Collusion is an plugin for Firefox and Chrome browsers....
You may not realize who collects what, which is exactly what Collusion wants to make clear. For instance, you do not need to be registered with Facebook for them to make a profile of you. Once you've visited any page that is affiliated with them, they'll create a file about you and collect each and every visit to every site that has a "Like" button or a Facebook plugin. Google is even more extreme, as they collect data from every place that has AdSense, Analytics, and similar services, which basically covers almost everything the average person visits. Those services may not always be as obvious as a "Like" button - for instance, some are implemented by displaying a single transparent pixel image.
You may not realize in which way this data can be combined, and how complete these profiles actually are, apart from just showing what news you read. You cannot know what kind of surveillance methods and laws will be implemented in the future. Already, biometric information gathering such as the identification of people from video recordings is becoming more and more successful, even prompting for the EU to begin implementing a system that can link people in public places to their Facebook pages and other photographs. Similar plans are implemented by the US. Other technologies include public voice surveillance, supervision of vehicle movement or behavioral analysis in public spaces. All this data can and will be linked and combined with what is collected about you online.
This kind of information isn't something that will stay in one place forever and will only be used for one purpose. This may be as trivial as the ToS changes over at Instagram, where people would surrender the copyright to their photos for Instagram to use, and it may be as severe as a fundamental change in government that asks for access to this data. Again, this may be as tolerable as FBI warrantless surveillance and as extreme as a dictatorship craving information about previously acceptable behavior.
I'm not trying to evoke Godwin's Law, but what would have happened if the Nazis had access to all communication data of their citizens, allowing them to see who had ever communicated with a Jew, and what they had talked about? These suspicions may seem outlandish, but who would have considered it realistic for Greece to have a sizable Fascist movement ten years ago? And this information will not only be around for ten years, but possibly until the end of your life, and it could still affect your offspring afterwards.
It is a central premise of computer technology that no system is ever completely safe. This means that your information can fall into the wrong hands by illegal methods, possibly by technologies we can not yet imagine. There may be huge obstacles to overcome in order to raid Facebook's or Google's servers, but there are myriads of tracking services available which the average user will not scan for security problems or loopholes in the ToS. If one of these is compromised, your information is out in the open to be transmitted without your control or judicial supervision.
There are a lot of psychological and sociological implications to constant and ubiquitous surveillance. It has been proven in numerous experiments that people will behave very differently if they know that they are being watched, especially if they do not know if there's a supervisor currently present and who they are. This applies to only to a limited extent to online behavior right now, because few people realize the amount of surveillance which is already happening.
It is not a logical fallacy to assume a slippery slope in this case, because as the change happens slowly, people grow accustomed to it. I was ridiculed years ago for outlining some of the things we currently see, but when I remind people of that nowadays, they respond with "so what". For that reason, we have to be aware that these changes may lead down a very dark road.
As an example, I vehemently oppose the usage of mobile surveillance drones, while a press statement by our police presidents says that the upcoming models will "not yet be armed due to insufficiently evolved technology". None of my peers have expressed outrage at this concept. This is potentially very harmful to society, and every bit of surveillance furthers the mindset to accept such laws.
Those are main reasons for opposing surveillance. They apply to any kind of surveillance, of course, but tracking Internet usage is a central part of that in today's massively networked world.
If you're interested in other perspectives, there are lots of articles available online. Following the publications of the Electronic Frontier Foundation would be a good starting point for a better look at the sociological implications, and seeing TED talks by technology activists such as the Chaos Computer Club or the participants of DEFCON would be a good way to learn more about the technological side.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Writing and Original Ideas
It's an oft-repeated maxim in writing that good ideas are overrated: a good writer can make a good book out of an awful idea, and conversely, a bad writer will take a great idea and usually turn it an awful book. A common story, first brought to my attention by Brandon Sanderson, tells the origin of Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series. To quote Wikipedia:
The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Delray Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “Pokémon”.
The moral of the story, aside from "don't make bets with Jim Butcher 'cuz he really takes that shit seriously," is: don't spend too much time worrying about whether your ideas are good or not, when you could be using that time to write (and thus becoming a better writer in the process).
There's a flaw in this story which I'll elaborate on later, but overall the utility of this advice is obvious. Just consider the structure of a typical novel: if the average novel contains 30 chapters, each of which contains 1-3 scenes (or more if you're feeling frisky), and each of these scenes requires at least a few ideas to make them interesting (to say nothing of the ideas needed for characters, the setting and the premise of the book as a whole), it's clear that a professional novelist absolutely must be able to generate a lot of ideas quickly to stay in business.
Of course, we don't want to write books by always chaining together the first things that pop into our heads (at least, I assume we don't; who knows, I haven't tried it), but we can't afford to spend hours or days deciding what path to take on every little detail either. So for the most part, once we have the "big picture" laid down the way we like it, it's better to just take what your brain will give you and trust your writing skills to paper over any residual lameness that's left over.
Now, all of the above is pretty standard craft-talk, but it's a subject that's close to my heart, because I was a longtime sufferer of the "is my idea good enough?" syndrome. In my particular variant, I had an unhealthy, often subconscious aversion to any idea which I perceived as "cliché" or overdone. And I wasn't alone either: I can't count the number of times I've seen people post variants of "how do I get past the feeling that everything has been done before?" to various writing forums.
