13 May 2013

My Life is a Whirling Dervish

Wow. So, it's been a while since I've been here - a little over 8 months I guess. I've almost forgotten how to write since I haven't been doing much of that lately either. And really, it's not without reason I suppose since the last few months have been fraught with perils and insanity the likes of which I have never experienced before. See, what happened was...a couple months before my last known post, I started dating a girl; a nice, normal, wonderful woman. We got along wonderfully and enjoyed spending much of our time together, ergo and so forth - I asked her to marry me. So for the last few months, I have been frantically trying to not plan a wedding while she has been frantically planning the wedding. It's kept me incredibly busy, as you can tell by the lack of postings but no one has been missing me that much anyway because I don't see you knocking down my door to get me back to writing.

Anyway, because of that and my hectic work schedule I've not done much with this and I really don't have anything of substance to write about right now either. Perhaps in the near future I can regale you with a tale or two from the past eight months and share my thoughts on existentialist drivel and philosophical whimsy but for now, enjoy these pictures of Pacman that I've drawn in a series I call, "Unseen Episodes".

19 July 2012

On Time - A Beginning Thought Anyway

For the past few days, and thanks to happening upon Morgan Freeman’s Through the Wormhole on the Science Channel, I have been reading and pondering a lot about time, space, and existentialism. The episode I watched was entitled “Does Time Really Exist?” and it dealt a lot with the physics of time and space, much of which is far above my head as I do not know enough of the maths to understand it, but there was also a good bit of neuroscience and philosophy intertwined. Invariably, this makes sense – no one branch of any subject is immune to having crossover or correlation with some other subject in some way. 

And so, I started researching, trying to find and read anything on the debate of time and its’ existence or non-existence. I have come across many good articles, research papers, encyclopedic entries and whatnot which are all excellent. What I have found, and this isn’t really much of a surprise, is that I found myself gravitating more to the philosophical debate and connotations of the subject rather than the abstract scientific aspects of relativist physical theory.  And I have been cogitating on it ever since, even now while I’m writing this I am still in the midst of four articles on time, spacetime, and two on the debate between endurant and perdurant schools of theory.

Being just turned on to this subject, its’ constituent parts, and the multitude of other subjects that are interlaced within the debate, specifically as related to time, I know relatively very little. What I have surmised from all of this, though, is an understanding of the basics as I see them which has led me to a few conclusions of my own (none of which are grounded in anything save my own personal thoughts). I suppose we should start at the beginning, the original question posed by Morgan Freeman, ‘does time really exist?’

I have always had, ever since I can remember, the thought that time was nothing special. The only reason that we recognize something that we call ‘time’ is because Man, as an entity, has forever had the desire to be lord and master over everything that he sees in his world. Time, for me, has always been nothing more than a cognition that became accepted in the hierarchy of life as a way to oppress and subjugate those who were deemed to be less fit in the scope of Darwinian logic. The abstraction of time, as presently defined, is accepted as an inevitability and that it marches forward in a linear fashion as we cannot move backward or forward within it. Man is at the mercy of time, unable to stop it. And this is a purely fatalistic view, but that is not important right now. 

The passage of time, as it is currently defined, is marked solely because of what many would rightly call ‘observable proof’. We can see the sun moving and, thanks to mathematics, are able to calculate at what rate it moves across the sky (15 degrees every hour). However, this is where the first problem arises (and again, this is all based on the depth of my own knowledge, not full comprehension or immersion). The determination and declaration of exactly how long is a second, minute, or hour has been somewhat of a complicating factor for me. Surely you cannot define something that is an abstraction or potentially has no foundation that is concrete and expect it to then just exist. For if I accept that time itself does exist, then I must accept that all constituent parts that make up the entity of time exist infallibly and are absolute. 

There are a great many tangential relativistic claims, counterclaims and otherwise theorhetorical aspects to the existence of time - McTaggart’s The Unreality of Time (1908) being somewhat of a benchmark piece in dealing with the philosophy of time. For this, though, I really won’t dwell on time quite so much as I probably could, or should, because there are other aspects that I wish to address that I have been trying to reconcile myself with in the scope of where I find myself landing on the issue of the existence of time and the universe as a whole. So for now, as far as time is concerned, I would posit that there is merit to the idea that it really does not exist and is merely a construct of Man’s imagination that has been passed down through “the ages” as fact which really is a very inelegant way of saying that I will explain more as I move on to the related subjects of philosophical thoughts.

