Okay, so now I know where my sense of humor comes from. After a totally unexpected comment from my dad, I realized it must be genetic. I guess it could also be environmental since I was raised by him too. So anyway, apparently the Seattle Supersonics are moving to Oklahoma City. I mentioned this in passing after reading the short article in a copy of the local paper about the move. He asked where to. I told him. He said, "I wonder if they'll change the name."
Then he said, "OH! They should call them the Oklahoma City Bombers!"
Wow.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Defining Spirituality without the Spirit
It seems to me that the religious often try to claim a monopoly on spirituality and that anyone else is therefore heathen or pagan. Then there's another classification often termed "spiritual, but not religious". These folk are usually much easier to get along with, but still have no corner on spirituality. One thing that, in general, unites these two groups however is the belief in some god or gods or generic higher power that somehow guides or cares or does something or other for the universe. I think though, that it is possible to be spiritual, even from a completely secular viewpoint.
In order to do this, spirituality isn't defined by that magic sparkly thing that many people imagine to exist somewhere in their bodies or perhaps in another dimension. It's not that part of man that communes with the divine. No, the spirit is simply that part of a human that makes the ticking. Of course this can be boiled down to purely physical processes, but somewhere in all this, sentience and cognizance emerge and bring with them the spirit. This spirit is the driving force behind the human will and the human heart. It too is a metaphor - a thing that doesn't have a physical presence other than in the operation of the human brain. That is, it exists as a self-describing idea that travels the neural roads of the mind. The spirit is the resulting evaluation of our intellect, our emotions, our thoughts, and our desires. I'm just not sure on the exact formula - it probably involves integrals.
If then we are not to satisfy the spirit through communion with the divine, then how should we provide what it seeks? (This is left as an exercise for the reader [and the writer])
Taking care of our spiritual lives can then become a matter much different than religious experience, but perhaps similar to the spiritual who just don't like to go to church, or temple, or synagogue, or whatever. It comes from somewhere in our conscience not completely understood and therefore a little mysterious. The unknown and wondrous nature of our own being and this realization is worth quite the same to me as the sense of the divine felt by others. Discovering this anew each day and seeing it in others and in nature can make for a full spiritual life.
One thing missing here is that sense of continuation that all souls seem to desire. Too few people are willing to admit their own ephemerality and thus cling to stories told them to feel better about the unpleasant inevitability of death. Realizing and embracing this inevitability however, can make each day more precious and bring a new perception to the beauty of everything. When we see the fleeting nature of the world, we see that we must appreciate that we're here to enjoy it while we're still here. That's a bit of an anthropocentric view, but how else should I see the world? Can I honestly see it any other way? This is not, however, an argument about humanities' treatment of its environment. If it were however, I might mention that most religious types honor their places of worship. Perhaps I should be no different in this respect and regard the whole world my temple.
And of course, if it comes right down to it, spiritualism can be applied using another definition for spirit. Just so long as you don't drive while in the spirit.
In order to do this, spirituality isn't defined by that magic sparkly thing that many people imagine to exist somewhere in their bodies or perhaps in another dimension. It's not that part of man that communes with the divine. No, the spirit is simply that part of a human that makes the ticking. Of course this can be boiled down to purely physical processes, but somewhere in all this, sentience and cognizance emerge and bring with them the spirit. This spirit is the driving force behind the human will and the human heart. It too is a metaphor - a thing that doesn't have a physical presence other than in the operation of the human brain. That is, it exists as a self-describing idea that travels the neural roads of the mind. The spirit is the resulting evaluation of our intellect, our emotions, our thoughts, and our desires. I'm just not sure on the exact formula - it probably involves integrals.
If then we are not to satisfy the spirit through communion with the divine, then how should we provide what it seeks? (This is left as an exercise for the reader [and the writer])
Taking care of our spiritual lives can then become a matter much different than religious experience, but perhaps similar to the spiritual who just don't like to go to church, or temple, or synagogue, or whatever. It comes from somewhere in our conscience not completely understood and therefore a little mysterious. The unknown and wondrous nature of our own being and this realization is worth quite the same to me as the sense of the divine felt by others. Discovering this anew each day and seeing it in others and in nature can make for a full spiritual life.
