in one fell swoop. Rather, one makes increasingly smaller subdivisions, in a recursive loop. In the programming biz, this is often referred to as a series of "views" beginning with the 50,000-foot view, and progressively moving "downward" as the "chunks" get smaller.

You start with the whole elephant, looking at it from a vantage point at which you can see the entire elephant from all sides. It is not possible to see the entire elephant at this point, only the outside of it. But you can identify differentiated "parts" of the whole, and may start from there. It has tusks, a trunk, a head, a body, a tail, and legs. All of these are apparently different from one another. So, you move in with your machete, and make the first "virtual chops," separating the head from the body, the trunk from the head, the tusks from the head, the tail from the body, and the legs from the body.

Now you can move a bit closer, to examine the parts. You notice that the legs are similar to one another, both in terms of their shape and placement. Perhaps they may be treated in similar fashion, one to another. But what are the differences between them? Each has a knee and a foot. So, you chop each one in half at the knee and chop off the feet. You move closer, so that you can examine the components of each leg more closely. And so on.

Now, you move on to the head. But you think to yourself, those tusks look a bit simpler, perhaps I could give myself a break and deal with them first. Of course, you will have to deal with all of the elephant at some point, but you do have a choice as to the order in which you examine the parts.

Like the legs, the 2 tusks look almost identical. Unlike the legs, they are made up of a single piece each of a bone-like substance. You presuppose that the substance is indeed bone, and saw one in half to find out. It is indeed a bone-like substance, and it is virtually the same throughout. So, you see an opportunity to make a decision here, as further subdivision seems unnecessary at this point. How will you eat the tusks? After all, they are made up of a bone-like substance, and too large to fit in your mouth, much less your stomach. Looking at your tools, you decide that they may be ground into a powder, which can then be mixed with a fluid, and drunk. And that's one part of the elephant you have successfully analyzed. On to the next.

By this iterative and recursive process, the entire elephant is segmented and a plan for eating each constituent part is formulated. The only thing left to do is to implement the plan and start eating.

However, there is one last consideration to be taken into account. As you step back you see again that the elephant is huge, intimidatingly so, and you may even get a little dizzy by the thought of eating the whole thing. But it is not necessary to eat the whole thing. It is only necessary to eat each of the byte-sized (pun intended) pieces. The trick is to think only of the mouthful that is currently being eaten. So, in fact, we never eat elephants at all. Our lifetime is composed of very many byte-sized moments, and each moment is navigable in and of itself.

Interestingly, this very idea is expressed in the words of Jesus:

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof. (The Gospel of Matthew Chapter 6, verse 34)

Big Things are Made up of Lots of Little Things

Part 2 - E Unum Pluribus

The human body is made up of trillions (millions of millions) of cells. Each cell has the entire blueprint of the body imprinted in it's DNA. Each cell is individual, and maintains itself for the most part, feeding itself from the bloodstream, and carrying on whatever function it is adapted to as a result of its location in the body. Each cell starts out as a "Stem Cell," each of which is completely identical until it is located and assigned its "job" in the body, at which time it differentiates, maintaining the exact same DNA, but adopting subtle differences in its functionality according to its kind.

A human being begins life as a single Zygote, or perhaps more accurately as 2 cells, one sperm and one ovum, which unite to become a single cell. That cells divides into 2 identical cells, each of these divides into 2 identical cells, and so on, in a rather long (9 months) process which ultimately results in the phenomenon that we humans tend to call "a human being." Why do I say that we "tend to call" this a human being? Well, that is the crux of this post.

At a certain point in our human development, we begin to have organized thoughts, and we develop a sense of identity. We begin to learn to "work our peripherals," to put it into computer lingo, to learn which "buttons to push" in our brains in order to exercise our wills. We begin to formulate thought and ideas, and to differentiate between one thought/idea and another, to associate these ideas with the input that we receive through our senses.

Part of this process is that of associating ideas/thoughts with certain groups of input, to associate those input as belonging to a collective idea/thought, and to differentiate between that which is one collection, and that which is not that collection. Like computers, our mind is binary in nature. Like computers, we measure by differentiating between this and not this, 1 and 0, true and false. And like computers, we combine these binary identifications into complex constructs that enable us to compare, or to measure those ideas and thoughts.

Why do I say "measure?" Well, for example, how long is an inch? It is impossible to say, unless one compares it with something else. It is not possible to state the measure of anything without comparison, without differentiating between this and not this. Interestingly, and appropriately enough, the first thing that we tend to use for comparison is our own body. Of course, that is why the English language and system of measurement was originally based on a foot, which was originally the rather inexact measure of the human foot. In other cultures, you can find similar origins of measure. What do we consider to be "big?" Generally, anything larger than we are. And we generally consider "small" to be anything smaller than our body. But it is not my intention to go into detail about measurement in this post. I am simply introducing the idea that what we perceive and what is are completely different things, based upon the way we think.

