Comments (6) Authors, please categorize your posts (and remove them from the “Uncategorized” category). This seems petty, but it really helps people find work that they want to read.
And a welcome to any new readers we have!
MY MENTAL SUBWAY TRAIN
…………
==THERE MUST BE SOME SORT OF MAJOR LINK BETWEEN THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL REALITIES==
We can make a general assumption about this or that, but whatever the assumption is, we must then take time to prove that the assumption is totally correct. This is an assumption some would make:
–There is a finite amount of any sort of empirical data in the Universe.–
Now, I would have to differ. You see, there and all sorts of scientific fields; biology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, cultural studies, archaeology, paleontology, geology, immuno-biology, molecular biology, cellular biology, quantum physics, relativity, engineering (chemical), and so on and so on.
All of these scientific fields pervades some sort of physical space, and seeks to explain it as fully and entirely as it can. This is done through the scientific method:
1. Make sure you are aware of the problem at hand that you are seeking the answer to.
2. Research/discover the topic searched for.
3. Make a hypothesis.
4. Test this hypothesis and make the attempt to see if it is accurate.
5. Analyze the data compiled and check it to find whether the hypothesis was correct or ill founded. If ill founded, then the process must be restarted with a different theory and (possibly) different tests.
So, as you can see, this is a very rough outline of the general scientific method. There may be some small discrepancies found among different doctors and scientists, but this is the general idea.
So, as Robert M. Pirsig, in his philosophical doctrine, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, pointed out, there can be an infinite number of hypotheses in any situation, and they must all be tested to find out whether they are correct or not, in order to balance both sides of the process. He talks about, in his book, how he had cracked the egg and how the scientific method was flawed. But I don’t believe it is.
You see, the information which some would argue is finite cannot truly be finite. Simply because, as time wears on and more is discovered, the ideas become more and more exact and smaller and smaller. What this then does is simply opens up more and more holes for knowledge, this knowledge being more and more exact to a specific point of reference.
And with that comes a better understanding of the ideas provoked in sciences. But, these ideas do not have to be the end goal using the scientific method.
As Pirsig pointed out, there are an infinite number of hypotheses. If there are ways to document more and more information, then the information, base empirical data, can always be recorded and recorded and recorded. And if this happens, then the sciences would eventually melt down into a mess of steaming crap and ridiculous data collecting, even if the data means nothing toward the sciences’ end goal.
Now, we must then ask why we use it then, why we can possibly stand to have a method, which, under any circumstances, is flawed to begin with, as our main way of obtaining data? Especially if the data in the universe is infinite anyway?
Well, no offense to Pirsig, but his idea was slightly flawed. You see, he was examining something in the scientific method that may have been overlooked. He seemed to assume that the method was there to obtain the information of the “what” parts of science. He thought that the scientific method would be used to ask “Does an apple fall onto the ground if I throw it up into the air?”
But what scientific method would be asking, instead of the “what”, would be the “why”. It would be asking “Why does the apple fall to the ground when I throw it up into the air?” “Why do human beings create group and predominance in society?” and so on. This is the major classifications of knowledge found by epistemologists; the difference between those two. I would like to make a more specific derivation of the what’s and why’s.
So, when looking at the scientific method, we obviously now see that it was there to explain why things are, not the fact that they are. And the infinite knowledge we found? It is simply a byproduct, something to be written in science textbooks for the reasoning to begin again through fresh minds and new students of whichever science is being studied.
The differentiation I would like to make between these two different forms of knowledge is this:
1. In sciences, we have a bit of knowledge, the knowledge that must come first, that says “what” something is, or “what” something does. This is usually referred to by the term “scientific fact”. It is a fact that, generally associated with the sciences, seeks to tell people what something does or what something is.
2. Also, in the sciences, there is a form of “why” knowledge. I would hereby like to call this branch of scientific knowledge “scientific truth”. It seeks to truthfully and fully explain why things are there or why they do what they do. This is what the scientific method seeks to explain; the scientific fact is simply a byproduct of this search, and is not to be sought after by the scientific method.
This sought after scientific truth, this ultimate goal of the sciences, is a product of two things: The scientific fact and human understanding. The human understanding interprets any facts found through the method and analyzes them and finds the hypotheses to be true or untrue; this becomes a small piece of scientific truth, and brings the researcher one step closer to finding the true answer, if they have not already, to the main question.
Then, there is one more inference to make toward an end conclusion:
That sciences, physical, hard sciences, are here to try and explain the universe to us, and that this explanation comes through a mixture of human understanding or interpretation and hard fact.
I would like, now, to divert the readers’ attention to the speculative sciences, ones that have no tie to the physical world.
There are many different philosophies and religions to choose from; existentialism, Christianity, absurdism, objectivism, Hinduism, Catholicism, atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, hermetic, Wicca, Buddhism, and so on and so on and so on.
There is one not thought of very often as an abstract science: Mathematics.
Now, mathematics would have first come about to find out certain things, such as how many elks Shu Shu needs to survive the winter, all the way to the fact that F=MA, and so on, and will be an explanation for many things to come and go.
But, quite often, mathematics is used as an abstract philosophy, with no physical bearing. I would like to use this as a speculative science for now, so as to avoid any sort of clash with the faith of major religions, or to cause any upheaval among different interpretations of philosophies, or anything like that.
But, there are many speculations that have to be made in order to try and make the entirety of mathematics sound. Pirsig, again, used a similar argument with mathematics:
He had found a philosopher who tried to let every theory have room.
