Geeklog Site

The Stuff of Stuffyness

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:35:21 -0500

So - this is simply pulled from a LiveJournal - but worth preserving in my mind. Never forget, I am completely wrong on all of this. I will defend it with everything that exists in my schema of existence. But at the same time, I know the universe is much deeper than I can ever grasp in my mind, beyond that, deeper than I can grasp in a Live Journal post, especially when I try to both define Christianity and . Ok, so, firstly, as a Christian one should not believe that this is a moral action. This has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, morals, goodness, evil, right and wrong, absolustism, relativism, or anything else in existence that it really could mean. However, it does interact with these things. All of them. It interacts with how I put two lego bricks together. The thing is, lego doesn't have that much to do overall. Everyone knows how to put them together, looking to God while part of Christianity does not really affect the action. Whereas, in the case of morality, every action we take should be affected by this. If we choose to do things the Christian outlook must be in that action. Now this doesn't mean what most people think it does. Firstly, it actually is a liberating theology, one which gives the freedom most people don't associate with Christianity, and hell, I don't associate with Christians. Most Christians believe there is a strict code of Morality and that's all Christianity is. I know too many people too willing to harm people, but in ways that they feel are good. Going around insulting people, because they're not Christian, or attempting to guilt people in converting, this is in fact something that instead of healing the world or helping people, or spreading love, the things that Jesus spoke of, they are in fact the opposite. Harming someone, even if your intentions are good, is instead a very simple form of justifiable harm and hate. Or on the view of Creation, as Galileo said, (bear with me, I only know the content of the quote) I do not believe that a God that would create us with senses would ask us to forgo their use. Now, we can simply look at the Earth and see basic things. HOWEVER if we assume the existence of God then we can assume that Occam's Razor would remove certain very difficult aspects of evolution and replace them with God. Of course, at the same time, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the unmoved mover arguments. So, I will state that generally, if you are Christian it makes more sense to believe in a God who can create the universe and did, but at the same time created ways for it to change. Perhaps I should use the programming analogy of God giving all creatures a script and then letting the script be added to by events, thereby creating the mutations we see. Simply AI theory, interestingly, since we're trying to create a model for the universe, I really shouldn't be using something that tries to model the universe, that would be silly. Anyway, there's a whirlwind tour through what I feel is Christianity. Now the heavy stuff. Morality. I know, I said this doesn't matter to Christianity, but since so many people are struggling with the concept, including and especially Christians, I would like to chuck it out there. We can take a look at the universe and see there is obviously good and evil. I mean, seriously, if we take the example (the done to death example I might add) of the Holocaust, we get a very simple example of evil. I *wont* prove it's evil. In fact, my point is that I don't have to. Everyone will agree with me. Even the raving, frothing at the mouth, angry, relativists agree with this. But yet, if I gave the example of perhaps a single person who's life was better for the Holocaust, they likely WOULDN'T back down. Again, there is the simple reason that they know it was evil. This is an absolutist view of the world I would think. And also, I think that it is the one that makes sense. In every situation there is a right and wrong answer, and this answer is based on, well, essentially the same number of things that would be used to predict the movement of a particle. There are millions of actions and reactions and intentions and pains and loves involved. These things all affect where this is the right or wrong answer. Therefore, instead of trying to define good and evil, perhaps we should define what is moral, what is helpful, and what people should be doing. Perhaps, we should define a certain thing with which to measure good. Some have posited that the best way to do this would be to reduce the amount of suffering in the universe. This is however horrible, since in fact in my opinion suffering is pointless. Creating suffering is likely evil, but every relativist has a 1001 ways that is not so... why? Because the universe is defined by the creation of love. Things that are good create love. Giving of yourself selflessly and unconditionally as well as simple regard, respect, admiration, and desire to praise unconditionally and selflessly. Is that love. Ok, let me define a term here. I am going to use the word Africa. Why? Because I am a dick like that. People should know Africa is a continent, not a country. People should know there is well off countries in Africa. People should, finally, also know that there are poor countries outside of Africa. But, when I say Africa I mean "everyone who is in a place where they can barely keep themselves alive as well as have no power as a person". Anyway, in Africa we can have people who are suffering. They can be completely without power, and everything else. They can see others around them and love them. In fact, these people, suffering, are more likely to love those around them than people who are not. This is the creation of love within suffering. These people are not eliminating suffering, yet they are doing good. However, the act of causing suffering cannot be done in love in almost every situation. Perhaps, the best way to change the power struggle is best fixed by doing this: "The West" (that which is the opposite of Africa as defined above) should use it's money/resources to get groups of people from Africa to come here, set them up in houses or hotels, and pay for their food/whatnot. Essentially then, put them on a missions trip. Where then they minister to us. Teach us and give us a new perspective on life. And then, when they go home, they've had time where they were well fed etc. And at the same time, people could be given a new love for these people. And unconditional love may make people more willing to change. More willing to help. More willing to bring our world into a more love based rather than money based place. But that's a tangent. In this model of the universe, there are reasons to kill or reasons to die. Reasons to die are reasons that stem out of love. As a Christian who has given as much love as they can it is quite simply to die for a cause. We know, through Jesus, that we will be going to be a time of waiting for the renewal of the Earth. This will be a joyous and loving time of wait. So, we can die without fear. We also, know that we cannot bring love to the Earth if dead, and therefore should do everything we can to stay alive, since if we are still able to give love, we would be reducing the potential for love, so it would be an immoral act. At the same time there are cases, the kind of case where'd you'd have to be forced to live or die actually, where if you do die you might be able to create more potential for love. Now, for killing. What I will refer to as Justified Killing is not justified and at the same time also one of the highest expressions of love anyone can give. Justified Killing is when you believe that the life of another person is more important to you than other people. Since all people are equally important, stating that is in fact huge, and something that no human should be saying without good reason. And therefore, if you are to be forced to kill to protect their lives, then, well, it would be the ultimate expression of love to another person. However, it would be a lack of love for every other person on the earth. Therefore, in my world view, this would force the action to be morally neutral, or a actually morally wrong act. Ok, I think that's all I know on Christianity and how it affects morality. But I don't know. Anybody want to challenge me? Anyone want to agree? I hope so!