One thing missing here is that sense of continuation that all souls seem to desire. Too few people are willing to admit their own ephemerality and thus cling to stories told them to feel better about the unpleasant inevitability of death. Realizing and embracing this inevitability however, can make each day more precious and bring a new perception to the beauty of everything. When we see the fleeting nature of the world, we see that we must appreciate that we're here to enjoy it while we're still here. That's a bit of an anthropocentric view, but how else should I see the world? Can I honestly see it any other way? This is not, however, an argument about humanities' treatment of its environment. If it were however, I might mention that most religious types honor their places of worship. Perhaps I should be no different in this respect and regard the whole world my temple.
And of course, if it comes right down to it, spiritualism can be applied using another definition for spirit. Just so long as you don't drive while in the spirit.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Classics
I have a theory about the classics of literature that attempts to explain the reason why most are boring to the point of narcolepsy. It distills down to a conspiracy either out of a haughty pretension or a malicious sense of humor. Also note that this theory may isomorph to any fields where certain works are said to be "classics".
The first supposition goes that in order for the experts to remain experts they all have to agree that the best examples of great literature are those which are so dense and unreadable that the laymen would never be able to muddle their way through them. This ensures that the uninitiated will not be able to easily usurp the experts. This also gives the experts a feeling of vague superiority for their virtuous march through the classics just defined on the basis of said march.
But because they're classics everybody who reads feels obligated to make the attempt at reading them. When they unsurprisingly fail, they feel guilty and more importantly inferior to the experts who not only read, but analyze and even define the classics through the analysis. Twain once said that a classic is a book that everyone wants to have read but that no one wants to read. Twain was an observant fellow.
The other theory, or perhaps a corollary as they are not mutually exclusive, suggests that experts are merely playing a tremendous and well orchestrated prank upon the average reader. "Gentlemen!" a literature professor at a prestigious university might inquire, "which book shall we foist upon the masses this year?" This literati might then all go about writing deep analyses (reviews are only for recent works and in any case are not up to academic standards) and start covering them in their upcoming classes. Suddenly we have a new classic solely on the basis of a small group of people who wouldn't know taste from touch, at least not taste as it relates to the average reader.
I honestly believe this is how classics are born, it is only a question of intent as to whether the elite are pranking themselves or pranking us. My new philosophy of books is to read what I like or am interested in and ignore the rest no matter how classic. Besides, enough unread classics already sit on my bookshelves always ready to impress anyone foolish enough to be suckered in by this prank.
The first supposition goes that in order for the experts to remain experts they all have to agree that the best examples of great literature are those which are so dense and unreadable that the laymen would never be able to muddle their way through them. This ensures that the uninitiated will not be able to easily usurp the experts. This also gives the experts a feeling of vague superiority for their virtuous march through the classics just defined on the basis of said march.
But because they're classics everybody who reads feels obligated to make the attempt at reading them. When they unsurprisingly fail, they feel guilty and more importantly inferior to the experts who not only read, but analyze and even define the classics through the analysis. Twain once said that a classic is a book that everyone wants to have read but that no one wants to read. Twain was an observant fellow.
The other theory, or perhaps a corollary as they are not mutually exclusive, suggests that experts are merely playing a tremendous and well orchestrated prank upon the average reader. "Gentlemen!" a literature professor at a prestigious university might inquire, "which book shall we foist upon the masses this year?" This literati might then all go about writing deep analyses (reviews are only for recent works and in any case are not up to academic standards) and start covering them in their upcoming classes. Suddenly we have a new classic solely on the basis of a small group of people who wouldn't know taste from touch, at least not taste as it relates to the average reader.