Early in the course of geometry, Euclid became the top dog of the mathematic. He founded, in fact, Euclidean geometry, the style that is the most commonly used today in highs schools around the world, because of the way it explains and creates ideas. But, among several centuries, mathematical philosophers were able to find that there were different ways to practice geometry, and that these ideas, when put in contact with Euclid’s, ideas, were conflicting with his ideas and thus were not compatible, although they came to the same conclusion.
A philosopher named Jules Henri Von Poincare thought that two conflicting ideas could be present and equally powerful, so long as they are not used interchangeably. He said that as long as you don’t mix Bob’ s geometry form down the street with Jill’s form up the street, but used one or the other in every situation, and they both came to what is generally regarded as the correct conclusion, that these two different types were totally okay, but incompatible.
This was not enough for me, though. I had to try and find exactly why these abstract philosophies can be totally correct, even within the same field of study, and why they can still contradict each other. But I couldn’t, until I thought of this:
That the scientific method constitutes a serious connection between the mental and physical worlds, a connection that needs to be there for any sort of knowledge to exist.
Without the method, any abstract philosophy had no two feet to stand on. Even through sound logic and universal truth, one could not prove abstract or speculative philosophies. Without the physical world and the physical bodies to find the answers, the answers did not exist in the universe.
This sounds a bit solipsist, but it seems to hold water. So, then, it comes time to classify the sciences:
1. Political
2. Physical
3. Mental
4. Speculative
A short list, I know. The political sciences and mental sciences still have to be covered.
Political: These require a very short explanation. These are the studies that are only there to try and create a way to live. In the evolution of any civilization, these must come first. These include basic language skill, legal studies, and politics, all involved in the creation and basic ordering of society. I put these first, because, in the long run, these sciences are the first to emerge.
Mental: These science include the likes of psychology, cultural studies, and sociology, and are here to try and find why the human brain is the way it is and why humans act the way they do. I put these second to last on the list because they always seem to be halfway between the physical and speculative sciences. If we take, for example, psychology, it seems like many philosophers in this area are always disagreeing on ways to treat a patient, and even treat them different ways, and some ways seem to work but others work also. Yet, there is still some hard fact present in these sciences, and this hard fact presents itself on a point of view through the physical sciences.
It was here I encountered a bit more trouble.
You see, I decided, then, to try and reason what might have come first, in the case of any of the above sections of study. There was one that every subject of physical science has always needed, one that every speculative and mental science needs: Communication. So, I reasoned that language, a political science, must have come first.
With this idea would have come the thoughts about religion and the structure of society; thus, religion and legal sciences would have been practiced secondly; this was also political.
But.. Wait. Religion isn’t political. It’s speculative. You have to speculate about whether God is there, whether he created us and interferes. So, it’s obviously speculative.
But religion created order and stability. It even led to the first understanding of the Universe. And it was here that I understood.
Ideas in speculation, theories made in the sciences, weren’t always theories. And so, every science made an evolution through two stages.
First, they always were speculative and always came out in theory. But, as this theory was proved to be correct, then, they settled into either mental or physical or political sciences. And, thusly, sciences would always be changing slightly, because of more and more specific information.
And these speculative sciences were the last link I needed. The last piece to the puzzle.
The subtitle explains that this began as a quest to try and find a single strong link between the mental and physical worlds, in order to try and understand why there are two different pervading realities. I believe I have found it.
The physical reality is present in the first three listed sciences; political, physical, and mental. They are truths found all in the physical world, all around the world in which we live. They explain the reasons why something falls when it hits the ground, or why something falls faster. They explains why each frog has eyes this far apart or doesn’t. They explain the reason why some children develop more quickly than others. They create a method of explanation and explain why order is needed or why it is not.
There are also speculative sciences; basically, anything that is not yet proven or holds water only in a strictly logical sense. This is the mental reality, the reality that holds water in our minds, but has been yet disproved or is not totally accurate within the boundaries of the physical sciences. This is, generally speaking, the spirit of reason within human beings.
And there is one link between these two, one very small link that connects the two through paths of study. The scientific method takes the speculation and shows what it truly is.
This is not to say that all speculations will be found to be true or false, or that any more will in the future. This is simply to show how the connection is and why it exists.
Hello, said Oscar, a small, inexplicable ant of no more magnificent proportions than another small, inexplicable ant; for, in the past four days of his life, there had been, or currently were (He never was very good at keeping track) thirty seven to eighty thousand small diamonds floating around his nest, each having smaller and even smaller images of himself played upon them, shouting one thing: That he had to give himself up, throw his life away, on the whim of Queen Argent; that he, the hardest worker in the colony (Voted so three years in a row), had to give up, or else resign from, his position as the head ruler and economist of the ant colony; that if he didn’t, he would be forced to do one of two things: To either throw away his robe and be exiled, or participate in seemingly crude acts; the first being very dishonorable, and the latter being very undesirable, so, he did what he felt he had to do; first, he went about, cleaning up his room, making sure that he had absolutely no dust on the floor, then, in an act of magnificent courage, went floating down out of his fifty three story room using the dust as a float, moving down past trees, brush, bushes, air molecules (Consisting of no less than seventy percent nitrogen!), bits of water vapor, and the gases pouring off from New York City, that he might be able to escape; that he, a worthless ant from the kingdom, might be able to save himself from a fate no worse than his uncle’s, his poor, poor uncle who had died but an hour earlier from the poorest food in the anthill, and had subsequently been buried in the hill’s walls as if they were savages; Oscar had cried and cried and cried over this fact of truth, until, one day, he realized that he had become an adult ant, that he had the power (The power!) to do whatever he wished with whomever he wished; and so, jumping out of his chair, he broke his back, looking up again at his nest; seeing, in the faces of thirty to eighty thousand small diamonds, his face, playing along, as if an image painted for the pleasure of the queen herself, with everything he did or said: Hello, they said to him, as he said it to them; hello, hello, hello, and as he drifted off into his poor, poor, poor death, he remembered a story from his life, a story which had been of great importance to him as he grew; a story about a young ant who had borne a great secret all his life, who had been forced to say nothing about the traitor living beside him every day in his life, until, at his last dying moment, he screamed out the secret, that his brother was a traitor; and so, as Oscar drifted down into his peaceful death, he, having no great secret, no great speech to tell, simply restated the only thing which played upon his memory, something to say to the faces glowing in front of him, only one thing to say before his unfortunate and untimely death: Hello.
