Imagination
Inspiration
Motivation
Dedication
Application
Manifestation
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Definition of bureaucrat
A bureaucrat is someone who is highly skilled in performing tasks that do not need to be done.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Asymmetry of critique
It occurred to me that one of the reasons that communism is so appealing to the brainwashed masses is that the only people who are allowed to badmouth their own countries are people who have freedom of speech. What we are presented with is a single-sided critique of the world in which one side is full of angst and discontent, while the other side is curiously silent. Idiots take that silence for contentment. They should take that silence as a grim warning.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Language shapes thought
Many problems in our world are not real problems, but imaginary problems stemming from language limitations. Unfortunately, to a large extent, thought is shaped by language, and where language is misleading, thought is invalid.
So, many problems, when analyzed, turn out to not exist at all, but only appear to be problems because the language makes them so.
For example, you can solve the classic chicken and egg problem like this:
Phil: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Me: "The egg. Eggs evolved first. Fish were laying them millions of years before birds existed."
Phil: "No, I mean the chicken egg. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"
Me: "Define chicken egg. Is it an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken hatches?"
Notice that by simply defining the terms that are supposed to be understood, we elimiate the problem.
Next, the silent tree problem.
Phil: "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Me: "Yes."
Phil: "But how can it make a sound if nobody hears it?"
Me: "There is no tree. You just made it up. An imaginary tree cannot make a sound, unless it makes an imaginary sound, and if you imagine the tree falling, you can also imagine the sound."
So many of life's problems are nothing more than problems with the language. Because the language limits how you think about the problem, the solution, which would otherwise be obvious, eludes.
So, next time you find that you are facing an apparently insoluble problem, remind yourself: "There is no tree."
So, many problems, when analyzed, turn out to not exist at all, but only appear to be problems because the language makes them so.
For example, you can solve the classic chicken and egg problem like this:
Phil: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Me: "The egg. Eggs evolved first. Fish were laying them millions of years before birds existed."
Phil: "No, I mean the chicken egg. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?"
Me: "Define chicken egg. Is it an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken hatches?"
Notice that by simply defining the terms that are supposed to be understood, we elimiate the problem.
Next, the silent tree problem.
Phil: "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Me: "Yes."
Phil: "But how can it make a sound if nobody hears it?"
Me: "There is no tree. You just made it up. An imaginary tree cannot make a sound, unless it makes an imaginary sound, and if you imagine the tree falling, you can also imagine the sound."
So many of life's problems are nothing more than problems with the language. Because the language limits how you think about the problem, the solution, which would otherwise be obvious, eludes.
So, next time you find that you are facing an apparently insoluble problem, remind yourself: "There is no tree."
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Expectation of privacy
I have heard this expression several times in the last few years: "There is no expectation of privacy."
The phrase concerns me for several reasons. The main reason is that we have been given to thinking of abstractions as real things. This is called reification, and it is a distortion in thinking that most people have and do not realize. It is a distortion that allows all manner of frauds and deceptions to live and thrive in human minds.
Expectation can only exist in a human mind. There is no way that an expectation can exist in any other way. The phrase "there is no expectation of privacy" suggests that one should be able to see "expectation" floating around somewhere, like a ghost, independent of any individual mind conceiving it. That is absurd.
Second, if someone is doing something private, then it is clear that that person expects privacy. That should be self-evident. So, wherever someone is doing something private, there is, by definition, an expectation of privacy.
Some people might say: "Well, to that person, there might be an expectation of privacy, but in the realm of public opinion, that expectation does not exist."
To that I say: there is no such thing as public opinion. Public opinion is another reification. We are conditioned to believe in such fallacies because they enable people to control us.
Opinions are held by individual minds. An opinion can only exist in an individual mind. The "Public" is an abstraction. It is an imaginary boundary that defines a group of individuals. To say that such an imaginary group can have an opinion is absurd. The "public" does not have a mind, much less an opinion.
What you might think is "public opinion" is nothing more than the opinion of a person who is able to convey that opinion over the media. The opinion might represent a majority of people who have answered surveys, but more likely, it is the opinion held by a small minority of people who are in control of the media, or more likely, it is a fabricated opinion that is not held by any real person, but which is portrayed as the opinion of "Joe Public" (a non-existent character in popular mythology) even though no one person actually has it, and even though it might actually be the opposite of the opinions held by most of the people who constitute the public.
In short, Public Opinion is a myth promoted for propaganda purposes.
So, the expectation of privacy cannot be a matter of public opinion, because public opinion is a fallacy.
The expectation of privacy exists whenever and wherever someone expects privacy.
The phrase concerns me for several reasons. The main reason is that we have been given to thinking of abstractions as real things. This is called reification, and it is a distortion in thinking that most people have and do not realize. It is a distortion that allows all manner of frauds and deceptions to live and thrive in human minds.
Expectation can only exist in a human mind. There is no way that an expectation can exist in any other way. The phrase "there is no expectation of privacy" suggests that one should be able to see "expectation" floating around somewhere, like a ghost, independent of any individual mind conceiving it. That is absurd.
Second, if someone is doing something private, then it is clear that that person expects privacy. That should be self-evident. So, wherever someone is doing something private, there is, by definition, an expectation of privacy.