Now, let's talk about the human race as a whole. Like the human body, it began as a single person, or rather a pair of people. You may scoff at this point, and make the mistake that I'm talking about the Biblical Adam and Eve, and though you would not be far from wrong, you would still be mistaken. What I'm talking about is (relatively) simple mathematics. Every human being came from a pair of human beings, which parented one or more children. Each generation contains more human beings than the generation before. And we know from our study of biology that it is impossible for any species of life to reproduce with a different species. Our study of history and archaeology indicates that the human race has spread out across the globe progressively, from some small area of the earth, somewhere in the Middle East, probably somewhere in the area of the world currently defined by general agreement as the nation of Iraq. And applying mathematical principles, it logically follows that at some point, there were only 2 (one male, and one female) of this species that we call "human" living somewhere in the world. To assume otherwise would indicate an unwillingness to believe that which is logically, mathematically, and scientifically demonstrable, a resistance to the idea, indicating a certain willful denial of what is logically true. How the first 2 members of the species were generated is certainly not known, and it is not my intention to delve into guesses and controversies about that in this post. It is merely my contention that a new species emerged sometime in the past, the human species, and that the human species originated with at most a pair or humans, or perhaps a pair of near-humans that were able to mate and produce human offspring.

Getting back to that point, these original members of the human species, like the cells in the body, began to reproduce themselves, and to organize themselves into a variety of groups which were differentiated according to their placement in the environment, and their relative placement to one another. Like the cells in the body, the human species became a complex network of interconnected humans, evolving means of supporting one another, communicating, and organizing themselves into identifiably separate collections. Over time, we began to build various consturcts like roads, and communication networks of ever-increasing sophistication and complexity, which, like the vascular and nervous systems of the body, provided our ability to remain connected, to cooperate for our mutual survival. Families evolved into tribes. Tribes evolved into states. States evolved into nations. And nations evolved into alliances of nations.

In fact, the entire world of humanity is interconnected, supporting and feeding one another, often, like the opposing muscular stucture of the human body, struggling and striving in different directions, producing strength. Like the human mind, our governing bodies are composed of various individuals that propose a variety of conflicting ideas and debate them in order to come to collective decisions that are carried out by collections of human beings. Within the individual human mind, we often debate opposing ideas in our thoughts, in order to come to a decision as to what we as individuals should do.

Like the individual cells in the body, each of us is basically self-sustaining, feeding ourselves from our immediate environment. The similarities between the macro-human (human race) to the micro-human (collection of cells) are astonishing. The human body even has the equivalent of war inside it, cells that defend against invaders from outside, and traitrous cancer cells inside. The human body is, in fact, in a constant state of struggle, a life-and-death struggle, which never ends until at last it is lost (on an individual level) by that phenomenon we call "death."

So, the question I propose here is, how many are we? It is my contention that although we, like the cells of our bodies, are many, we are also one. We are man, humanity. The thought construct that we call our individual identity is useful in some respects, but useless in others. And to thrive, it is necessary to recognize in what ways that idea of separateness is useful, and in what ways the idea of unity is useful.

For example, any cell in the human body that does not feed itself dies. On the other hand, any cell in the human body that feeds itself only is cancerous, and ultimately is attacked by the defense system of the body in a life-and-death struggle which determines the ultimate survival of the entire body. Of course, if the cancerous cells win the battle, all of the cells die, both healthy and cancerous. But it is the intention of the body to survive as a whole. It is the prime directive of our DNA.

It is my hope that these ideas will contribute to the survival of humanity, by sparking thought that tends to be balanced and healthy. Let us recognize, and not forget that we all share the same humanity, the same DNA, and the same essential goals, to thrive, to live, and that if the human race is divided beyond a certain point, if the network or mutual cooperation towards survival breaks down, it is not individuals alone that will perish, but the "body of man" that will be lost.

I am the egg man. They are the egg men. I am the walrus.

Koo-koo-ka-choo.

Big Things are Made up of Lots of Little Things

Part 1 - God is in the Details

Big things are made up of lots of little things. This is perhaps the first aphorism I ever wrote. I want to make it clear that I take no credit for the ideas behind my aphorisms, only the form. "There is nothing new under the sun," as King Solomon once said. However, some aphorisms convey more than they may seem at first, and this one has proven to be one of them. In fact, it has meant more and more to me over the years, so much so that I am going to have to divide my discourse on this deceptively simple saying into several sub-topics, each dealing with one possible interpretation of it.