It's easy to understand where this feeling comes from; literature, if not society as a whole, places a high value on originality. How many times have you seen a critic quoted on a movie poster or book jacket describing a work as "dazzlingly original" (or "brilliantly original" or "wonderfully original" or some similar adverb)?
Conversely, re-using ideas that have already been done is associated with plagiarism; do it too much, and you might be labeled a hack. Sure, maybe there's really no use in trying to be original since everything has been done before, but we don't want our books to be like everything else, do we? We want to be special, and if that means we have to try a little harder, then so be it.
It's a convincing fiction, and an easy trap to fall into, but for the rest of this article I'm going to make the best argument I can that the exact opposite of the above statement is true. Originality is not necessarily any better than being unoriginal, and in many cases may actually limit the potential audience for your work.
The basic tenet of my thesis is this: when consuming media, most humans are hard wired to desire familiarity first, and novelty only in small doses.
Rather than speculate on how this came to be (I have some ideas, but I'm not an evolutionary psychologist and this post is going to be long enough), I'll start with the example of my 3-year-old son, for whom we purchased a Netflix subscription a few months ago (ah Netflix, ultimate tool of the lazy parent). Right now, he's on a massive Spiderman kick--every time he sits down, it's Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman, which is fine since Netflix has approximately 10,000 Spiderman cartoon episodes available for streaming. Except, he doesn't want to watch 10,000 Spiderman cartoons; he wants to watch one cartoon, the first one he ever saw, where Spiderman fights the ice monsters. Over and over and over. It's a pattern he's engaged in ever since we started letting him watch TV: unless you demand that he watches something else, he will ask to watch the same thing again and again until some sort of threshold is reached and his brain switches and says I don't want to see this anymore, give me something new.
Of course, that might be typical for a toddler, but what about an adult? I'd argue that the degree to which this behavior changes as one enters adulthood is highly dependent on the individual. Some people will watch the same movie 200 times or read the same book every year for their entire life, while others are put off by anything that isn't very different from what they've seen before.
Personally, I'm probably in the upper quartile of novelty seekers; I hardly ever see movies twice and I never re-read books, which might account for some of the anxiety about originality mentioned above (and it would be interesting to see how many other creative-types feel the same way). However, my unscientific viewpoint is that the majority of humans actually fall closer to the familiarity-seeking side of the scale than the opposite. Just look at popular music: remember the Four Chord Song? Those with a background in music theory know that this video isn't just a clever joke: most rock songs really are very structured very similarly, drawn from a small set of intervals that people are used to hearing, which in turn makes those intervals sound pleasing to western ears. Then there are genres where the differences are even more shallow, like the blues; there are blues fanatics who would gladly listen to blues every day, even when almost every song uses the same twelve bar progression or the same minor pentatonic scale!
In terms of print, the amount of novelty the average reader seeks also varies by genre. Some genres (i.e. Gothic romance) are so predictable they could almost be written by filling in character names on a Mad Lib. Literary fiction sits on the opposite end of the spectrum, because almost anything is acceptable as long as the prose has good "style" (which in itself is subjective). There are some forms of science fiction where the goal is to come up with completely new ideas, and others where the same concepts are recycled over and over (space opera, etc.). But for the most part, if you survey the most popular works from any given genre, you'll find that they borrow liberally from popular books that came before.
And here's the key point: this is not a bad thing. On one level, a genre is nothing more than a set of promises made to a reader: the reader goes to a particular shelf and selects a particular book cover because they think they already know what's going to happen in that book. Of course, you as the author want to surprise them, toss them a curveball once in a while the same way a good songwriter will sometimes change up and add an accidental or put in that iii chord before the V-IV-I turnaround. But if you examine the above-mentioned popular books, you'll see for yourself how light of a touch they tend to use with originality: they pick one, maybe two existing tropes and invert them, or inject one completely new concept, but leave the rest of their genre's conventions alone. And that's what most people crave: to have their hands held, then be shaken up just a bit before being gently placed back into their comfort zone.
And therein lies the flaw in the Codex Alera story: "Lost Roman Legion" crossed with "Pokémon" isn't a lame idea at all. It's actually an awesome idea, because it re-uses two concepts that most people are already familiar with. If you don't believe me, try pitching a book to an editor that doesn't have some obvious comparison to another book which readers are likely to know already. Or, try doing an elevator pitch for a complex, completely original story and watch an agent's eyes glaze over, then repeat the process by saying "it's X meets Y!" (example: Tale Spin in the Warring States Period) and observe the result.
So, if you're going to be anxious about something, be anxious that maybe your ideas are too original to sell, and you need to dial it back and start stealing more. Start with the Tale Spin thing. That one's free.
Please don't interpret this article as me encouraging people to defy their own artistic sensibilities for the sake of sales. If your ideas have rarely or never been done before and that's the book you want to write, then go for it. But you can still be aware of humanity's propensity for familiarity and use that to understand your audience: you're aiming for the experimental noise-rock listeners, not the people that listen to Justin Bieber. On one hand, there's a lot less of the former than the latter, but on the other, if you can find those core fans and really speak to what they crave, you may find yourself with a truly devoted fanbase. After all, there's so little out there for a true novelty-seeker to enjoy.