Best as I can define this, from what I know, perdurantism is the idea that an object exists throughout the whole of time in various segments of itself. The being persists in existence over the course of time, in other words, and therefore has a past and a future, as well as being in the present. This is most commonly held sort of ideology since there are events that have been chronicled as ‘past’ and there are uncertainties that are labeled as ‘future’. It is not unlike an earthworm’s segmented body, but just imagine that the earthworm is suspended in the three-dimensional special relativity plane of space and time. Each segment exists throughout the whole of the length of time being examined, or in existence, and each segment has specific memory of all those previous and various intuitions about those to come. Using this illustration, many experts have come to call perdurantism the ‘worm theory’ model of time.

This is the more novel theory recently being posited around that all beings and objects are wholly unto themselves. They exist, not segmented across time like with perdurantism, but rather as a whole entity that has both a past and a future but all of those various experiences and instances of that being are coexistent all at once. In simplest terms, as I have read it, endurantism is likened to a series of snapshot photographs that are placed throughout the four-dimensional existential plane of spacetime. These snapshots represent the entirety of the object or being which exists only as itself in different stages of existence, not so much as memories or predicted futures, however, because they all exist presently and are strewn about the fabric of reality as it is perceived by the observer or participant.

I had planned on having a rather elegant and insightful discourse on the entire subject, but because of the intricacies and the fact that I am doing much more research into the philosophy of the whole subject, which entails reading a plethora of articles and journals I just cannot devote the time right now; nor would I want to because it would be an incomplete thought process and be a gross injustice to the whole affair. So as it sits right now, I would have to say that I am leaning more toward the endurantism camp, but that I am an endurantist is a bit of a stretch at this point since I am currently just learning everything.

There are some inherent problems, as I see and understand them, with endurantism but there also seem to be some benefits, at least in my head. The cool thing to me about endurantism is the thought that the snapshots of the being that make up its’ existence are all happening now, right this very instance. The idea that everything that I am/were/ will be or am doing/have done/or will have done all exist concurrently is exciting for a variety of reasons – mostly that because if all of these things coincide in an amalgamated universe there is a distinct possibility that the multiverse theory is credible and that is a mind-blowing thought. Of course, the negative side, as I see it, is that IF all these snapshots are in existence and my entire being is a collective strewn about the four-dimensional fabric of reality all at once, how long are these so-called snapshots? Are they instantaneous like actual photographs, or are they instances of spatially relevant chunks that because four-dimensional spacetime is one entity are like a chapter on a DVD? The third option, as I imagine it, would be a combination of the two where they are all still photographs of my being but because they are in the four-dimensional spacetime they are, as would be inherent to the theory, non-linear and concurrent but in essence nonsensical.

The other really interesting thing, as I mentioned, is the multiverse theory that could be born of endurant thought. If all beings exist wholly as snapshots, and are all coincident with one another, it could be argued that the individual instances of which the snapshots are comprised are then existentially present in their own sub-universal fourth-dimensional spacetime universe. For even though the being is unchanged and wholly present as itself, there will never be a crossover or meeting of the various instances of snapshot beings – I cannot meet myself in a snapshot of myself from the past or future, so that would mean that my being then exists wholly in different universes from itself but the only true experience I can have is in the present snapshot which I find my current self having been stuck in.

Of course, that then gets into the constitution of identity which states that all parts of a being exist as a being unto itself. More simply, the parts of a whole are a whole all their own; both the parts and the whole exist in the same temporal space at the same temporal instance. For example, you have a ball of clay. The clay exists and is clay, but say you then fashion that ball of clay into a statue or coffee mug (doesn’t matter, just make something). Does the ball of clay cease to exist or is it still a ball of clay that you have fashioned into an art project? The clay ball does not cease to exist simply because it is malleable and now a statue, the clay ball still is valid as a clay ball but it occupies the same temporal location as the statue because it is a part of the statue. Conversely, though, you could not claim that the ball of clay is also a statue before you ply and mould the clay into the statue. 

So, you can see where this gets confusing. In short, there is no real conclusion – for me or for anyone else, but thanks to that damn Morgan Freeman I have been occupying my ‘time’ with deep thoughts about the whole ordeal.

31 March 2012

Oops! I forgot this existed

So, it's been a while, again, since I've been on here. I have been relatively busy in the past few months, what with the saving myself from vapid and thankless immorality and boredom. And then consequently having to re-learn some old tricks, figure out some new ones, and just generally be browbeaten with information to the point that I thought my head might actually explode on a few occasions. Anyway, here are some drawings I made one day while bored. I had been playing a lot of a uniquely named Pacman rip-off on the internet, that's the only reason I can think of that I decided to draw Pacman inspired mash-ups.

02 December 2011

The Jeremy Clarkson Saga

I'm no Briton, so I can't attest to the current climate that is taking shape there in the way of the public service strikes, but I definitely enjoy everything British -- the culture, the humor, the ridiculous way they insist upon drinking tea all the time. There is something about the idea of being British, specifically English, that speaks to me. I don't know why, but the pithy and, often times, snarkily sarcastic way that they speak and act is both hilarious and beautiful to me.