Capitalism, Democracy, and OOOH SHINEY

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:16:48 -0500

My firm belief is that eventually people will talk about how Capitalism and Democracy look really good on paper but are really bad in practise. Even if the systems don't go away perhaps we can stop LYING about them. First big lie: Rule by the people. NO: Both of them are timocracies. Capitalism is the most natural extension of a system. I mean - seriously - it's simply the barter system on steroids. And ya know what - that's cool. BUT it means that the best liar wins. If we want capitalism to work we need to ban advertising. Everything will be sold in a package of a uniform colour with a fontset that is the same and a standard set of names for ingredent lists and so on. Computers would not come preloaded with ANY software unless you specifically ASKED for it to be put on - and gave the person the CD. If we don't do this then the person with the best marketing team wins. And that's not CAPITALISM that's "Marketalism?" or somesuch. It's a rule by "the guy with the shiniest box". Or the guy who made the first good deal. Or whatever. In the end it's all NOT a system that gives people all an equal chance. It's a classist system which can only allow advancement through the ability to market. Which means we get well marketed suboptimal products and badly marketed optimal products. And people buy the suboptimal ones - and the small minority ATTEMPTING to buy the optimal ones are attacked by the people with the money from selling the suboptimal ones. (I am thinking Windows, Gasoline cars, and a few other things here). Democracy is the capitalist system applied to politics when it comes to this lie. It's not the smartest politician buy the guy with the prettiest face and who can kiss the most babies and tell the best lies and make the most commercials. Maybe it sounds like a good idea to make your politicians people persons. But at least ban: smear campaigns (mentioning opposing political parties or candidates should be banned), comercials, misrepresentation of fact (blatant). Also - all campaign info should show both sides of every issue - not to help the candidate - to help the voter. This system should be about informing the voter - not getting an ignorant non-voter to vote. The second big lie: The System Is Self Correcting NO: Adam Smith thought so - but I don't care. People like shinies. They like pretty things. The system by definition DOESN'T self correct as the rich get richer. People are only fed the information of the most powerful group. And sure the internet is helping change this - but I mean I could get a bunch of people to Troll Wikipedia to diss Windows and call anything that's pro-Windows vandalism. And Microsoft could pay off an ADMIN (the wikipedia admins are voted in by jove - they could MAKE one with a few thousand) to screw over Linux. Needless to say the internet doesn't fix MUCH. And the system fixes NOTHING since using the system properly breaks it. These things mean that we create consumer apathy and misinformation not due to any malice on the part of the prolematic people - instead it's due to the fact that it's the best way to work the system. Ever played a game with an economy? Notice how it's the optimal play to mistreat people unless there's an artifical moral system thrown in? It's because that's how it is. It's optimal to mistreat people in a democracy or capitalism you just need them not to NOTICE it. I once watched a cartoon in which someone made commercials to hypnotize people to shop at his store - is this so unlike modern commercials?

For want of a POP

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:38:46 -0500

I really hate this. We have fucking POP servers. We have fucking SMTP servers. THEY ARE GENERALIZED. Use them! Ok - so Biggs wanted to use email INSTEAD of other social networking tools. I disgree there are things you'd be better off doing more personally. What about sending personal messages related to meatspace interaction? FUCKING EMAIL! Look at it - it's email - only I am expected to check my facebook to read it. HELL Facebook EMAILS me to tell me I got one. Person could send an email to me - she has my email - a viable email - one of a few - is up there. And so she could use it. Instead "PERSONAL MESSAGE" option. Which gives her the great option of clicking the wrong name on a scrolling list (rather than a traditional "closest match" autofill that changes as you type more on an email client). What we do is simply misuse a tool. "OH MY FACEBOOK IS SO GREAT - IT KEEPS ME IN CONTACT WITH FRIENDS". Email does that. What social networking should do is let you NETWORK rather than keep your same old clique.