~ZM~
There are many, many ideas in the realm of metaphysical reality and/or unreality (Depending on your views past physics).
And if we take any of these ideas, there are many which are seemingly interpreted past their original meaning, or seem to be misinterpreted, even to extremes. Some such arguments are: Capitalism versus socialism (And Communism), abortion versus choice, atheism versus Christianity, evolution versus God, etc.
Now, this is the one thing I hate about metaphysics: That two contradictory ideas can come to the exactly same conclusion through contradictory methods. I hate it because this means that there are several ways to reach the same conclusion. And they don’t make sense within the same universe.
Upon reading Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, I was able to sorely relate to a French philosopher by the name of Henry Poincare. He, according to the nonfiction account, believed that two ideas can be present as a means toward one end, as long as they are not used interchangeably. Here, I thought that, maybe, these ideas may work; they ma be able to be used in order to find a certain means.
But a balanced world would not be able to find this as a solution; crossed ideas would mean a forced compromise. But, as we know, there are always crossed ideas, and not always a possible solution to compromise, but oftentimes there isn’t even a practical one that is possible. So, I have come to the conclusion, for now, that Earth is chaotic in the realm of ideas. I’m really tired. Tell me what you’re thinking on this.
~ZM~
There have been many literary phenomena; people learning to write, for example. It has become a way to express simple thoughts, then more and more serious and more complicated ones, until, at last, literacy had evolved to be something more than a couple of sentences or a reason to stay inside and have a quiet afternoon. After thousands of years of evolution, literature became a reason to think; to believe; to wonder. At the forefront of this thinking mass have been two very deep novel genres: Transcendentalism and Existentialism.
Transcendentalism, the first to appear, was really less of a genre but a branch of thought in itself. German transcendentalism was one of the more prominent types of transcendence; made famous by novelists such as Herman Hesse. It then went on to form a new idea in New England, appropriately called New England Transcendentalism. This variation of it, being one of the more prevalent, thought that the way to transcend one’s environment was to move closer to the natural world and slowly make your way to God, through this method. This style has been around for hundreds of years, in one form or another, and was commonly linked to Eastern Spirituality. Another write who was not necessarily considered Transcendental, but can easily be oinked to this style, was Jack Kerouac. One of the leaders of the Beat Generation, Kerouac’s novel On The Road was a loud, ringing voice calling people to trace their roots and find the nature within themselves, in order to truly transcend and find a God in everyday life.
Existentialism was like transcendentalism, but it explored, in a meaningful mixture of humanity and unsolvable problems, the inability for humans to truly transcend while living in an absurd world. It is closely linked to a separate philosophy, called absurdism, which pulls around the idea that the universe, and, ultimately, humanity’s attempts to understand it, is completely absurd in actions and does not follow a specific idea. Fyodor Dostoevsky is commonly linked to thsi philosophy, as a founding father, with such novels as Crime And Punishment (A novel in which the protagonist tries to justify an entirely pointless crime, but cannot). This type of inquiry stretched through the decades, and was used, most prominently, by Jean Paul Sartre, Franz Kafka, and Albert Camus, respectively. Albert Camus helped to truly expand existentialist ideals; he threw out inquiry after inquiry, while still staying entirely closed off, within the realm of a specific philosophy. Kafka was also a very important literary figure in this aspect; his novels expressed a hope that humanity could overcome its problems, but showed that, oftentimes, he cannot, and must simply look forward to survival, because this is his ultimate goal, until death.
Existentialism and Transcendentalism are two very important types of literature. They are inquisitive, daring, and, most of all, truly familiar with the ideals that make us human. The fact that it took us thousands of years to reach this point of writing only goes to help prove the level of inquisition that this type of thinking has brought about.
~ZM~
okay…so this is just a small paper I wrote for my social mass media class. It doesn’t have much one can talk about, but something interesting to read, I guess… Please feel free to pass judgement or comment on the paper!
Kendall Durchanek
Symbolism in Mass Communication
In a world of media and communication, people relate to what they see and talk about as symbols. Symbols can be seen as people, objects or even subjects of interest. “Symbol” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is “an object that is used to represent something abstract” and “Symbolism” is “to represent by a symbol or symbols.”
Symbolic Interaction Theory (SIT) has been around and known for over sixty years now. Its roots are traced back to pragmatist philosophers such as Peirce, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead. Blumer, Becker, Goffman, Denzin, and Hochschild have taken the ideas of the philosophers and continued to study and improve the theory. Blumer, who agreed with Meads ideas, defines SIT as “the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings.” (Gingrich).