I honestly believe this is how classics are born, it is only a question of intent as to whether the elite are pranking themselves or pranking us. My new philosophy of books is to read what I like or am interested in and ignore the rest no matter how classic. Besides, enough unread classics already sit on my bookshelves always ready to impress anyone foolish enough to be suckered in by this prank.
Monday, June 09, 2008
I Got Revisionism
If we don't kill ourselves, we may be on to something.
Despite all the atrocities of mankind towards itself and its environment, there is still reason to be optimistic. That we are still here seems reason enough to rejoice. Despite the possibility or perhaps even the likelihood of our imminent self destruction, it is still a wondrous occasion that we haven't already done so.
Despite the fact that our progress has cost millions of lives due to reckless expansionism and related evils, we still find ourselves in a better position for having progressed. Perhaps we got where we needed to be for all the wrong reasons. And although, man may be greedy and would kill millions for as many dollars, evolution has been no kinder over the centuries. There is no room within the gene pool for the weak and the fact that this even now seems gruesome to any of us should be proof enough of our progress.
We are far enough along that we can thumb our nose at evolution and say, "To hell with you, we're going to take care of our own." While this may not be the sentiment of all or even most of our population, that it is there at all is a hopeful sign. No longer are the weak immediately weeded out of the pool. In fact, we may soon not only keeping them in the pool but weeding out the weaknesses as well.
Hope springs eternal. Live well. Help others. That is my wish and my hope and my desire. For myself and for mankind.
Of course there are other things out there vying for the title of destroyer of mankind. If we're going to survive them too we're going to have to stick together.
Despite all the atrocities of mankind towards itself and its environment, there is still reason to be optimistic. That we are still here seems reason enough to rejoice. Despite the possibility or perhaps even the likelihood of our imminent self destruction, it is still a wondrous occasion that we haven't already done so.
Despite the fact that our progress has cost millions of lives due to reckless expansionism and related evils, we still find ourselves in a better position for having progressed. Perhaps we got where we needed to be for all the wrong reasons. And although, man may be greedy and would kill millions for as many dollars, evolution has been no kinder over the centuries. There is no room within the gene pool for the weak and the fact that this even now seems gruesome to any of us should be proof enough of our progress.
We are far enough along that we can thumb our nose at evolution and say, "To hell with you, we're going to take care of our own." While this may not be the sentiment of all or even most of our population, that it is there at all is a hopeful sign. No longer are the weak immediately weeded out of the pool. In fact, we may soon not only keeping them in the pool but weeding out the weaknesses as well.
Hope springs eternal. Live well. Help others. That is my wish and my hope and my desire. For myself and for mankind.
Of course there are other things out there vying for the title of destroyer of mankind. If we're going to survive them too we're going to have to stick together.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
A Virtual Machine
This probably isn't a unique or original observation but it strikes me that the mind, that metaphysical entity separate from the brain, could be viewed as a virtual machine that runs on the hardware of the brain.
In computing technology a virtual machine is a piece of software that simulates hardware and is in turn ran on hardware (or theoretically on another virtual machine) in order for other software to run on it without knowing that it really isn't natively running directly on the hardware. Java works this way so that any application written in Java only has to have the virtual machine written for any particular hardware/OS platform and the code is almost completely independent of the hardware (sometimes you have to deal more directly with the hardware or with idiosyncrasies of the OS that don't translate).
Lately, hosting multiple virtual servers on a single real machine has been all the rage in the IT field. It certainly makes a lot of things easier. Hardware malfunction? Restart the same server on another physical machine. Configuration also becomes much easier when you can simply duplicate a machine and all its settings by copying a file. Plus you can get multiple servers running on a single piece of hardware.
The point here, is that I'm thinking this is a good metaphor for the whole brain/mind issue. Philosophers and scientists are always talking about what makes a mind and is there any difference from the brain. We all can pretty much agree that the brain is the collection of neurons and tissues, etc. in biological organisms that controls a lot of what goes on within those organisms, including, ultimately, thought. But there's a lot of debate about whether the brain and the mind are the same thing. Is there a soul and does that affect anything? Is the mind an emergent property that cannot be completely described by the hardware it runs on? Is the word quantum involved in here anywhere? Because if it is, things will surely get difficult.