Now, as to the subtitle, there are several well-known versions of this aphorism, which was to the best of my knowledge, originally penned by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a German architect who lived at the turn of the 20th century, about 100 years prior to this writing. He is the author of several excellent aphorisms, such as "Less is more," and "I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." I'm sure you're familiar with one or more of the variations.

I can certainly appreciate Mr. van der Rohe's thinking; in fact, building physical buildings has a great deal in common with software development, and in recent years, "Software Architect" has become a common term for a software developer who designs software systems, much as traditional architects design human environmental systems. In my younger and more "eclectic" years, I spent several years as a framing and finishing carpenter, and when I began to write software, the similarities astonished me.

In modern societies, the average life expectancy has increased to nearly 80 years. Assuming that the average human being sleeps about 8 hours per day, that time span comes to 5,840 days of waking time, or 93,440 hours. This comes to 5,606,400 minutes. Now, a minute might not seem like a long time, but if you've never tried this experiment, take a watch with a second hand, or a stop-watch, and simply watch it for exactly one minute, doing nothing else. Everything is relative. Now, imagine that one was to pay attention and put forth one's best effort for every minute of one's waking life. Imagine what could be accomplished.

But we humans are lazy by nature. I'm not talking about never relaxing, as relaxation is necessary for good health, but let's not forget that we are assuming 8 hours of sleep per night, which is certainly a fair amount of relaxation (1,868,800 minutes during the average lifetime) as well. But of course, relaxation during one's waking time is productive, if it is done in the right amount, no more, and no less. But let's face it: we are lazy by nature. In fact, it is entirely possible to relax, have some fun, and be productive, all at the same time. Life is much like a chess game; the more objectives one can accomplish with a single move, the more likely one is to be successful. I often relax by watching the news on television, or playing computer games that exercise my problem-solving and analytical skills.

To be brutally truthful, we all waste a great deal of our very limited lifetime on this planet. And being self-deceptive, we often excuse it with existential philosophy, or ignore it altogether. Now, it is not the purpose of this discussion to define what constitutes "productive" activity. For the time being, let us presume that in many ways, what is productive is largely subjective. But at least, let us agree that for each of us, a personal definition of "productivity" exists.

Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome, in about 7 years. Of course, life expectancy was much less at the time, but Michelangelo did live to be almost 90 years old. So, he spent less than one tenth of his waking lifetime painting what is arguably one of the greatest works of art created by any human being.

In the early 1900's a Latvian-American sculptor and engineer named Edward Leedskalnin, in the space of 28 years, single-handedly built a castle in Homestead, Florida (USA). It was built entirely from blocks of coral, many of which weighed several tons. There are some other remarkable aspects of this castle as well, such as a 9-ton revolving door, so perfectly balanced that a child could move it with a single finger. His lifetime was about 64 years, so he spent nearly half of it working on this mysterious wonder. Nobody knows for sure how he managed to do it, and there are, of course, various theories, some of which are clearly superstitious. But the point I am trying to make is that a single human being, in the span of 28 years, built something marvellous and incredible, that will remain one of the wonders of the world for centuries, if not millenia to come.

What do these achievements have in common? These were men who were incredibly detail-oriented, and "simply" paid attention to every little detail of a monumental task, over a period of years. This is a rare trait, but it is my contention that any human being is capable of greatness, simply by diligence and a consistent committment to excellence in the small things. Each of these accomplishments, as great as they were, was achieved by a long series of small efforts, exercised with consistent attention to detail.

The trick, of course, is to achieve that level of self-discipline. But it seems far better to me to, perhaps, "waste" a "meaningless" life time to accomplish something remarkable. Even if it all comes to nothing in the end, at least one will have the pleasure in the meantime of enjoying the fruit of one's labor. And of course, this harkens back to my earlier remarks about excusing laziness with "existential philosophy." Although I believe in life after death, even if I did not, the sheer beauty of such excellence would motivate me to both admire and seek to achieve it.

If for no other reason, I would follow in the footsteps of George Mallory, the British mountain climber, who, in 1924, when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, the world's tallest mountain, answered simply "Because it's there." Mr. Mallory disappeared during his attempt to scale the summit; it will never be known if he achieved his goal. Many people would probably agree that his effort was wasted. I certainly have no aspirations to risk life and limb to climb a mountain. But I cannot help but admire his willingness to give everything he had to achieve his life's goal, and his determination not to falter. Let the "existentialists" try to call him a fool. If all is useless, or "vanity" as Solomon would have said, then nothing is wasted either.

Neither a Follower Nor a Lender Be

How common is common sense?

We humans are, among other things, social animals. We have the ability to "blend in" by imitating the behavior of a group of people, speaking in ways that are received with a positive response, and avoid behavior that is unacceptable. We are endowed with a "herd instinct." Due to the extremely complex nature of the human mind, and in particular, the even more extremely complex nature of social interaction, this is a characteristic that can ensure survival, success, and comfort.