Symbols have been around for a long time. Cavemen used the walls of caves to draw their stories to pass down the generations. Books were later formed to write down stories, then still pictures and now moving pictures: television and videos. These are not the only places one can find symbols. Within pictures, stories, and moving pictures there are symbols. There symbols are spoken, moving, or inanimate objects.
G.H. Mead and Herbert Blumer worked together to create the general basics of SIT. They focused on the communication and interactions between people. When one person talks to another, the process of what s/he says to the other they find the interpretation may be different. This comes from the idea that each person grew up with different influences around them than the other person. How they were raised with religion, politics, education, or even location are all factors of your interpretation or symbols in the world.
“Interactionists” focus on their image of people rather than on their images of society. They consider humans “pragmatic actors”, people who continually must adjust their behavior to the actions of other actors” (McClelland). They do these studies by personal observations. They say that personal interaction gives you a better feel for how people interact and behave in actual society. In conclusion they find that people are never the same around people (McClelland).
“The empirical path is one of the main reasons that symbolic interaction has remained an important theoretical influence in communication during most of the twentieth century is they question as to what really happens as humans interact. Given that it concerns human interaction the raw materials for study of this interaction are available to anyone. At the same time, the study requires careful observation, an ability to pay attention to detail, and a consideration of the accepted and routine. While it may be difficult to abstract from the perspective of each sociologist, empirical study must move beyond the prejudice and bias of the observer” (Gingrich).
When they studied people, they made a list of different things that they noticed about humans interactions with each other. These were their emotions, body postures and movements, and their etiquette. If someone had something important, they stood more still and seemed apprehensive, while if someone had some sad news they seemed slumped over and their emotions were slow and sad.
There are some downfalls to SIT though. These range from the fact that it’s “too broad, it places too much emphasis on personal behavior, it neglects other important variables, and it is not falsifiable.” They say that the subject of study is too broad and that one cannot pin-point and describe every symbol or interaction between the people. Another aspect is the reality of the subject. Some event may just be okay, but the people can accept the event as something really good or really bad. Their portrayal may be different than that of what was supposed to happen. These are two of the main topics as to why SIT is not a good theory on its own, but rather the basis for many theories (West and Turner).
As long as media is around, symbols will always be around. Also as long as humans are around, there will always be a study of their behaviors and interactions with each other. There will always be questions to be answered, but might not fully comprehend. We can always get close to finding these answers using technology, but then you take the human out of their normal comfort zones and they will not act the same.
Some interactions that I have had with this theory, through the media have to be based on politics, movies, and basic television watching. When I was little I watched movies and wanted to be like the actors and actresses I saw. As I got older and became more aware of actors and what they did, I changed my mind. They are basic people, but get more coverage, because they are in movies or television, and they lives are never left alone. I do not want to be famous for just making movies and having my “mistakes” made a big deal that could end my career.
If you look at symbols in a political sense, you have two main political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. These two parties are symbolized by a blue Donkey- Democrats- and a red Elephant- Republicans. Every two years there is either state or national elections to elect different politicians. How the Politian is doing in the race is marked by red or blue. People will then know what party is winning and where. These politicians stand for what America wants and represents. So when two people talk about politics, if they were raised in a house with different political views, then those two people’s interactions would not be the same. It might create stress or greater conflicts between the two people, but the two people can also work around those differences and make peace and understanding.
In general people associate education as a symbol of money and wealth. It is common to call people that have a college education on the middle class to wealthy status in life. And if you did not get a high school education, you are looked upon as poor and no money. These are all symbols of the general society. Not all wealthy people had college educations though. Most actresses and actors made it through at least high school-getting the diploma at the same time as acting-. These people are also looked upon as symbols. Little children look upon famous people as idols and want to grow up and be like them. People from other countries see these movies and believe that what they see is what America is like.
Everywhere you go you see signs, cars, and people sitting on the street holding signs. These are all symbols, symbols of life and the society around us. These are just some of the ways I interact and face the idea of Symbolic Interaction Theory. People study the aspect of how humans interact with each other: ranging from body language and emotions, the media’s portrayal of people and aspects of life and each person’s perspective on life.
Works Cited
Gingrich, Paul. “Sociology 319: Symbolic Interactionism.” 1 February 2000. University of Regina. 6 December 2008 .
McClelland, Kent. “SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM.” 21 February 2000. Grinnell College. 7 December 2008 .
West, Richard and Lynn H. Turner. “Symbolic Interaction Theory.” 2007. Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and Application Third Edition. 7 December 2008 .
School,
It has come to the attention of many that our education system is seriously flawed. I think most of us know and readily accept this fact as the truth. The probleming being that we push all ‘main’ subjects equally. Meaning of course if I have a flair for math and you have one for art then we will be treated ‘equaly’ under the system. Now this does work to foster my math ability because math is a core subject. But, what of your art ability? It will recieve sub-standard classes that are ‘extra-curreiculars’ and can be cut or removed. Now I am not saying we need to all start art classes or abolish core classes. However, we must acknowledge the value of all types of classes, somethign the current system does not.