I'm not even going to enter into the debate of soul and spirit and what have you, because I frankly don't think you need them to explain anything. Even if there are unknown properties of the brain there is no indication that we will ever need to stoop to the explanation of a soul to explain it.
So if the brain is the hardware then perhaps the mind is simply the program that is running on that hardware. Except it's not any old program, it's a meta-program and can host other programs. Thinking of the brain in this way then, we have certain applications running natively on the hardware of the brain such as our metabolism and other involuntary processes. Since I'm not a brainologist I won't stumble into this territory any further. And since I'm lazy, I won't do any research about it either. Suffice it to say there are some things your brain is doing of which you are not aware. I think any brain scientist would probably agree with that.
These then would be the system applications and not running around in user or interactive land such that we know nothing about them consciously. But what about a thought or a fantasy or conversation? All of these things we agree happen in the brain, but we are aware of them and exert some form of control over them. Yet we don't know what happens in the hardware when we say the word, "nonsense" for instance. Now of course, we can scan the brain with some device and have someone say "nonsense" and see which parts light up, but we don't know that within ourselves and more important and to the point, we don't have to know it to do it.
So we have this level above the system or kernel space where we sort of know what's going on. This is what people generally refer to when they refer to the mind, I believe. Synonymous with consciousness. Within this mind or consciousness we have the thoughts and processes of which we are aware. Walk down the street. Eat that cookie. Compose this thought. These are all finite processes running on the virtual machine that is the mind.
Why then must this be a virtual machine instead of simply processes running along side each other in the same address space? In our conscious mind we really have no way of knowing just what else is going on, so we are effectively isolated in a higher-level abstraction where we now somewhat know what is going on.
Virtualization is itself, in effect, the process of wrapping up a set of functionality and representing it on the platform at a higher level of abstraction where it can't access anything else running on the physical system. Considering this is only an analogy, I think it works pretty well from this point of view.
So what does this say for science fiction fans? Can we then run the mind of one person on the brain of another. I would say that that is taking the metaphor too far. You are, inasmuch as you can contemplate the concept of you, your hardware. Your brain is you, so it doesn't really make sense to try this operation. If you were in someway able to run your mind on another brain, you would have effectively converted that brain into you in the process. So I am saying nothing about the impossibility of copying a brain, except that if you do such a thing it wouldn't be a transfer of consciousness, it would be a copy of consciousness. There would be two of you.
Of course this whole concept, much like the mind, is merely an abstraction there to help us picture what is going on.
In computing technology a virtual machine is a piece of software that simulates hardware and is in turn ran on hardware (or theoretically on another virtual machine) in order for other software to run on it without knowing that it really isn't natively running directly on the hardware. Java works this way so that any application written in Java only has to have the virtual machine written for any particular hardware/OS platform and the code is almost completely independent of the hardware (sometimes you have to deal more directly with the hardware or with idiosyncrasies of the OS that don't translate).
Lately, hosting multiple virtual servers on a single real machine has been all the rage in the IT field. It certainly makes a lot of things easier. Hardware malfunction? Restart the same server on another physical machine. Configuration also becomes much easier when you can simply duplicate a machine and all its settings by copying a file. Plus you can get multiple servers running on a single piece of hardware.
The point here, is that I'm thinking this is a good metaphor for the whole brain/mind issue. Philosophers and scientists are always talking about what makes a mind and is there any difference from the brain. We all can pretty much agree that the brain is the collection of neurons and tissues, etc. in biological organisms that controls a lot of what goes on within those organisms, including, ultimately, thought. But there's a lot of debate about whether the brain and the mind are the same thing. Is there a soul and does that affect anything? Is the mind an emergent property that cannot be completely described by the hardware it runs on? Is the word quantum involved in here anywhere? Because if it is, things will surely get difficult.