The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Delray Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “Pokémon”.
The moral of the story, aside from "don't make bets with Jim Butcher 'cuz he really takes that shit seriously," is: don't spend too much time worrying about whether your ideas are good or not, when you could be using that time to write (and thus becoming a better writer in the process).
There's a flaw in this story which I'll elaborate on later, but overall the utility of this advice is obvious. Just consider the structure of a typical novel: if the average novel contains 30 chapters, each of which contains 1-3 scenes (or more if you're feeling frisky), and each of these scenes requires at least a few ideas to make them interesting (to say nothing of the ideas needed for characters, the setting and the premise of the book as a whole), it's clear that a professional novelist absolutely must be able to generate a lot of ideas quickly to stay in business.
Of course, we don't want to write books by always chaining together the first things that pop into our heads (at least, I assume we don't; who knows, I haven't tried it), but we can't afford to spend hours or days deciding what path to take on every little detail either. So for the most part, once we have the "big picture" laid down the way we like it, it's better to just take what your brain will give you and trust your writing skills to paper over any residual lameness that's left over.
Now, all of the above is pretty standard craft-talk, but it's a subject that's close to my heart, because I was a longtime sufferer of the "is my idea good enough?" syndrome. In my particular variant, I had an unhealthy, often subconscious aversion to any idea which I perceived as "cliché" or overdone. And I wasn't alone either: I can't count the number of times I've seen people post variants of "how do I get past the feeling that everything has been done before?" to various writing forums.
It's easy to understand where this feeling comes from; literature, if not society as a whole, places a high value on originality. How many times have you seen a critic quoted on a movie poster or book jacket describing a work as "dazzlingly original" (or "brilliantly original" or "wonderfully original" or some similar adverb)?
Conversely, re-using ideas that have already been done is associated with plagiarism; do it too much, and you might be labeled a hack. Sure, maybe there's really no use in trying to be original since everything has been done before, but we don't want our books to be like everything else, do we? We want to be special, and if that means we have to try a little harder, then so be it.
It's a convincing fiction, and an easy trap to fall into, but for the rest of this article I'm going to make the best argument I can that the exact opposite of the above statement is true. Originality is not necessarily any better than being unoriginal, and in many cases may actually limit the potential audience for your work.
The basic tenet of my thesis is this: when consuming media, most humans are hard wired to desire familiarity first, and novelty only in small doses.
Rather than speculate on how this came to be (I have some ideas, but I'm not an evolutionary psychologist and this post is going to be long enough), I'll start with the example of my 3-year-old son, for whom we purchased a Netflix subscription a few months ago (ah Netflix, ultimate tool of the lazy parent). Right now, he's on a massive Spiderman kick--every time he sits down, it's Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman, which is fine since Netflix has approximately 10,000 Spiderman cartoon episodes available for streaming. Except, he doesn't want to watch 10,000 Spiderman cartoons; he wants to watch one cartoon, the first one he ever saw, where Spiderman fights the ice monsters. Over and over and over. It's a pattern he's engaged in ever since we started letting him watch TV: unless you demand that he watches something else, he will ask to watch the same thing again and again until some sort of threshold is reached and his brain switches and says I don't want to see this anymore, give me something new.
Of course, that might be typical for a toddler, but what about an adult? I'd argue that the degree to which this behavior changes as one enters adulthood is highly dependent on the individual. Some people will watch the same movie 200 times or read the same book every year for their entire life, while others are put off by anything that isn't very different from what they've seen before.
Personally, I'm probably in the upper quartile of novelty seekers; I hardly ever see movies twice and I never re-read books, which might account for some of the anxiety about originality mentioned above (and it would be interesting to see how many other creative-types feel the same way). However, my unscientific viewpoint is that the majority of humans actually fall closer to the familiarity-seeking side of the scale than the opposite. Just look at popular music: remember the Four Chord Song? Those with a background in music theory know that this video isn't just a clever joke: most rock songs really are very structured very similarly, drawn from a small set of intervals that people are used to hearing, which in turn makes those intervals sound pleasing to western ears. Then there are genres where the differences are even more shallow, like the blues; there are blues fanatics who would gladly listen to blues every day, even when almost every song uses the same twelve bar progression or the same minor pentatonic scale!
In terms of print, the amount of novelty the average reader seeks also varies by genre. Some genres (i.e. Gothic romance) are so predictable they could almost be written by filling in character names on a Mad Lib. Literary fiction sits on the opposite end of the spectrum, because almost anything is acceptable as long as the prose has good "style" (which in itself is subjective). There are some forms of science fiction where the goal is to come up with completely new ideas, and others where the same concepts are recycled over and over (space opera, etc.). But for the most part, if you survey the most popular works from any given genre, you'll find that they borrow liberally from popular books that came before.
And here's the key point: this is not a bad thing. On one level, a genre is nothing more than a set of promises made to a reader: the reader goes to a particular shelf and selects a particular book cover because they think they already know what's going to happen in that book. Of course, you as the author want to surprise them, toss them a curveball once in a while the same way a good songwriter will sometimes change up and add an accidental or put in that iii chord before the V-IV-I turnaround. But if you examine the above-mentioned popular books, you'll see for yourself how light of a touch they tend to use with originality: they pick one, maybe two existing tropes and invert them, or inject one completely new concept, but leave the rest of their genre's conventions alone. And that's what most people crave: to have their hands held, then be shaken up just a bit before being gently placed back into their comfort zone.