Secondly, the system does not value more than one type of learning. I personally learn from grasping a concept and sharing it, others learn from auditory, visual and some by doing. Teachers try to use all types of teaching but the current system favors uniformity. It is much easier for teachers to hand out stacks of ’scantrons’ and assignments rather than essays or reading assignments. So the sytem doesn’t work with students paticular intrests and doesn’t embrace student based teaching. Instead what we see is academic bullemia. The idea that I should take in all of the knowledge physically possible then, spew it out all at once onto a test that is a flaw. You don’t learn if you just take it all in long enough for a test. The key should be to have students grasp understand and truly embrace the concepts and ideas they are taught. This requires flexibilty that the current system lacks. Some teachers do this well but many go with the flow.
Now what you see above is hardly in question. We need a reform of our system now more than ever. Now I can’t offer you the perfect solution, I do belive that we should embrace some of the ideas that get left out of the system today but as to what must be done I know not. But, there is one question I never hear asked. The question is what happens to those in school now. That is because the people ‘championing’ reform are adults out of the system. The obvious question is ignored, why should my education be valued if those ahead of me are already skilled at their jobs and those just behind me will be much better educated. Well simply put there is no reason whatsoever to invest in me as a employee if waiting a year will get you a much better employee. Simply put any ‘good’ education reform will devalue the education of others.
Now I think it is fair to say a good education reform regardless of the consequences, is nessacary. However, I would like that question to be awnsered by those who ‘champion’ it. I do not belive in anyway that I am entitled to a gaurenteed future. I would like however to know that the education I am mandated to attend everyday, is going to be valued. In a country where the youth of America already don’t appreciate the education they have available, it will become even harder to explain why we should value it at all.
I can see where this may seem like I am just poking holes in other peoples ideas. But, I want this to raise questions about the things many think are ‘inevitably’ good. Nothing is good. All things have flaws. That doesn’t mean fear things and do nothing but it does mean be aware, be cautious. Anything and everything should be questioned. There are two sides to every coin. Don’t be afraid to play devil’s advocate because if nobody does all we have is a bunch of ‘yes-men’ and that can only hurt our country.
~Tran22
Life a beauty, new veranda
Stalking lips of Satan sweet
Man hath for sweet the sugar tongue;
And yet, in time, before time long
He sees, I see the life is gone…
Leaves dark amorous soften light
Canopies as I walk I brush aside
Spying her with forests’ gaze
Never to return again;
Eye a gaze the black’ning gloom
Lightning mind, it blinds, it dooms.
She follows bloody sun to Earth’s lovely ends
Its violence fueling her adventure
To the world upon worlds
What is found is not to like
What is liked will not be found
In a world which empowered
In direction flowing down.
Frosty white, the sparkling snow,
Plays softly on her lips;
Its cold dark depths are heightened to their fame, and
As I see her lying there in comfort made of snow
Falling all around her it is there I must not go…
And in the forests she remains again.
I cannot find her to these sultry ends:
Darkness is enchanted touch
As fingers grasp the want, the need,
A falling, growing, feeling seed,
The love will grow there like a weed.
Water dripping stone finds her again in God’s great grasp.
The morning sun is left us now,
Left us for to ask: Can we,
In a great mind, find sight for us to give;
Or will we soon discover
There is nothing for to live?
Alien symbols in your touch
And sitting in a crutch,
The mind is great in passage as,
As you and I are here
And see what our love has…
It seems to make me glad…
Although I still feel bad…
For what we could have had…
Okay, so I know that Albert Einstein already used the title. But I really didn’t have any other thing by which to call it without using a three mile title.
So, anyway, this is a very metaphysical observation of different physical forces corresponding with a mental force. It was some off site pondering between Malice and I which led to the conclusion.
So, my information on the general formations of gravity and friction may be a little off balance, and I would appreciate it if you would correct me if it is, but I do believe I have most of it down correctly.
Gravity is a necessity. We are surrounded by it all of our lives on Earth. Yet, it is a force we cannot directly feel; we don’t feel gravity, but its effect upon our bodies. We can tell that we are not about to suddenly float away from the Earth, because it has a gravitational pull toward us and us a gravitational pull toward it.
Yet, it is possible for a world to not have gravity. If a world were composed of a single unit, a single item of space, and no boundaries, this item would have no gravitational pull, having no opposite mass by which to create the force. And, this object could have no different pieces. It could not be a molecule, for an atom would have gravity toward another atom. It would have to be the smallest possible denomination of anything in an infinite space; thus, nothing by which to pull itself.
Friction is, nearly, the same idea. In a frictionful world, we do not feel friction. We may feel heat because of friction or have a scrape and pain because of it, but the force of friction is not able to be sensed by a human because it is an invisible, inexhaustible force (While friction may only hold a certain amount of force in the opposite direction, it is termed “inexhaustible” because it is always acting upon that object with some amount of force). And, friction only exists in a world in which two objects, touching, can rub against each other; thus, a frictionless universe could only have the smallest denomination of one object.
So, by these two arguments, it is impossible to have gravity without friction, and friction without gravity, simply because they follow the same basic rules of existence and are both created by interactions between objects.
There is one more force I would like to talk about; the aforementioned metaphysical force. It is the force of remembrance, and the ability to locate places, items, etc. through their relative distance between each other. So, let us think about this for a second.
I consider it a metaphysical force only because it cannot be measured as a physical force, yet it still exists.
So, what I am talking about has to do with this: Let’s say that you live three blocks away from… How about, the Statue of Liberty. It’s a big tall statue,; you can obviously recognize it. And since you know where you live according to the position of that statue, you don’t even have to be within eye distance of your house, you can use the statue to find your way home.