I'm not even going to enter into the debate of soul and spirit and what have you, because I frankly don't think you need them to explain anything. Even if there are unknown properties of the brain there is no indication that we will ever need to stoop to the explanation of a soul to explain it.
So if the brain is the hardware then perhaps the mind is simply the program that is running on that hardware. Except it's not any old program, it's a meta-program and can host other programs. Thinking of the brain in this way then, we have certain applications running natively on the hardware of the brain such as our metabolism and other involuntary processes. Since I'm not a brainologist I won't stumble into this territory any further. And since I'm lazy, I won't do any research about it either. Suffice it to say there are some things your brain is doing of which you are not aware. I think any brain scientist would probably agree with that.
These then would be the system applications and not running around in user or interactive land such that we know nothing about them consciously. But what about a thought or a fantasy or conversation? All of these things we agree happen in the brain, but we are aware of them and exert some form of control over them. Yet we don't know what happens in the hardware when we say the word, "nonsense" for instance. Now of course, we can scan the brain with some device and have someone say "nonsense" and see which parts light up, but we don't know that within ourselves and more important and to the point, we don't have to know it to do it.
So we have this level above the system or kernel space where we sort of know what's going on. This is what people generally refer to when they refer to the mind, I believe. Synonymous with consciousness. Within this mind or consciousness we have the thoughts and processes of which we are aware. Walk down the street. Eat that cookie. Compose this thought. These are all finite processes running on the virtual machine that is the mind.
Why then must this be a virtual machine instead of simply processes running along side each other in the same address space? In our conscious mind we really have no way of knowing just what else is going on, so we are effectively isolated in a higher-level abstraction where we now somewhat know what is going on.
Virtualization is itself, in effect, the process of wrapping up a set of functionality and representing it on the platform at a higher level of abstraction where it can't access anything else running on the physical system. Considering this is only an analogy, I think it works pretty well from this point of view.
So what does this say for science fiction fans? Can we then run the mind of one person on the brain of another. I would say that that is taking the metaphor too far. You are, inasmuch as you can contemplate the concept of you, your hardware. Your brain is you, so it doesn't really make sense to try this operation. If you were in someway able to run your mind on another brain, you would have effectively converted that brain into you in the process. So I am saying nothing about the impossibility of copying a brain, except that if you do such a thing it wouldn't be a transfer of consciousness, it would be a copy of consciousness. There would be two of you.
Of course this whole concept, much like the mind, is merely an abstraction there to help us picture what is going on.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Everything Zen
Zen master Flex awoke early that morning to walk his duck Roy before breakfast. Just after clearing his dishes, a young disciple delivered the message that a wanderer was in the courtyard seeking an audience with the master.
"Tell him I will be in the garden tending my peppers."
"Yes, master."
"Flex."
"Yes, master Flex."
"No, just flex."
"Flex."
"No! Flex!" With this, the master began straining and gesticulating his instruction.
The disciple walked away confusedly. He was new.
Shortly, as the Zen master was tending his peppers, a young man arrived and reverently bowed before Flex. Flex said nothing as he continued pruning damaged leaves and the young visitor continued carefully inspecting the dirt before him.
Flex continued to prune. The visitor continued to bow.
Flex finished at one plant and turned towards the visitor. "Well, get up then."
"Yes, great master."
Another awkward pause ensued. Flex began pruning another plant of its dead leaves. The visitor continued standing quietly in calm abeyance. After finishing with several more plants, Flex turned again to notice the visitor standing precisely in the same position and posture as several minutes prior. "Ah still here, eh? Jolly good." he said as he moved around the young man towards the plants behind him.
The next morning when Flex arrived in the garden, he nearly stumbled over the supplicant. "Good gracious man! Have you been bowing there all night?"
"Yes, wise one." he humbly responded.
"Well, get up then. Let's go have some breakfast."