And therein lies the flaw in the Codex Alera story: "Lost Roman Legion" crossed with "Pokémon" isn't a lame idea at all. It's actually an awesome idea, because it re-uses two concepts that most people are already familiar with. If you don't believe me, try pitching a book to an editor that doesn't have some obvious comparison to another book which readers are likely to know already. Or, try doing an elevator pitch for a complex, completely original story and watch an agent's eyes glaze over, then repeat the process by saying "it's X meets Y!" (example: Tale Spin in the Warring States Period) and observe the result.
So, if you're going to be anxious about something, be anxious that maybe your ideas are too original to sell, and you need to dial it back and start stealing more. Start with the Tale Spin thing. That one's free.
Please don't interpret this article as me encouraging people to defy their own artistic sensibilities for the sake of sales. If your ideas have rarely or never been done before and that's the book you want to write, then go for it. But you can still be aware of humanity's propensity for familiarity and use that to understand your audience: you're aiming for the experimental noise-rock listeners, not the people that listen to Justin Bieber. On one hand, there's a lot less of the former than the latter, but on the other, if you can find those core fans and really speak to what they crave, you may find yourself with a truly devoted fanbase. After all, there's so little out there for a true novelty-seeker to enjoy.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
An Arguement for Compulsory Education
Compulsory factory education was among the first general education policies in the world and was one of the reasons Prussia (and later all of Germany) became a scientific, economic and military powerhouse. But enough with the history, let's hear some arguments
The point and great benefit of having a compulsory school system is everyone learns roughly the same curriculum, the teaching of that curriculum is monitored by multiple parents (and if necessary, parents initatives, ministries etc.) and the chances of someone just imprinting their views on kids are minimized.
If it were up to me, I'd also ban private schools, as that would incentivize rich parents to lobby for better state education.
What everyone seems quick to invoke is the idea of an "indoctrination factory" while forgetting that because it is PUBLIC everyone has the possibility (and duty) to supervise and try to improve the standard of teaching. And while I'll be the first to admit that changing stuff for the better at the national level is nigh impossible due to heavy lobbying, with state schools you can at least improve things locally. If you allow homeschooling, you have no public supervision, you just have the parents having 18+ years to mess up their children if they are so inclined.
"HAH", some might cry "now you have shown your true colors! You want the children turned into willful servants of "the man" and make everyone learn the same things! Supervised by the sheeple establishment no less"
Well, yes and no. I want everyone to learn the currently accepted scientific consensus, while leaving enough room for indiviality. You know where you can ensure that? Public Schools.
Public schools where more than one strain of thought is present in both teachers and students, where every student HAS to learn a bare minimum by themselves because even the best teachers in the smallest classes can't smother them with constant attention and drill their biases into them like a pair of parents can with 1-7 children.
For the vast majority, the compulsory school system is beneficial. I have personally known co-students who came home and spent another 3 hours unlearning evolution and in some cases physics because their parents were religious nuts. With compulsory public (or at least not-at-home) schooling, at least they had the chance to get a different perspective.
The point and great benefit of having a compulsory school system is everyone learns roughly the same curriculum, the teaching of that curriculum is monitored by multiple parents (and if necessary, parents initatives, ministries etc.) and the chances of someone just imprinting their views on kids are minimized.
If it were up to me, I'd also ban private schools, as that would incentivize rich parents to lobby for better state education.
What everyone seems quick to invoke is the idea of an "indoctrination factory" while forgetting that because it is PUBLIC everyone has the possibility (and duty) to supervise and try to improve the standard of teaching. And while I'll be the first to admit that changing stuff for the better at the national level is nigh impossible due to heavy lobbying, with state schools you can at least improve things locally. If you allow homeschooling, you have no public supervision, you just have the parents having 18+ years to mess up their children if they are so inclined.
"HAH", some might cry "now you have shown your true colors! You want the children turned into willful servants of "the man" and make everyone learn the same things! Supervised by the sheeple establishment no less"
Well, yes and no. I want everyone to learn the currently accepted scientific consensus, while leaving enough room for indiviality. You know where you can ensure that? Public Schools.
Public schools where more than one strain of thought is present in both teachers and students, where every student HAS to learn a bare minimum by themselves because even the best teachers in the smallest classes can't smother them with constant attention and drill their biases into them like a pair of parents can with 1-7 children.
For the vast majority, the compulsory school system is beneficial. I have personally known co-students who came home and spent another 3 hours unlearning evolution and in some cases physics because their parents were religious nuts. With compulsory public (or at least not-at-home) schooling, at least they had the chance to get a different perspective.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Modernism versus Post-Modernism
Modernism refers to a structural phase in philosophical thought. It's key intuition was that if you could understand the relationships between various phenomena at one moment in time that you could infer the causal structures of those relationships.
So Freud said that his field of study could be understood by the invisible structure of unconscious desire, Marx said that his field could be understood by the mainly political structures of the economy, Darwin said that his field could be understood by biological structures of evolution and Neitzsche said that his field could be understood by the structures of the will to power. In anthropology it was Levi Strauss and myth. In Linguistics it was Sassure and and the signifier. In theology it was Schliermacher and religious aesthetics.