So, imagine the statue was not there, but a large black hole of nothingness in the shape of a rectangle. And all the similarities are gone from the area. Could you find your way home then? I would think not; you could eventually, through the trial and error system of checking houses, but you would not be able to use the landmark anymore to find your house. Lastly, this is comparable to the other two forces in this way: That we do not feel our relation of one object to the next, but rather we experience the knowledge that comes to us through this process of the brain.
Using this method and comparing it to the above stated forces, I have come up with two laws I believe are followed by both the conscious and the subconscious,
First:
Any object one is looking for has to be either in eyesight or must be able to be found through the use of a landmark. If it can be found through the use of another object, this means that there must be, in this universe, more than one object; one to find and one by which to find the wanted object.
Two:
The object used as a landmark cannot be moving. If there are more than one object being used to look for the destination object, then there must be two still objects; one by which you are able to judge the distance from your destination, and another by which you can determine your landmark object to be still (For if your landmark object were constantly moving, then it would be impossible to determine how far away from the destination you are).
Now, the Metaphysics of Relativity are just that: Relative. Friction and gravity relate to each other through the rules applied to them, and the world in which one cannot exist also cannot have the other.
In the same way, if there is friction and gravity, then you can have ideas of relativity in your mind. If there is no gravity or friction, and you were a single observer looking into the infinite universe, it would be impossible to determine what was what; not only because there would be infinite space, but also because there would be no way by which you could determine where you are in relation to what you are looking for.
This shows (If my logic is correct, which I do believe it is), then, that gravity cannot exist without friction, friction cannot exist without gravity, and humans, without either of these forces, cannot relate separate objects to each other.
I hope you enjoyed my attempt at useless logic.
~ZM~
So… We were thinking… the stock images that are supplied as header images need to go.
Anyone have some really great shots of campus? Either post it (one can upload images when one is writing a post) or email it to the admin (feedback@transcendr.org).
The only criteria: 960px (w) x 120px (h) and matched as well as possible to the color scheme of the site or RHS colors.
Okay, so, the French philosopher Voltaire wrote a short novella called Candide. I’ve never read it, but I understand the novel to run something like this:
A man believes that the world is the best it could possibly be, and looks to the positive side of life, although life really gave him the short end of the stick. So, even as he begins to lose limbs, he keeps his belief. It’s a comedy, and is very philosophical.
I believe that in a way, also. In my opinion, the Earth is going to run its course, whether we affect it or not. This course is why we are here; so that we can make our imprints on this beautiful place.
A lot of people wish that something would happen or want certain things to be different. I [philosophically] am against this idea.
While a lot of people would be much happier if we could just make wishes and have needs satisfied by a single whim, it would not be the same world we live in. If we even wished a single ant gone, we would be living in a different world; a world without that ant.
So, I believe that the Earth was made for us to change it, not for it to be wished better. I believe that the Earth is the best it could be, because if it were a different world or it magically changed, it would not be our world.
The thing that makes it the best place it could possibly be, the thing that really finishes this point, is that we are able to make it better.
“Judge a man not by his answers, but by his questions.”
“God is a comedian performing to people who are too afraid to laugh.”
Quotes from philosophers.
~ZM~
So, really, I believe that this country needs to get its epistemological roots back. There are people upon people upon people who get a free education and a home for the first eighteen years of their lives, and these people hate school.
I’m not saying that every person hates school, but that people need to learn that their education, while it may not be extremely important to them, expands the brain. It helps them to contemplate things which may be of a help to them; and even gives them better employment opportunities. So, why wouldn’t people just learn for the crapping of it, since they have to anyway? Boring stuff, maybe?
Hmmm… Interesting thought, ZenMaintenance. Very interesting, and I have to say that that is a problem among some.
So, let’s address another point: To those of you who have read the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World. I remember, form this novel, a specific point, in which the main characters are meeting with the World Controller, Mustafa Mond. In this meeting, the characters are told that modern humans are treated to have a predetermined intelligence for one reason: That if everybody were geniuses (Paraphrased, obviously), then there would be disaster.
I do not agree with this. I believe there would be arguments, but not disaster. Especially not if people were reasonable and logical enough to use the Socratic Method or to listen to each other reasonably, like humans begins should.
Ahhhhhhhhh……. Socrates. I knew nothing about him until last summer, when I was reading the nonfiction book Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. He told us (The readers) that nobody had really tested the formerly accepted ideas of society and religion/metaphysical ideas before the Sophists. He said that these people were, basically, the first organized school of thought. Then, the Socratic and post-Socratic philosophers began to use thought. I really think that the most important influence on our government should be considered Socrates, not John Locke. Simply because of the Declaration of Independence. It states that we are all created equal, and he government is there to provide for use the freedoms we need and want, and that if the government becomes destructive to the aforesaid means, that we are to abolish it and start again. Socrates demonstrated this tenfold; he tried to have every person believe in equality, and, when persecuted for his beliefs, kept his stance, doing everything he could to change the government so that it wasn’t destructive to these means, and, when he failed, he accepted death. Although it is true that because he didn’t have a ridiculously large following, he wasn’t able to do a very large amount of persuasion, and he, being a peace monger, would not want to try and revolt.
