May 6 2012: All I was saying is that my mindset is generally more open, I don't like having a set criterion to use as an anchor--i.e. if the speaker, or the presentation, does not meet x, y, z, then I am displeased etc.
May 6 2012: It's always better not have expectations, or at least to make a conscious effort to try to suppress expectations; I don't recall the name of the speaker, but there was actually a TEDtalk on lowered expectations, and how they can lead to increased happiness in the individual.
May 4 2012: This might just be the cynical homunculi in my head talking, but those that defend "metal backed currency" are the very same ones that stand to benefit from such a procrustean form of currency. The very notion of displaced wealth carries with it a plethora of unseen and altogether pernicious side-effects. In short, the displacement of value necessarily leads to the asymmetrical distribution; in other words, the wealth always gravitates to those who already have it—hence the significance of initial conditions. I say we get rid of currency altogether, it’s not my idea (Marx beat me to it). The most efficient means of doling out wealth is in an egalitarian fashion. Ad reductio absurdum, if metal backed currency IS reinstated, those that have already invested in metals are looking to double—or even triple—there initial investments. It’s a move on behalf of the speculators in the stock market, that is all.
Jan 22 2012: It's always easier to control--and socially condition--a misinformed (and disinterested) populace. Give the angry mob Superbowl, Nascar, and UFC; when you can keep them busy, and distracted, you are well on your way to running the USA the way it should be run. Those in power believe that the masses are too irresponsible to rule over their own lives, it's for the best if we leave those decisions to the experts. To effectively run a democracy, you need to have a news media that is subservient. The new news media of today is merely there to sensationalize scandal, and entertain--queue in the "infotainment".
Jan 22 2012: Yeah, I actually thought it up on the spot. I was feeling particularly glum regarding the current state of affairs. As the clock ticks on, the dream that was once an independent republic free from the yoke of British empire has slowly transmogrified itself into a police state--a regime of terror that has committed unspeakable acts of state sponsored terrorism.
Jan 22 2012: Deborah: Certain religious belief systems are automatically exclusionary (some faiths have a built in "us versus them" mentality). I've noticed numerous instances--throughout history--in which religious ideologies served as main causes for the conflict; the crusades come to mind, the war on terror, etc. Perceived difference has always been a fundamental facet of a "dualistic" form of existence. A daulistic approach of existence argues that the internal self/external world dichotomy is a necessary truth. Upanishadic philosophies (that, in some sense, find commonality with modern quantum physics) posit that existence itself is "non-dualistic"; in other words, there is no "me" within the context of "the universe", there is just "being" in itself--it's just something to think about.
Jan 21 2012: We are still always engaged in various degrees of self deception. The mind has an instinctual drive to associate sense stimuli with elaborate false narratives; human beings associate emotional/anthropomorphic characteristics to the objects-or events-we perceive (i.e. the color red and its correlation with 'passion'). The problem arises when perceived difference facilitates conflict. When humans begin to realize that constructs like 'identity' and self are merely tools used by the power dynamic in order to keep population centers fragmented, we can start looking forward to positive social change.
Jan 21 2012: " Honesty is reporting the matter as we understand it. Complete honesty means that there is no difference between what we perceive to be the truth of a matter and what we communicate about that matter."
Deborah: I find the aforementioned statement quite problematic; it presupposes that there is flawless translation in terms of externalizing internal thought processes. This, unfortunately, is not the case--I am referring to linguistic barriers. The constraints of language force us to be "reasonably deceptive". You can never hope to be "honest" with anyone, because language forces us to push our thoughts through the liminal threshold of vocal/written expression. Once an internal abstraction is molded into the metaphorical box of a word, something magical happens: the meaning of your original sentiment takes on a whole new life. In essence, the word's prefigured meaning covertly influences the meaning of your original 'intention'. Therefore, systems of language have their own particular influence on expression--they end up readjusting and re-configuring the original "message".
Jan 21 2012: Deborah: If the self is fabricated, then does that not presuppose that when we are referring to the self, we are referring to some misconceived understanding of what we call our conscious experience. In a word, does an amnesiac have a sense of self? Human beings have to trick themselves into thinking that there is in fact a constant, unchanging core--who they are, so to speak--that perceives/observes the external world, whilst simultaneously synthesizing disparate bits of sense datum (i.e. watching a movie requires auditory/visual synthesis, etc.). I'm merely arguing that the impetus for seeking a core "self" actually lies in our instinctual fear of death. Humans have a primordial urge to anchor their existence to some stationary, and reliable sense of "self". The self, in a metaphorical sense, is merely an onion composed of various layers of social conditioning. Sometimes, it's a hard pill to swallow, but it this is also something we can't ignore: the "self" you construct for yourself is merely a combination of mannerisms, and abstractions you have retained in your long term memory. Who you are is wholly contingent upon what you have experienced. However, what you have experienced is "retained" in a curious fashion. In the field of neuroscience, the experts generally agree that we are only able to process 15% of the information from sense stimuli, all other sense data is lost in static. Roughly speaking, if we do have a self, it is a self that is based of off a fractured and opened ended narrative--a narrative that is loosely correlated to the actually of reality. "Most of our lives are lived out in our imaginations". The internalized life is something worth looking into, it is a world rife with dead ends and absurdity.
Jan 21 2012: The system of indirect democracy that the United States adheres to is intentionally adversarial; two warring factions constantly push against one another leading to a protracted stalemate where stagnation and non-progress are part and parcel of the status quo. We also have a population that is largely non-participatory; which means that the people power that we should have is merely illusory. We can look to history for examples of political change in a democratic direction. We begin to see an unfortunate trend, the more oppressive and authoritarian a regime, the more animated the reaction of the oppressed--I'm thinking of the Russian revolution concomitant with the bread riots that were taking place in its beginnings. People need to get pissed before any real change comes to pass.
TEDCred score: +0.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What are the top three characteristics a TEDtalk must fulfill to catch your attention?
A comment on Conversation: What are the top three characteristics a TEDtalk must fulfill to catch your attention?
A comment on Conversation: Can anyone here defend the use of metal backed currency in this day and age?
A reply on Conversation: Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?
A reply on Conversation: Why for so many is it science or religion with no room inbetween for honest existential consideration?
A reply on Conversation: Why do we chase happiness?
A reply on Conversation: Why do we chase happiness?
A reply on Conversation: Why do we chase happiness?
Deborah: I find the aforementioned statement quite problematic; it presupposes that there is flawless translation in terms of externalizing internal thought processes. This, unfortunately, is not the case--I am referring to linguistic barriers. The constraints of language force us to be "reasonably deceptive". You can never hope to be "honest" with anyone, because language forces us to push our thoughts through the liminal threshold of vocal/written expression. Once an internal abstraction is molded into the metaphorical box of a word, something magical happens: the meaning of your original sentiment takes on a whole new life. In essence, the word's prefigured meaning covertly influences the meaning of your original 'intention'. Therefore, systems of language have their own particular influence on expression--they end up readjusting and re-configuring the original "message".
A reply on Conversation: Why do we chase happiness?
A reply on Conversation: Will ideas that are "smart", ever be "popular"?