I WANTZ

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:28:46 -0500

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1327

REALITY BAT

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:48:00 -0500

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=988

With Apologies to CS Lewis

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:11:38 -0500

My Dearest Sagebrush It has come to my attention that you have recently graduated from the Tempters' Training College for young demons and have recieved your first patient. Of course you must be very happy. You know of course that your father, and my nephew, failed on his own very first assignment and therefore I have decided to give you as much advice as befits an old hand to a young pup. Firstly, you must reply post-haste with all of the information you have on this human. His disposition is exeedingly important to how you should go about this - as are his relatives. But firstly there are some very basic concepts to go over. As I understand the new policies it is customary to start giving humans their very own demon much younger than it was traditional to do in my day. Of course this is because they have started to become so much easier to bring to our side. Besides, who am I to question the judgements of the Lowerarchy? But this is all beside the point, I understand that your patient will be in his late teens and therefore much influenced by the modern world. I believe the first thing you should do is remind him that he is important. Make him as important and effective as possible. While in bygone days it was best to make the person as hopeless as possible, it now is better to make them feel as important as possible. People with hope always go over to the side of the Enemy - but someone who is hopeful will always feel as if they can complete any task and deal with any problem. This is of course best. The feeling that they are able to do anything causes them to not rely on the Enemy's strange promises of love or affection. Also - it causes them to not wish to rely on anyone else's affections or desires. Keeps your patient sharp for problems and keeps him away from dangerous people would would have him enter into communities or relationships. Not of course that relationships are always bad, they can be just the thing for you as well if they are handled properly but to enter a relationship properly one must be able to understand that they don't truly need the girl. The girl is just there to make them feel good or for some fun. One must understand this. The Enemy created them in order to feel "Love" which is simply a word for the indoctornation into the enemy's camp. While the human is feeling independent and capable it will be good to also entertain him. Only for a few years but enough. You see making him entertained now will make him easily entertained for a while and then as he matures, he will become less entertained by the same things but wish to be entertained the same amount. Of course he wont be - and therefore will become quite selfish as he seeks as much entertainment as possible from everyone and everything around him. Until of course he begins to be as greedy as can be. Almost as greedy and surly as ourselves. A quite admirable goal. So - I repeat - give me all of what you have on your patient and I will be sure to help you as much as I can. Your Affectionate Great-Uncle Screwtape

Somewhere

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:23:25 -0500

Somewhere, sometime, somewhen - someone thought I was perfect. Somehwere, sometime, somewhen - someone owed me their life. Somewhere, sometime, somewhen - someone thought I could do no wrong. And these times are the times I will always remember. http://processandprogress.blogspot.com/2007/10/sticker-on-publ Everyone.

Zombie Apocolypse

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:09:10 -0500

So - my thesis is that a zombie apocolypse will never happen and never work. I know I know - BLASHPHEMY! But seriously. Firstly even if something Return Of the Living Dead crazy actually happened - we could nuke the fuckers. Which works no matter WHAT zombie mythos we're working under. And we don't even need to go to such extremes. SARS was a virus and we had that shit under control in about a week. There were minor outbreaks here and there but seriously people will take "FUCKING ZOMBIES" more seriously than "My cold". Besides - we'll have fewer compunctions about shooting them through the head or tying them down at the very least. Needless to say it should be easy to contain sickness style zombies. Nanite style zombies should be emp'd to all hell assuming they're not shielded - then they just need to be kept in a dark, cold room for long enough to depower the nanites. And magic style zombies are defeated by killing the mage. So - all in all it's not too hard to FINISH any zombie outbreak. Kill the initial 2-3 zombies (or even 50) but I mean, one SWAT team could do it!

Your Move

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:45:18 -0500

RKBQKBKR pppppppp OXOXOXOX XOXOXOXO OXOXOXOX XOXOXOXO pppppppp RKBKQBKR

Selling to the rich and giving to the poor

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:29:39 -0500

So - ummm. What constitutes Robin Hood? Seriously - what if you sell people stuff? In a Capitalist culture if you do it right you can steal from people by selling them things that are worthless but they want. We do it all the time - so why not put it to a better use than personal pocket lining? Why not built a capitalist enterprise in order to maintain the other aspect of capitalism - social responsibility. I am not advocating a sweatshop to end sweatshops - I am advocating making completely normal capitalist crap. Becoming a giant. And then starting to funnel those multi-billion dollar legal budgets into better things. Why not?