In each of these thinkers there is no appeal to a God, an absolute, or a center to the structure itself, it was not the center that mattered, but the structure, and the structure was viewed as dynamic. So the only thing a thinker could do was study "the way things are now" which is to say, to identify the current position and function of those structures. Or to look at "how this came to be" or the history of a certain aspect of the feild. (Philosophers use "synchronic" and "diachronic" to explain these who views).
Modernism tended to elevate the synchronic ("the way things are now") over the diachronic ("how this came to be") which is how it cames to be incorrectly asserted that modernism only cares about up-to-date-ness or the "modern" world.
Note here that God is of little use to "modern" scholars. Freud could not use God to explain a psychosis anymore that Nietzsche could use God to explain the will to power. God was not referenced by the structure as so was not needed in the theology. You can't imagine Marx saying "the working class poor of the world will rise to seize the means of production, oh, except for the Polish, they are cursed by God".
They each believed their structures to be universal and they did not reference God to prove that universality. The structure doesn't reference heaven. (This is precisely the point where Barth disagreed with Schliermacher - and why his Romans changed the trajectory of theology, by reattaching the event of the word to the divine.)
Post-modernism was one of the responses this prevading belief in structure. This is why, in philosophy, post-moderism and post-structuralism are almost synonyms.
Barthes and Derrida noted that all modernism relied on a belief in languages ability to explicate the structure, where they saw it was too dynamic a tool, always inserting its own tensions and fissures into meaning without the permission or intention of the author. This meaning could not be fixed long enough to pursure a synchronic investigation and certainly could not be reliably communicated as the structure changed in the telling.
Lacan and Foucault problematized the assumptions of gender and power along with a slew of feminist post-structuralists (Irigiray, Cisoux). Lyotard noted that to try to percieve the grand narrative was to make claims language and thought could range over history, which he asserted was false.
If we were to study synchronically, it would have to be a "local" study (and this is where the "everyone has a valid opinion" misreading of postmodernism comes from.). One cannot assume that language and thought will be structred the same "over there" any more that I can assume that language and thought will be structured the same "back then". It must be noted here that the "grand narrative" (or metanarratives) that these writers spoke of were the modern narratives of power, evolution, economy etc. that we discussed above. Thus the thinkers were beyond modernity or post-modern.
Again there is little use for God is this thought was God is viewed as an attempt to "fix" language (as in keep it in place), and attempt to set up an authority over meaning that is non-local. This is usually oppressive and should be deconstructed.
For the most part people don't know or care about all this. They don't think "I was gonna tell this person about Jesus, but now I'm worried I'll posit an opressive, non-local, grand narritive that undermines authentic gender performativity." Rather there is a complex system, in any cultural context, that defines what is sayable without justification. As someone put it "The doctrines of (post)Modernism may not be a danger to us, the spirit of (post)Modernism may".
So Freud said that his field of study could be understood by the invisible structure of unconscious desire, Marx said that his field could be understood by the mainly political structures of the economy, Darwin said that his field could be understood by biological structures of evolution and Neitzsche said that his field could be understood by the structures of the will to power. In anthropology it was Levi Strauss and myth. In Linguistics it was Sassure and and the signifier. In theology it was Schliermacher and religious aesthetics.
In each of these thinkers there is no appeal to a God, an absolute, or a center to the structure itself, it was not the center that mattered, but the structure, and the structure was viewed as dynamic. So the only thing a thinker could do was study "the way things are now" which is to say, to identify the current position and function of those structures. Or to look at "how this came to be" or the history of a certain aspect of the feild. (Philosophers use "synchronic" and "diachronic" to explain these who views).
Modernism tended to elevate the synchronic ("the way things are now") over the diachronic ("how this came to be") which is how it cames to be incorrectly asserted that modernism only cares about up-to-date-ness or the "modern" world.
Note here that God is of little use to "modern" scholars. Freud could not use God to explain a psychosis anymore that Nietzsche could use God to explain the will to power. God was not referenced by the structure as so was not needed in the theology. You can't imagine Marx saying "the working class poor of the world will rise to seize the means of production, oh, except for the Polish, they are cursed by God".
They each believed their structures to be universal and they did not reference God to prove that universality. The structure doesn't reference heaven. (This is precisely the point where Barth disagreed with Schliermacher - and why his Romans changed the trajectory of theology, by reattaching the event of the word to the divine.)
Post-modernism was one of the responses this prevading belief in structure. This is why, in philosophy, post-moderism and post-structuralism are almost synonyms.
Barthes and Derrida noted that all modernism relied on a belief in languages ability to explicate the structure, where they saw it was too dynamic a tool, always inserting its own tensions and fissures into meaning without the permission or intention of the author. This meaning could not be fixed long enough to pursure a synchronic investigation and certainly could not be reliably communicated as the structure changed in the telling.
Lacan and Foucault problematized the assumptions of gender and power along with a slew of feminist post-structuralists (Irigiray, Cisoux). Lyotard noted that to try to percieve the grand narrative was to make claims language and thought could range over history, which he asserted was false.
