Common Collectivity

If you've never read Immanuel Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?" you should. It is an excellent piece and quite easy to get through. Within he expounds an idea that we should learn and participate in the world on our own terms, not depending upon paid professionals to determine certain aspects of our life.

If I have a book to have understanding in
place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge
my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think,
so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.

One of my basic beliefs applies here. That in order to make a point, more extreme ideas must be presented, with the understanding that the pendulum will swing back towards moderation eventually, bringing the essentials of your ideas with it. Example: Freud believed that absolutely nothing aside from the subconscious affected your psychology. While the idea that only that single aspect of psychology has long since been debunked, psychologists still consider his work influential and, certain aspects, relevant.

I now, after a long time of simply not analyzing Kant's statement, realized that he is wrong just as Freud was wrong. Not in the sense, perhaps, that he is a blundering buffoon whose logic is entirely flawed and erroneous, but more that he must be toned down.
The trend in many modern fields is a move towards niche-isim. The idea that we are trying to reach a very niched audiences and that everyone must have a very specific field of understanding.
Thus it could be argued that while yes, we all should take a personal interest and put some personal thought into our diets, our learning, our legal rights and a variety of other topics, we cannot understand all of these things to the utmost efficency and thus should use profesionals as supplements to our understanding. We need not fully replace nutrionists with our own understanding.

Keep thinking your thoughts and things

A collage of ideas: Farting is offensive to Cops; In need of a writing community; lies and the liars who lie in them

Title is, by no means, in order or a complete compendium of what i might say in here.

First off I am an aspiring novelist and I'd really like to connect with a group of people who want to get together every once in a while (weekly perhaps?) and read and critique each others works. (this, I suppose, is a more local plea)

I was very proud of my girlfriend recently. She broke an incredible social cycle, one which i have never understood. When a social clique is in conflict, it is natural for people to try and spread their bets even by playing to both sides in an attempt to fall in with the winner. For instance: two individuals disagree on a particular issue, statement etc. one of them asks the opinion of a third party source in confidence. That individual, in confidence, agrees with the person asking the question. When the other conflicted member approaches the same person, in confidence, that person will agree with them. So in reality no one has a full image of which side this person is on. The idea is that neither of the individuals would ever divulge the conversation to the other, and so by playing it safe and not choosing a side you are able to maintain friendships across the board, regardless of how truthful you have been.
My girlfriend, however, broke this cycle. While she was talking to the person she was in a disagreement with, she called out one of the people that both of them had spoken too and, in a public forum, forced them to declare who was right. To some this might seem bitchy "oh no she broke this persons trust! She forced a confrontation" well in reality what she did was a win-win for her. If she called this person out and the individual sided with her, then the other person saw that their position was weak and illegitimate. If the person she called out sided with her opponent she gains credibility, showing that the person is a fake who is willing to lie for personal gain.
I suppose the point of this rant is that we, as people, should choose sides, and if we are moderate in an argument, then openly opt to not take a side. It is cowardice in the highest form to attempt to side with both people, it shows you have no true loyalties.
I would really like to see/perform a social experiment based on the idea of social loyalties...more on that later!

http://www.startribune.com/nation/29722404.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU <----really?

How much respect do we owe police men? I live on a street where, not two days ago, two officers were shot and one was killed. I have enormous amounts of respect for the men in blue who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. It is incredible. However, how much power should they be allowed? Someone makes them a little angry and suddenly they can destroy a life. The man was drunk and should, at most, serve a minimal sentance. However now he is being charged with assaulting a police officer which could potentially get him a very severe sentencing.

Keep thinking your thoughts and things.

Atom Smasher May cause armageddon: so what?

This is just the first article about it that came up in google: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsdaycollider.ap/index.html

If you don't want to read it, basically some people fear that this new atom smasher made in Switzerland and France might destroy the world. They believe that by smashing the atoms at this high of a power, tiny black holes will be created and will destroy the planet, Armageddon! Destruction! the END OF EXISTANCE!
While leading physicist Stephen Hawkings (a venerable genius if there ever was one) says that even if this would happen, they would still dissipate, some people who, i suppose, consider themselves more learned on the subject than him, claim that the world will end.

My question is this: So what?
Understand that this is not me being 'emo' or depressing or something along those lines. I'd like to believe i am simply approaching the idea of Armageddon from a purely logical standpoint.

If the world 'ends' and we all really do get sucked into an ever increasing vortex which consumes all matter, why does it matter? My biggest fear of dieing personally is that I will not have left any great legacy, that no one will remember me. If no ones around then why does it matter? The end of the world would in reality mean very little to the world as we know it. Simply put, because there would be no world as we know it. People sometimes accept death towards the end of their lives because they know their time here is spent. There will be no here for us not to be spending time in and so there is little to fear.
I think of it this way
We fear death because life is an earthly thing. Our attachment to this world is founded in the experiences we have while on the planet, the things we own in the planet, and the people we know on the planet. The contingency is the planet. remove the planet from the equation and the other things present no longer exist and can no longer cause attachment.
Perhaps i am reading too much Buddhist literature but if the prerequisite of an assumed existing object is removed, is it not true that the object no longer can be assumed to exist?

First Post

Big thing here, my very first post.

I'm currently a student, this of course means that I am consistently bombarded with information. I love this aspect of being in school mainly because it forces you to think about new topics and consider new perspectives. One such idea that has recently come into my view finder if you will, is the idea of symbolic interactionism.
As a high schooler you are often bombarded with sayings such as these: "Be yourself! Don't let other people change you!" the message is clear; that we should each be a unique individual entirely unphased by the perceptions of others.
However this is, in short, what symbolic interactionism propounds. That we are what we are percieved to be. How does a class clown become a class clown? Not because he is studious and everyone treats him with great respect, but because his antics generate laughter! When someone laughs at something you say or do you become a funny person correct? I think of myself as hilarious but no one necessarily perceives me in that light and so i am not a class clown. The difference between one person and another is simply how they are seen, this molds our personalities. It relates back to the idea of operant conditioning in Psychology; we moderate our behavior based upon the reactions of others. If we receive rewards (people become our friends, laughter, pleasurable feelings) we continue the behavior that elicited that response. If we get punishment, negative feedback (mocked, laughed at, disappointment) we seek to stop these behaviors. These actions become our personality.
The idea of action becoming personality is an interesting one as well. Does it matter who we think we are if no one else sees that? If our actions are immoral yet we claim to be moral, then we are liars. It is that congruence that is needed, between action and idea, to create personality.
Perhaps this is why so many High schoolers have such identity issues, the convergence of two irreconcilable forces: The "dont go changin'" crowd and the overwhelming forces of symbolic interactionisim and operant conditioning. We all change from one time to another. Barrack Obama does not act the same way on the podium as he does in his home i hope. I do not act the same way in class as i do in my apartment. This is because i am in a different sphere, the climate has changed and so i must change my clothing!
When a teenager is meeting new people, developing social circles and creating personality they are going through a very intense stage. What they must do is attempt to maintain credibility by balancing thought and action (as i said before, if you think you are moral, be moral) while also balancing differing climatic variations.
My guess is that the final stage of development for the personality is when we discover that balance between how well we manage our thoughts and actions as well as how we respond to external stimulus.

I'm not 100% on if i believe everything I just wrote, perhaps it was me fleshing out ideas. I might review it later.