"I have taken a vow of hunger until I gained your audience."
"Well, now you have, you must be starving."
"I humbly thank thee," he said as he proceeded to bow again.
"Enough with the bowing. What is it you want man?"
"I seek to earn shelter here. To learn at the feet of the master. To learn the secrets of the cosmos."
"The master eh? I don't think we have anyone here like that. Maybe you're at the wrong place."
"No. It is here which I seek."
"Hmm. You may be looking for that other temple down the road. Can't miss it. Big spiky things shooting out all over. It's quite impressive.
"I will study here. I am determined. I will do whatever it takes."
"I'm afraid you've got the wrong place chap. We don't have any cosmos secrets anyway. You'd best be moving along."
"I was warned to expect a test. I am ready."
"Oh so it's a test you want? All right then. What's the fundamental particle of matter?"
The stranger paused. "I'm sorry. I don't quite understand."
"Well, come on then. You said you wanted a test and to learn about the secrets of the cosmos, so it doesn't get any more basic."
"I have failed this test then. Tell me what I must do to amend."
"Oh, so you don't know then?"
"No."
"Hmm. Well that puts us right out then doesn't it?"
"That was my one chance?"
"I'm afraid so. I was really hoping you knew too. Then we would have some cosmos secrets. Of course that would only encourage folk to visit."
"Then I will sit again at the gate and await forgiveness until I may be allowed to enter."
"Hmm. So you're pretty serious about this eh?"
"Complete."
"Well, come in then. Let's get something to eat."
"I can join you and study here?"
"Sure. If that's what you want. Don't know what you're going to study though, we don't even have any books."
"Ah." the initiate almost chuckled. "The master is wise."
"Master? Oh that's right. I'm master this week."
"I do not understand. This week?"
"Yeah, sure. We switch around every week. Last week I was the latrine scrubber."
"Tell him I will be in the garden tending my peppers."
"Yes, master."
"Flex."
"Yes, master Flex."
"No, just flex."
"Flex."
"No! Flex!" With this, the master began straining and gesticulating his instruction.
The disciple walked away confusedly. He was new.
Shortly, as the Zen master was tending his peppers, a young man arrived and reverently bowed before Flex. Flex said nothing as he continued pruning damaged leaves and the young visitor continued carefully inspecting the dirt before him.
Flex continued to prune. The visitor continued to bow.
Flex finished at one plant and turned towards the visitor. "Well, get up then."
"Yes, great master."
Another awkward pause ensued. Flex began pruning another plant of its dead leaves. The visitor continued standing quietly in calm abeyance. After finishing with several more plants, Flex turned again to notice the visitor standing precisely in the same position and posture as several minutes prior. "Ah still here, eh? Jolly good." he said as he moved around the young man towards the plants behind him.
The next morning when Flex arrived in the garden, he nearly stumbled over the supplicant. "Good gracious man! Have you been bowing there all night?"
"Yes, wise one." he humbly responded.
"Well, get up then. Let's go have some breakfast."
"I have taken a vow of hunger until I gained your audience."
"Well, now you have, you must be starving."
"I humbly thank thee," he said as he proceeded to bow again.
"Enough with the bowing. What is it you want man?"
"I seek to earn shelter here. To learn at the feet of the master. To learn the secrets of the cosmos."
"The master eh? I don't think we have anyone here like that. Maybe you're at the wrong place."
"No. It is here which I seek."
"Hmm. You may be looking for that other temple down the road. Can't miss it. Big spiky things shooting out all over. It's quite impressive.
"I will study here. I am determined. I will do whatever it takes."
"I'm afraid you've got the wrong place chap. We don't have any cosmos secrets anyway. You'd best be moving along."
"I was warned to expect a test. I am ready."
"Oh so it's a test you want? All right then. What's the fundamental particle of matter?"
The stranger paused. "I'm sorry. I don't quite understand."
"Well, come on then. You said you wanted a test and to learn about the secrets of the cosmos, so it doesn't get any more basic."