If we were to study synchronically, it would have to be a "local" study (and this is where the "everyone has a valid opinion" misreading of postmodernism comes from.). One cannot assume that language and thought will be structred the same "over there" any more that I can assume that language and thought will be structured the same "back then". It must be noted here that the "grand narrative" (or metanarratives) that these writers spoke of were the modern narratives of power, evolution, economy etc. that we discussed above. Thus the thinkers were beyond modernity or post-modern.
Again there is little use for God is this thought was God is viewed as an attempt to "fix" language (as in keep it in place), and attempt to set up an authority over meaning that is non-local. This is usually oppressive and should be deconstructed.
For the most part people don't know or care about all this. They don't think "I was gonna tell this person about Jesus, but now I'm worried I'll posit an opressive, non-local, grand narritive that undermines authentic gender performativity." Rather there is a complex system, in any cultural context, that defines what is sayable without justification. As someone put it "The doctrines of (post)Modernism may not be a danger to us, the spirit of (post)Modernism may".
Getting Started with Wine
Wine is, without doubt, the most socially acceptable drink to order when you aren't on steady footing with the company, the venue or the event sophistication. Spirits and cocktails are either too strong or too quickly consumed to be proper social beverages, and beer has a tendency to make you burp and is best consumed in comfortable company. What's left? Wine.
Restaurant lunch. Fancy dinner. Mingling with guests at a function. Business lunch. Casual seaside picnic. Upscale party where you don't know many people. All ideal wine times.
First of all, the only rule is:
White wines range from very dry (which is sort of tangy/sour and yet neither of those things) to very sweet (sugary, syrupy sweet). Red wines are much heavier and stronger, and can be mild and warm (Merlot) ranging all the way to fruity and flavorful (Cab Sauv) to spicy and hot (Shiraz). There are few sweet reds that are not fortified (port - traditionally a nightcap drink) or blended with whites (rose).
Regions are just 'where the wine comes from', which makes a difference, but not as much as the wine variety. For example, a Shiraz from California is called a 'Syrah' and is typically deep red. A Shiraz from Australia is typically deep purple.
Try a bunch of them. The rest will sort itself as you go.
There is no correct way to open a wine bottle or drink it from the glass. Pour it and go. You'll see people swirling and sniffing and biting it and all manner of stuff. Let them go for it, they're having fun. What matters is sipping the wine and enjoying the taste and smell. You don't need to swirl and sniff and do a handstand to make that happen.
Don't panic about matching wine to food. The loose guide is match the colour of the wine to the meat you're eating. Red meat, red wine. White meat, white wine. That's it. Beyond that, go by your taste buds alone. You'll pick up what tastes nice with wine as you go. As mentioned above, olives and cheese are common favourites.
People will swear there are specific wines for specific foods, but these people are largely making it up. Your own taste determines which wine you want to drink. Humor these people, for they will not be howled down, but take their advice with a grain of salt. They're likely just regurgitating what a posh uncle once told them, which they then converted to gospel. I say again: the only determination of a good tasting wine is your tongue.
Remember that rule, because it applies to price as well. Try all kinds of price ranges if you can, but never make the mistake of believing expensive = better taste. Incorrect. Better taste = better taste. Your mouth will tell you which one that is. If it happens to be a $4 of cleanskin plonc, congratulations, you will save a lot of money over the years. If it happens to be a $60 bottle of reserve New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, great. Fork it out. It's worth it only if you actually enjoy it.
Learn to appreciate wine and you'll always have a readily available drink that won't disassociate you from the company you're in. It's a drink that matches your circumstances. You'll look sophisticated in sophisticated company, you'll look casual in a relaxed atmosphere, you'll look professional in a business setting. Beer and spirits can't offer that. Wine is an easier and tastier drink than a lot of younger people give it credit for, and it is to their detriment. Give it a try. You'll never regret it.
Unless you become an alcoholic, in which case, you didn't hear about any of this stuff from me.
Also, rosé is not a blend, I was mistaken in a tired haze and sabotaged by the fact that I don't like it and, therefore by my own advice, don't drink it. Go forth and drink wine, you classy lords and ladies!
source
Restaurant lunch. Fancy dinner. Mingling with guests at a function. Business lunch. Casual seaside picnic. Upscale party where you don't know many people. All ideal wine times.
First of all, the only rule is:
- Do not drink sweet/dessert wines and believe you've made it into the connoisseur's lounge
White wines range from very dry (which is sort of tangy/sour and yet neither of those things) to very sweet (sugary, syrupy sweet). Red wines are much heavier and stronger, and can be mild and warm (Merlot) ranging all the way to fruity and flavorful (Cab Sauv) to spicy and hot (Shiraz). There are few sweet reds that are not fortified (port - traditionally a nightcap drink) or blended with whites (rose).
Regions are just 'where the wine comes from', which makes a difference, but not as much as the wine variety. For example, a Shiraz from California is called a 'Syrah' and is typically deep red. A Shiraz from Australia is typically deep purple.
Try a bunch of them. The rest will sort itself as you go.
There is no correct way to open a wine bottle or drink it from the glass. Pour it and go. You'll see people swirling and sniffing and biting it and all manner of stuff. Let them go for it, they're having fun. What matters is sipping the wine and enjoying the taste and smell. You don't need to swirl and sniff and do a handstand to make that happen.