Also by way of argument comes a piece of literature known as Catch 22, written by Joseph Heller. It’s a good book, according to most people, but some people don’t understand the humor, don’t like the humor, etc. I think people have to be able to understand the book more to be able to really enjoy it. The book, obviously anti war, was truly about the government’s conquest into different people, and the craziness of the subordination of some of those people, and the beliefs of those who, although they are not truly crazy, are labeled crazy by the government and treated as such. It uses humor (a lot of it pretty dark) in order to show the ridiculousness of the System. And, although it becomes gravely serious at different points, it really holds true to its comedy almost the entire time. But the reason it uses comedy is that the author is writing it so that he expresses the craziness not only in its characters and its form of logic, but also in the writing. The insanity of the whole situation is shown simply through the use of a cut storyline, jumping back and forth, with no real logical order to follow, until the storyline has been pieced together.
Another interesting work of political fiction is Orwell’s 1984. Very good. It’s a classic, well known piece about an oppressive government. It was written in 1948, and uses a very closed in mood and personality to achieve its main message: The impossibility of truly functioning in such a government. The governmental entity, known simply as Big Brother, is not even truly existing within the story. We never learn if he’s real. It’s a pretty good concept, though, the idea of only hearing the story through one point of view.
Solipsism- that’s one of the philosophies mentioned when the government is being explained. It is the idea that nothing exists outside the mind of every person. And it’s a very personal idea; if I can’t see you, you do not exist at the moment. This is close to subjective philosophy. It has the same basic idea, except that it was never developed metaphysically. It’s also close to existentialism; the study of the existence of man and his place within his universe. Most existentialists would argue that man is in charge of his own destiny and that the only thing he is sure to do on earth is to exist; whether it be one day or three hundred years. A good book on this is L’Etranger (The Stranger in English), about a man who commits a pointless murder and is condemned to death. The man believes throughout the novel that there is no force bringing humans together, and that it is absurd to even believe that. This branches out into absurdism; the very belief described in the last sentence through the idea of existentialism.
Another philosophy-Objectivism-was brought out through Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. It shows the idea that things exist outside of the realm of thought.
Metaphysics. Can’t get enough.
So, if you were to ask me, people should remain to follow school, if only epistemologically, for the sake of learning,, through earlier years. I think that people should contemplate the metaphysics that they are aware of, in order to breach their understanding of the relam outside our own.
~ZM~
Testing the Twitter plugin that tweets new posts from theTranscendR’s Twitter account. Nothing too exciting. Just part of the redesign in preparation for the relaunch.
All of which you are about to read is of my opinion.
In this modern world of humans who have little to no morals, and humans being annoying, the world is becoming/has become a place where people no longer take responsibility for their own actions, or keeping morals at a standard, people have become focused on things that should not be focused on at a later time. Some annoying qualities that people suffer from, and I remind you this is my opinion, are how an excuse can be found for it to not be their fault, no matter the situation, also, how some people always find a way to talk about themselves, and never tire from it. They can rant on about how “awesome” their weekend was, while you are dying of boredom, wondering how they don’t notice you are annoyed and don’t care, even though most of your responses are “Uh huh”, and you aren’t saying anything about it, not even commenting on it, or asking questions about it. People who talk about things as if they know what they are talking about, but have no idea what they are talking about are one of the worst things I’ve been around, in my opinion. Talking through ignorance is not okay. Not only is what you are talking about wrong, but the information that you are spreading around is also wrong. Next, promiscuity, especially in teenagers, is terrible. Even if it’s just with one person who they aren’t sure they are going to be with forever is wrong. It should not be with multitudes of people. It should be your job to make sure that the sexual organ you have acquired through being born is not shared among the populace. For females, in my opinion, it is gross for them to go around with multiple guys. I mean, sure you might like it at the time, but later in time, when you find someone that you want to be with, your vagina has been penetrated by hopefully you know how many other males, and is putrid and impure, and this isn’t even considering it might be loose, and you’ll know how experienced other people are, so then you may always be thinking about how “good” your life long partner is, compared to your one night stands or short term boyfriends or whatever they were. This isn’t fair to that person, or to you. For males, it isn’t as gross.. I mean your penis isn’t inside you, a place that’s hard to clean or anything, but still.. Getting vaginal liquids, or even just the thought, through a condom, is still gross if it’s from more than one female. I mean it’s not meant to made to go and loosen every girl you can, it’s meant to make children with the one you are going to be with forever. Think before you act, just because you can get a girl to, doesn’t mean you should. This is more antagonistic towards males though, it isn’t always their fault, girls do want it too, and some are willing to. Still, taking advantage isn’t right for males or females.
In the old world, things were better, in my opinion. People seemed more sincere to each other, and there were no divorces. People stuck together til the end, and everyone knew everyone else. When people would be married at a young age and never get divorced, and life was simple and nobody had a care in the world. It was easier to make a living and people helped each other out even though they were just neighbors or lived in the same neighborhood.
This is something I wrote for my WR 121 class that I took this year. It was my Final, and I was finally allowed to develop my own agrument. (All the papers before that we were not) Out of the topics we were allowed to write about, I chose this one. Unfortunately, I did not know my teacher was a feminist. Lol. But I tried to keep as much of my opinion in their as possible. I hope you read/enjoy? =]
The greatly debated issue of the gender pay gap has existed for decades. Before women acquired suffrage and achieved the right to vote, there was turmoil over the disparity in wages between female and male workers. Women were earning far less than men doing the same job. This gap became more apparent as women established their role in society. No longer were they exclusively in the home, for they had entered the work force. Now, the pay gap has been decreasing, but their still is not parity.