Some people might say: "Well, to that person, there might be an expectation of privacy, but in the realm of public opinion, that expectation does not exist."
To that I say: there is no such thing as public opinion. Public opinion is another reification. We are conditioned to believe in such fallacies because they enable people to control us.
Opinions are held by individual minds. An opinion can only exist in an individual mind. The "Public" is an abstraction. It is an imaginary boundary that defines a group of individuals. To say that such an imaginary group can have an opinion is absurd. The "public" does not have a mind, much less an opinion.
What you might think is "public opinion" is nothing more than the opinion of a person who is able to convey that opinion over the media. The opinion might represent a majority of people who have answered surveys, but more likely, it is the opinion held by a small minority of people who are in control of the media, or more likely, it is a fabricated opinion that is not held by any real person, but which is portrayed as the opinion of "Joe Public" (a non-existent character in popular mythology) even though no one person actually has it, and even though it might actually be the opposite of the opinions held by most of the people who constitute the public.
In short, Public Opinion is a myth promoted for propaganda purposes.
So, the expectation of privacy cannot be a matter of public opinion, because public opinion is a fallacy.
The expectation of privacy exists whenever and wherever someone expects privacy.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
No paradoxes
I am convinced that there are no paradoxes in nature, just as there are no spelling errors in the alphabet.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
A lesson from the park
I went on my bike ride today and found myself at one point in the park, by the pond. As I walked my bike toward a shady spot near the pond, a gaggle of geese regarded me warily. We kept a mutually respected distance between us. I did not go to their group, and they left me alone.
On the other side of the pond, though, I saw a family walking along. The family consisted of a father, a mother, and two boys, aged around 10 and 14 I would guess. They boys had long hair and the mother wore olive drab pants with leg pockets. The geese were watching them, and as the family approached, the geese jumped into the water and began to move toward them. I am not sure how the geese knew, but they somehow sensed that there was something about this family that required their attention.
After a few moments, the family had stopped on the other shore of the pond, while the geese continued to approach them. The family pulled out bread. I think they were old hot-dog buns that had not been properly mated with hotdogs during some barbecue. They began to tear these up and throw them into the water, right where the expectant geese had congregated. The geese hungrily devoured the offering, and came closer to the family. One of the boys started throwing pieces of bread at the geese, apparently hoping to hit them. His mother told him that he knew better than to behave that way. Obviously, the boy did not respect the geese and had to learn this respect from his mother.
The geese continued to advance. They started coming up onto the land, where the family was. The family started backing away. Emboldened by the family's retreat, the geese became more aggressive, and started advancing faster. The family began to sense peril. Geese can get nasty, and they can bite pretty hard. There were about twenty geese to the family of four humans, so they were outnumbered five to one. However, to keep perspective, they were just geese, and nobody was in any real danger, thus making the entire scenario amusing to watch.
The family finally threw all that was left of the bread they had brought for the geese. They had no more, but the geese were still hungry. They charged! They put the family to flight. The family was flat-out running away as the geese continued to chase them up the bank of the pond. Eventually, the family was gone, and the geese settle back into their normal routine.
As I watched this entire series of events unfold before me, I was tempted to shout at the family: "I hope you learned a lesson from that!" But I didn't. Some lessons can only be learned from experience, and if someone can't learn from experience, they certainly can't learn from someone pointing out the obvious to them.
On the other side of the pond, though, I saw a family walking along. The family consisted of a father, a mother, and two boys, aged around 10 and 14 I would guess. They boys had long hair and the mother wore olive drab pants with leg pockets. The geese were watching them, and as the family approached, the geese jumped into the water and began to move toward them. I am not sure how the geese knew, but they somehow sensed that there was something about this family that required their attention.
After a few moments, the family had stopped on the other shore of the pond, while the geese continued to approach them. The family pulled out bread. I think they were old hot-dog buns that had not been properly mated with hotdogs during some barbecue. They began to tear these up and throw them into the water, right where the expectant geese had congregated. The geese hungrily devoured the offering, and came closer to the family. One of the boys started throwing pieces of bread at the geese, apparently hoping to hit them. His mother told him that he knew better than to behave that way. Obviously, the boy did not respect the geese and had to learn this respect from his mother.
The geese continued to advance. They started coming up onto the land, where the family was. The family started backing away. Emboldened by the family's retreat, the geese became more aggressive, and started advancing faster. The family began to sense peril. Geese can get nasty, and they can bite pretty hard. There were about twenty geese to the family of four humans, so they were outnumbered five to one. However, to keep perspective, they were just geese, and nobody was in any real danger, thus making the entire scenario amusing to watch.
The family finally threw all that was left of the bread they had brought for the geese. They had no more, but the geese were still hungry. They charged! They put the family to flight. The family was flat-out running away as the geese continued to chase them up the bank of the pond. Eventually, the family was gone, and the geese settle back into their normal routine.
As I watched this entire series of events unfold before me, I was tempted to shout at the family: "I hope you learned a lesson from that!" But I didn't. Some lessons can only be learned from experience, and if someone can't learn from experience, they certainly can't learn from someone pointing out the obvious to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)