Don't panic about matching wine to food. The loose guide is match the colour of the wine to the meat you're eating. Red meat, red wine. White meat, white wine. That's it. Beyond that, go by your taste buds alone. You'll pick up what tastes nice with wine as you go. As mentioned above, olives and cheese are common favourites.
People will swear there are specific wines for specific foods, but these people are largely making it up. Your own taste determines which wine you want to drink. Humor these people, for they will not be howled down, but take their advice with a grain of salt. They're likely just regurgitating what a posh uncle once told them, which they then converted to gospel. I say again: the only determination of a good tasting wine is your tongue.
Remember that rule, because it applies to price as well. Try all kinds of price ranges if you can, but never make the mistake of believing expensive = better taste. Incorrect. Better taste = better taste. Your mouth will tell you which one that is. If it happens to be a $4 of cleanskin plonc, congratulations, you will save a lot of money over the years. If it happens to be a $60 bottle of reserve New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, great. Fork it out. It's worth it only if you actually enjoy it.
Learn to appreciate wine and you'll always have a readily available drink that won't disassociate you from the company you're in. It's a drink that matches your circumstances. You'll look sophisticated in sophisticated company, you'll look casual in a relaxed atmosphere, you'll look professional in a business setting. Beer and spirits can't offer that. Wine is an easier and tastier drink than a lot of younger people give it credit for, and it is to their detriment. Give it a try. You'll never regret it.
Unless you become an alcoholic, in which case, you didn't hear about any of this stuff from me.
Also, rosé is not a blend, I was mistaken in a tired haze and sabotaged by the fact that I don't like it and, therefore by my own advice, don't drink it. Go forth and drink wine, you classy lords and ladies!
source
Getting Started with E-Cigarettes: How to Stop Smoking the Real Ones
If you're a smoker, Electronic Cigarettes will change your life.
I was a 2-pack a day smoker for about five years, and a smoker going back more than a decade. I tried my first eCig, decided to stop regular cigarettes cold turkey a week later (after I had smoked through those I had already bought), and I have not had a single cigarette since that time -- approximately 14 months.
It. Freaking. Works.
Let me list it out for you bit by bit:
Know how much my eCigs cost me? Less than $100 per 3-4 months.
It seems like most people don't wanna try it because they feel like it's too complicated, too niche, don't know what to buy, et cetera. And in fairness, if you just jump on a message board it's like anything else -- crazy lingo and so many options its overwhelming. Let me make it easy for you:
What eCig Equipment To Buy:
If health is your number one concern, you want to quit nicotine consumption entirely. What works for some may not work for others, but eCigs are a great way to taper down on your way to quitting. It depends on what your goals and priorities are. What's important is that you decide what is right for you, do your research, and make the right decision based on your desires and safety.
source
I was a 2-pack a day smoker for about five years, and a smoker going back more than a decade. I tried my first eCig, decided to stop regular cigarettes cold turkey a week later (after I had smoked through those I had already bought), and I have not had a single cigarette since that time -- approximately 14 months.
It. Freaking. Works.
Let me list it out for you bit by bit:
- No more smelly clothes/hair/house
- All the nicotine, none of the carcinogens
- It is UNBELIEVABLY cheaper
- You can use eCigs ANYWHERE -- I use them in every restaurant, bar, airports, you name it.
- There are innumerable options in terms of flavors and nicotine content
- If your goal is to quit and not just switch to a better way of enjoying nicotine, this is without a doubt the most efficient way to taper down yet devised.
- Did I mention how much CHEAPER it is?
Know how much my eCigs cost me? Less than $100 per 3-4 months.
It seems like most people don't wanna try it because they feel like it's too complicated, too niche, don't know what to buy, et cetera. And in fairness, if you just jump on a message board it's like anything else -- crazy lingo and so many options its overwhelming. Let me make it easy for you:
What eCig Equipment To Buy:
- Joye eGo Starter Kit -- This is the exact kit I bought when I first got into vaping, and I buy a new kit every 3-4 months when the batteries start to wear out. Moreover, that link goes to the exact company I've been doing business with for more than a year.
- The system is simple. Charge the batteries, screw in the atomizer, drip the juice into the cotton filled cart (I'll get to juice a little later), put cart in atomizer, press the button, and inhale. You drip when the cart gets dry, you charge when the battery gets low. EZPZ.
- Replacement Atomizers -- The batteries outlast the atomizers (the little piece that actually vaporizes the juice), so when your vaping starts to seem a little thin compared to when it was fresh out of the box (usually 4-8 weeks per atomizer in my experience), all you have to do is buy a new atomizer, not a whole new kit.
- Eventually the batteries will get a little iffy, at which point it's usually worthwhile to just buy a new kit... but you get 2 batteries and 2 atomizers per kit, so it really isn't expensive at all. If you're a light smoker or someone looking to quit, a single kit will last you 6 months or longer. Me, being a heavy smoker, I get about 3-4 months per kit most often, with atomizers being between 4-8 weeks per.
- NOTICE: There's a TON of different variables from brand to brand, part to part, et cetera. What I've listed above is the starter kit plus the correct replacement atomizer JUST FOR THAT BRAND AND MODEL. If you want to get into it and experiment, just be very careful about mixing and matching, as there really is an ABSURD amount of technicality involved in what pieces work together.