In an attempt to uncover and resolve the mystery surrounding the cause of the gender pay gap, there have been many studies done. The General Accounting Office, American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and various other organizations and individuals have contributed funding, time, and effort into trying to uncover the cause of the gender pay gap. Maria Karamessini and Elias Ioakimoglou tried to create the perfect equation using hundred of variables for determining the gender pay gap in their paper “Wage determination and the gender pay gap: A feminist political economy analysis and decomposition”. Many statistical and economic analyses have brought a few conflicting outcomes: the cause is because of gender discrimination, or the cause is inconclusive with the data that was found. Neither assessment is entirely accurate. The data provided from the studies made by those organizations is inconclusive simply because it cannot be measured. The reasons for the gender pay gap cannot be accurately calculated because of unknown variables, individual choices, and qualitative variables.
Statistical analysis has shown that there is an inexplicable difference in pay between men and women in the most controlled of studies. In 2003, the GOA was asked to examine and discover why these differences existed. They did an in-depth study over the disparity in pay between men and women. The GAO concluded in their general summary of Women’s Earnings: “Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings”: “While we were able to account for much of the difference in earnings between men and women, we were not able to explain the remaining earnings difference. It is difficult to evaluate this remaining portion without a full understanding of what contributes to this difference” (3). Basically, they cannot make an accurate conclusion from the variables they tested.
Other organizations do not look at this data as purely inexplicable data. They see it as something with more meaning: proof of discrimination against women. The AAUW also did a study in 2007, and they found “An extensive body of research also finds that some gap in pay between women and men is unexplained … Many have attributed the unexplained portion to gender discrimination” (33). There is little statistical evidence to support this claim. What evidence has been found is simply what it is: unexplained.
The fact that it is inexplicable does not prove there is discrimination, unlike what the AAUW affirmed. In their study they stated that bigotry could not be diametrically calculated, and the only way to determine it was to eradicate all other reasons: “Discrimination cannot be measured directly. One way to discover discrimination is to eliminate other explanations” (27). What percentage that is found leftover is inexplicable, not evidence of discrimination. It also does not-prove not there is not discrimination.
The calculations that determine disproportion in wages are analyzing a varied group of women and men: mothers, bachelors, college graduates, high school dropouts, musicians, and vice presidents of major companies. They are all individuals who make unique individual choices. A woman can make a personal choice to stay home with children, or to move if her partner received a better job in another location, same as a man can. While it requires personal sacrifice in their careers, it is not discrimination against the person making that decision. They chose to give up their career for something else. Feminists, psychologists, and sociologists argue that this is due to the way society is set up, and the mind set that comes from this. Even if that is the case, it does not prove that women are being forced to make the kind of choices they are making. The GAO stated in their analysis, “An earnings difference that results from individuals’ decisions about how to manage work and family responsibilities may not necessarily indicate a problem unless these decisions are not freely made” (3).
The AAUW does disagree with that statement, saying that often men and women do not recognize the pay gap and end up discrediting the idea (AAUW 3). In the study the AAUW published, they found that women would leave for longer periods of time than the men:
Women were more than twice as likely to take leave and [were] paid leave for child care, regardless of employment status. Among those who took leave for child care, women stayed out more than three months longer than men did. Full-time employed women were more likely than men to leave the labor force entirely (16 percent of women and 6 percent of men) or spend more time working part time. (26)
Women left work for their children, making the personal decision to leave. They felt it was in their best interest to leave work, while the men did not. They valued staying with their children and taking care of them, while the men valued working more. Even if it was because of social expectations, the woman made the choice to go and fulfill those obligations.
Finally, many of the variables that go into calculating the gender pay differentiation are qualitative. There is no numeric value that can accurately calculate a woman’s choice to stay home with her children, or difference in education, or even in skill levels. The GAO even stated that it was very complicated and often unfeasible to “precisely measure and quantify individual decisions and possible discrimination” and it became convoluted to try to elucidate those disparities (GAO 3). These factors that are dependent upon individual choice, skill level, and any other unknown variables are not measurable. That does not mean these factors do not exist or are not driving forces in the gender pay gap. What it does mean is that without those numbers, there cannot be any calculating of the gender pay gap, and no percentage can be formulated to equalize the disparity between men and women. An individual choice can not be assigned a numeric value, especially not to the person who made it. Those choices have much more meaning than what a number could dictate.
This differentiation in pay cannot be fixed with simply adjusting a rate or passing legislation to force companies to have a certain percentage of women in their office. The issue is too complex and has a vast number of components in it. If there is a way to get rid of the pay gap, it is to provide equal opportunity to men and women and to let the most qualified individual make the best decision. Whether or not they take the opportunity or make career-advancing decisions is left up entirely to the individual.
There is no fixed rate that can be legislated to make the gender pay gap disappear. The gender pay gap depends too greatly upon facts and statistics that simply do not have quantitative values. Unknown variables, individual choices, and factors such as education and skill levels cannot be judged with a rate. There are too many variables unknown, studies with inconclusive results, and too many men and women making very unique and personal decisions that affect their career choices.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Judy, and Catherine Hill. “Behind the Gap”. AAUW Educational Foundation. 2007. < http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf>
“Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Woman’s Earnings”. The General Accounting Office. 2003.
< http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf>.
Karamessini, Maria, and Elias Ioakimoglou. “Wage determination and the gender pay gap: A feminist political economy analysis and decomposition.” Feminist Economics 13.1 (Jan. 2007): 31-66. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 21 Nov. 2008 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24404394&loginpage=login.asp&site=ehost-live>.
Panorama Theme by 
Themocracy