"I have failed this test then. Tell me what I must do to amend."
"Oh, so you don't know then?"
"No."
"Hmm. Well that puts us right out then doesn't it?"
"That was my one chance?"
"I'm afraid so. I was really hoping you knew too. Then we would have some cosmos secrets. Of course that would only encourage folk to visit."
"Then I will sit again at the gate and await forgiveness until I may be allowed to enter."
"Hmm. So you're pretty serious about this eh?"
"Complete."
"Well, come in then. Let's get something to eat."
"I can join you and study here?"
"Sure. If that's what you want. Don't know what you're going to study though, we don't even have any books."
"Ah." the initiate almost chuckled. "The master is wise."
"Master? Oh that's right. I'm master this week."
"I do not understand. This week?"
"Yeah, sure. We switch around every week. Last week I was the latrine scrubber."
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Breaking News...
Contrapositive to the common adage that children should be seen and not heard, many folk on the internet should be heard and not seen. In fact, most of them shouldn't be heard either.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Directions
"Karma had a sense of justice that her younger sister Serendipity lacked."
So begins a piece I was working on. Isn't that deep? Hemingway I believe once said something like: Write without symbols. Make a man a man and a tree a tree. Write them well and let people draw out their own symbols. They'll surprise you.
I on the other hand, appear to enjoy applying blunt force trauma directly to the skulls of innocent readers with the handy dandy Mallet o' Symbolism™. I at least subconsciously realized this when naming this blog "Plot Device". It was my up front admission of being a hack. If it's not short and gimmicky, I probably didn't write it. I'm trying to decide where to go from here. Should I continue with the gimmickry? Should I write a bit more subtly and plainly, hoping in the process to improve my writing skills towards the literary? Should I turn more towards the expository with essays on my thoughts? Or should I just totally sell out whatever "values" I had in my writing and do pure comedy here regardless of whatever cheap tricks I pull?
These questions of course take far too seriously something which should be handled with levity. I will write what comes out and try not to overanalyze. Sometimes a blog really is just a blog. I think Freud said that.
So begins a piece I was working on. Isn't that deep? Hemingway I believe once said something like: Write without symbols. Make a man a man and a tree a tree. Write them well and let people draw out their own symbols. They'll surprise you.
I on the other hand, appear to enjoy applying blunt force trauma directly to the skulls of innocent readers with the handy dandy Mallet o' Symbolism™. I at least subconsciously realized this when naming this blog "Plot Device". It was my up front admission of being a hack. If it's not short and gimmicky, I probably didn't write it. I'm trying to decide where to go from here. Should I continue with the gimmickry? Should I write a bit more subtly and plainly, hoping in the process to improve my writing skills towards the literary? Should I turn more towards the expository with essays on my thoughts? Or should I just totally sell out whatever "values" I had in my writing and do pure comedy here regardless of whatever cheap tricks I pull?
These questions of course take far too seriously something which should be handled with levity. I will write what comes out and try not to overanalyze. Sometimes a blog really is just a blog. I think Freud said that.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
universe.createInstance()
#include <physical_laws>
#include "constants.h"
#include "cosmic_events.h"
void* universe;
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
//given our time slicing, this may need to be a custom bit length
long int current_instant = 0;
register_callback(BIG_BANG, argv);
while (COSMOLOGICAL_CONSTANT > -1 && COSMOLOGICAL_CONSTANT <>
{
//probably needs high end system -> hard realtime constraints
render_particles();
current_instant += 1;
recalculate_cosmological_constant(); //haha "constant"
}
if (COSMOLOGICAL_CONSTANT <= -1)
{
register_callback(BIG_CRUNCH);
return -1;
}
else
{
return COSMOLOGICAL_CONSTANT;
}
}
render_particles()
{
foreach (boson b in universe)
{
if (b.observed)
{
b.setToParticle();
}
if (b.dimensional_radix > 4)
{
b.hide();
}
b.render();
}
}
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