However, again, due to the extremely complex nature of the human mind, and social interaction, the behavior of groups of people is sometimes unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous. Thankfully, we are also gifted with the ability to think independently, to disagree, to dissent, and even to abandon one group of people for another, or even to adopt a lone existence. These 2 opposing characteristics are designed to work in balance, much like the opposing muscles in our bodies that give us the ability to control our physical behavior.

The human nervous system is an incredible machine, more powerful than the most powerful computers built to date, and has the capacity to perform both incredible calculations, such as the calculations involved in pitching a baseball, which involves movement of the entire body, balance, an intuitive grasp of the laws of physics, the ability to calculate the distance and angle to a target, and bio-feedback that enables us to improve our performance, all without conscious knowledge or understanding of the operations that produce the behavior. Certainly, by all appearances, we are the most intelligent creatures on the planet (or, perhaps among the most intelligent creatures).

And yet, for all of our intellectual capacity, we often seem to struggle with much less complex problems, like adding multiple numbers together in our heads, comprehending what we read, and even understanding communication from other human beings. The reasons for this are not well understood, but scientists continue to work to unravel the puzzle of the human mind, brain, and behavior. It is not my intent to address the whys and wherefores of this in the post, however. I am merely asserting that these conditions exist, that there is an aspect to our mind/brain that is somehow linked to consciousness or awareness, which distances our consciousness from the incredible power of the totality of the capacity of our brain to calculate and solve problems.

As a result, the structure of human society is not only massively complex, but massively problematic. An interesting aspect of this can be observed in the effect of the sheer size of the earth, and the corresponding difficulties involved in communication and interaction between groups of people that are separated by physical distance. As groups of people have less and less contact with one another, the behavior of the groups begins to diverge, resulting in the phenomenon of commuties, or cultures that are philosophically in conflict with one another.

To understand the realities of our existence is no small task. Why are we here? How did we come into existence? What is the nature of good, and of evil? How does the mind work? What are the unchanging laws that govern physical behavior? And so on. Human society has been working on solving the questions of our existence, the laws and principles of the universe, for thousands of years, with some measure of success, but a long way to go. This is an endeavor that has involved literally millions of human minds. Considering the capacity of the human mind, this is almost surprising; almost, because we accept it, because it is a common and familiar condition of our existence.

Now factor in the fact that while we struggle to solve these problems, we are also embroiled in the morass of social interaction, and to some extent, we can see how this has impeded our progress. At various times in history, scientists have proposed ideas that were to some degree correct, only to be demonized, ostracized by their communities, rejected, and even put to death. All of these results are contrary to the natural desire of humans to live, to be successful, and/or to be happy.

Some examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the lives of Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Jesus Christ, the early Christian Church, the Reformation, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and so on. In each case, ideas that were truthful and good were rejected by the prevailing community, and resulted in suffering and even death on the part of those who proposed these ideas.

Oddly enough, the ideas themselves, rooted in Truth, would, if accepted and implemented, be beneficial to the basic goals of human existence - to live, to be successful, to be happy.

It may therefore be concluded that if one is to pursue Truth, to solve the riddle of our existence, and in particular to share what one has seen, one must possess a willingness to suffer (See my first post, "If the Truth Hurts, Wear it"), and a willingness to take "The Road Less Travelled" (Robert Frost). That is, one must be willing to attenuate one's participation in whatever society one finds one's self in, to get clear of the noise and confusion, to accept Truth regardless of how one feels about it, and to be despised and rejected of men at times.

I believe that this is one of the central choices that we all face. Do we desire Truth more, or do we desire popularity more? What You Seek Is What You Get. And some choices are exclusive of others. One cannot turn to the right and to the left at the same time. A 1 is a 1, and a 0 is a 0, and never the twain shall meet.

As for myself, I have been perhaps in some way blessed with a personality that requires little (albeit some) social acceptance. The search for Truth is my passion. Every bit of real knowledge that I discover for myself rewards me in some inexplicable way. And I believe that true ideas are the only ideas worth having.

Societies need Leaders. Good Leaders are people who think for themselves, and have a strong will. They are more interested in the good of society than they are in their own personal aggrandizement. Poor Leaders are not really Leaders at all; they are followers who have run around to the front of the parade and acted as if they started it. Good Leaders lead; they do not compel others to follow. They strike out in the direction they believe in, ignoring the prevailing trends, and if they are followed, they accept it; they do not seek or reject it. When they lead, they lead in a direction that is beneficial for all. And there are, unfortunately, precious few of them in this world of 7 Billion human beings. Why is this?

To answer that question truthfully...