As such, I watch a lot of British programmes and series -- made all the easier by the expansion of the BBC to include an American affilate channel. While BBC-A doesn't show the every day programming that is native to its mother country, since that would be irrelevant to Americans, there are a lot of good programmes that I enjoy on a regular basis. Gordon Ramsay's The F Word, Doctor Who, and Top Gear all top my list of personal favorites. There are others of course (Luther, White Chapel, The Tudors), but they don't rank as must-see in my opinion even though they are enjoyable.

So, recently, as some people may or may not be aware, a situation has developed concerning the current strikes and a rather flippant moment of television involving a BBC presenter and his comments on the situation. And while I can understand the ire directed at the presenter, it seems to me that the demands for his job are a bit premature and somewhat ludicrous due to who it was that made the comments. Not to mention the subtext to this whole situation is, to me, a commentary on how this modern political correctness ideology seeks to make people less themselves and more autonomous; effectively it's personality facism.

Anyway...Jeremy Clarkson, a presenter for the BBC's Top Gear, made an appearance on The One Show and offered the following while discussing the on-going workforce strikes:

"I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty... Airports, people streaming through them with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the '70s. It makes me feel at home somehow. But we have to balance this, though, because this is the BBC. Frankly I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living."

Okay, admittedly, when you see it in print it sounds pretty harsh. However, you cannot truly believe, even if you are dumb as a hammer, that anyone would publicly call for actions that are, in essence, genocide and be serious about it. And while I can see the point of those who were offended by the statement, the reason they are so upset, it seems, is because the only portion of the clip being shown starts mid-thought (Frankly I'd have them all shot...) and this turns Clarkson into an instant demon thanks to the media. Of course, some people will have watched the show itself, seen the full commentary, and still been offended. These people are idiots, and I'll tell you why.

Jeremy Clarkson is nothing short of a brash, outspoken, and brilliant presenter. As to Jeremy Clarkson as a person, I cannot attest but would imagine that privately he is largely the same as his TV persona. And that's just the point. Jeremy Clarkson the presenter, the TV personality, the affable facade, is who made those comments. Jeremy Clarkson the private citizen was tucked somewhere behind that jowly, withering ham hock of a face while TV Clarkson did what he is paid to do by way of being offensive, yet brilliantly spot on in his ribbing of not only the strike situation, but the BBC as a try-hard non-partisan entity.

Having watched Mr. Clarkson for quite some time now, I understand what his TV personality is, how he acts and reacts to certain situations. Some people do not, and that is evident because of the copious complaints the BBC has received over this whole thing. Did he say the words he said? Yes. Did he mean them to be offensive? Probably. Did he say them with absolute conviction, devoid of any detectable sarcasm? No, but sarcasm is hard to read or even see sometimes.

Personally, I don't think he should have had to apologize for what he said at all. It was an intelligent joke that was told so convincingly that those who did get offended have only made it known that they are are intellectually the same as a doorknob. There are no boundaries in comedy, everything is fair game. And Jeremy Clarkson is a smart enough man to understand that and use it to his advantage.

30 November 2011

I've Seen This Film Before

I really do post far too infrequently on this thing. Oh well, it's not like anyone actually reads it, except this one guy I know. Anyway, lots of happening has been going down, and honestly, I'm not sure I know where else to lay out all my extemporaneous thoughts.

Saturday, not in the park, and it definitely wasn't the 4th of July, I uncovered information about my sister. If you have read much of this blog in the past, you know the one of whom I speak -- the bat shit crazy bitch who long ago abandoned reason for madness. Well, that harlot is pregnant...again. By the same beast that done did her in the first time. Can't say that I'm surprised. Once you decidedly throw away your life to live as a concubine to the white trash revolutionary king it becomes sort of a given that you will constantly be pregnant with degenerate and inferior genetic material.

And I could wax idiotic about all the same things that were wrong with this the first time around, but that would do little to assuage me. I am forever stuck in this middling ground. I want to care because that bitch is my sister, but I'm sick of continuously getting no reciprocation from the other side. I want to see her do better for herself and her (now 2) kids, but she fucked her way into this problem and burned every bridge along the way.

And then there is the sadistic side of me which, in all honesty, very well might win out. Yes, I've considered torture but I don't mean that. With Christmas coming up, I believe that even though I have to put up with my whore of a white trash sister and her brood of degenerate Idiocracy cast memebers, I can at least gain some sort of pleasure from it.

I think I'm going to order 500 condoms and FleshLight and give them to my idiotic, cock hungry slut of a sister and pray that maybe she will get the message. It's just unfortunate that I can't obtain a prescription for birth control pills or I would include that as well.