- Halo eLiquid -- There are many options available for juice, hundreds of companies, flavors, you name it. Personally, I use Halo eJuice because they're American made and very high quality. Feel free to explore on your own, but of all the brands I've tried (about a half dozen), I'm a sworn Halo user. Not to mention, their flavors are yummy.
- Bella Valente - My go-to flavor, and the one I use at least 75% of the time. If you're a former smoker, especially one who enjoyed cigars, this is definitely up your alley because it tastes VERY much like tobacco, with a nice hint of vanilla.
- Smooth 8 - A bit more harsh, but in a good way. If you're the type who smokes unfiltered or Marlboro Reds, this is a good place to start. Tastes like very strong tobacco.
- Tribeca - Good place to start if you're a person who smokes light cigarettes. Very smooth with subtle flavors, all which simulate tobacco well. This is my go-to anytime I'm out of Bella and want something a little softer than Smooth 8.
- Captain Jack - Delicious if you're drinking whiskey or a strong stout beer. I don't use it often, but when I put it with the right beverage, it's amazing.
If health is your number one concern, you want to quit nicotine consumption entirely. What works for some may not work for others, but eCigs are a great way to taper down on your way to quitting. It depends on what your goals and priorities are. What's important is that you decide what is right for you, do your research, and make the right decision based on your desires and safety.
source
Monday, March 4, 2013
On Owning a Home
Having a house in the suburbs which generates no income or food is a manufactured idea. It is manufactured to make wage slaves. You are not middle class if you own one of these money pits and you don't have at least several million in money generating assets. You are getting paid by your masters to pay for your: car(s), house, medical bills, food, incidentals, taxes, children's education, and inflation. Oh, and you get to keep the rest.
The people who were sold these purported investments were swindled. They were swindled right out of their happiness, health, and money generating skills. Now all they have is a building which is under a mountain of debt. It might as well be a pile of dirt, wood, and stone. Oh wait, it is. These poor souls are dependent on the infrastructure around them to continue functioning. They are not free, they think they are free. They think they are free because there are no chains on their feet or bars on their windows.
Astonishingly enough they are held with nothing more than a promise. This promise is shown to them on every TV, in every magazine ad, and in every supermarket. It is the American dream of a house in the suburbs and a college degree which has been sold to untold millions. Everyone knows how the housing bubble turned out for so many of these families.
The status quo will not change because we live in a sea of passivity, nothing matters because there are no problems knocking at our doors. Everything is an ocean away and there is no need to get upset because everything will be alright in the end. Be happy that you get to watch your movies and TV shows and play your video games. If you don't like your life just escape into something when you come home. Facing reality is tough.
If your current life making you happy? We are an isolated, depressed, and enslaved people. Just think about what I am saying as you live your daily life. Check out Open Source Ecology. They will free your soul, real freedom is so close. Don't let them take it from you.
Are you happy? Truly? What would you be happiest doing? Hint: It's not a yacht, helicopter, hookers, and blow. Money does not bring happiness.
Every day we have a choice, what are you going to do with your day? If it is not the thing you wish to do, then why in the fuck are you doing it? You are going to die. If you have some shit you want to do you better hurry the fuck up.
The world is happening to you. Do you want your control back? You are going to have to fight for it, and it will be uncomfortable and difficult. Do you think all of your forefathers who fought for their freedom got to sit on their couches? You come from a long line of awesomely savage creatures and your lineage stretches back to the dawn of life on earth. Act like it.
The people who were sold these purported investments were swindled. They were swindled right out of their happiness, health, and money generating skills. Now all they have is a building which is under a mountain of debt. It might as well be a pile of dirt, wood, and stone. Oh wait, it is. These poor souls are dependent on the infrastructure around them to continue functioning. They are not free, they think they are free. They think they are free because there are no chains on their feet or bars on their windows.
Astonishingly enough they are held with nothing more than a promise. This promise is shown to them on every TV, in every magazine ad, and in every supermarket. It is the American dream of a house in the suburbs and a college degree which has been sold to untold millions. Everyone knows how the housing bubble turned out for so many of these families.
The status quo will not change because we live in a sea of passivity, nothing matters because there are no problems knocking at our doors. Everything is an ocean away and there is no need to get upset because everything will be alright in the end. Be happy that you get to watch your movies and TV shows and play your video games. If you don't like your life just escape into something when you come home. Facing reality is tough.
If your current life making you happy? We are an isolated, depressed, and enslaved people. Just think about what I am saying as you live your daily life. Check out Open Source Ecology. They will free your soul, real freedom is so close. Don't let them take it from you.
Are you happy? Truly? What would you be happiest doing? Hint: It's not a yacht, helicopter, hookers, and blow. Money does not bring happiness.
Every day we have a choice, what are you going to do with your day? If it is not the thing you wish to do, then why in the fuck are you doing it? You are going to die. If you have some shit you want to do you better hurry the fuck up.
The world is happening to you. Do you want your control back? You are going to have to fight for it, and it will be uncomfortable and difficult. Do you think all of your forefathers who fought for their freedom got to sit on their couches? You come from a long line of awesomely savage creatures and your lineage stretches back to the dawn of life on earth. Act like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)