Death and Time

Ticking clocks are the best for this.

Think of it first as it is.  A tic, each representing one second, 60 of which ate in a minute, 60 of which are in an hour, etc counting down to your own demise.

Then think of it completely differently.  Think of it not as a progression down a finite linear scale, but rather just a rhythm.  A cyclic occurrence, manifesting the momentum of being while maintaining it, just

some calming noise occurring sequentially in that corner.

It's one thing to read it but if I've described it correctly is rather incredible to experience.  I believe I can eventually take this to digital clocks and to more and more of my daily existence, and that ones perspective on time can be both the cause and effect of ones perspective on death.

compressing reality

me

dude

u know what would be a pretty sick experiment at like a sound museum or something

so

u know how like mp3s, especially lower quality ones, are compressed

Cade

yeah

me

so ur not hearing the full frequency range of say, someones voice

Cade

did you listen to that NPR thing?

me

yeah reading it now

Cade

you should just listen to it

lol

they do sound tests

me

but as u get to higher bitrates, and eventually wav, and the FLAC, and then lossless

Cade

yea

me

you like erally begin to approach the full spectrum of his voice

and its almost like you dont NOTICE until you do

Cade

mhmm

me

you dont notice what was missing

Cade

yea

exactly

me

well whats the ultimate exaggeration of that?

real life, right?

Cade

haha

me

like hearing someone talk

like when you just hear me talk

you're hearing the full range of my voice

what if we could make it such that

we went into a room

and somehow were able to compress the frequencies of sound that could travel in the room

so we were like sitting across a table talking to each other

but the sound quality coming out of our mouths was SEEMINGLY compressed to like 128 kb/s

it would be SUPER weird i think

and would really awaken you to how shitty music compression is

it might be the best way to realize that i think

because we're so used to hearing each other in prefect analogue

conversations

when sum1 makes a judgment, i always have the CHOICE to see the truth in what they say or find fault with it. it's not an honest clash of our 'intrinsic beliefs,' it's not a verification of his truth or denial of his falsehood, it's just a choice that I make at that moment. always.

it's different/difficult to think this way, I believe many of us are entrenched in the idea that we have clearheaded, explicit stances (think politics etc) and when someone makes a judgment they are either saying something true or false and we will bring that to light with our reaction/response. but it's not like that. it's always just a choice that you make. a 'yes' or a 'no' almost at your whim, depending on what path you feel like going down at that moment. every. single. time.

so i think a fun exercise to do given this inherent illusion we have in discourse is the following: try to catch yourself. whenever you are about to disagree with what someone says (maybe out of habit of hearing this kind of thing or otherwise), immediately stop and say "yeah," and find SOME inkling of truth in their judgment to bring to light. or on the other side, when you are about to agree with someone because this string of words is one that you have subscribed to (or for whatever other reason), just stop and find something wrong, something to pick at, something to argue against in what was said. you'll find that you can make this swap almost every time (and eventually, with ease), and may be awakened to the malleability of dialectic. agreement is susceptible to whim. choice is beneath reason. it's actually a very grounded, practical way to make that classic 19th century realization that there is no truth.

void 2012.

Welcome & Shit

This post services as notice that I'll be trying, yet again, to write on a consistent basis. Also as a way to get Amir to do the same.  Apologies to all the readers of this blog (are there any?) who will have to witness this little experiment, although on the other hand, you guys get to mock me mercilessly if I fail.  You're welcome.

I think there are a couple of reasons why I was unable to maintain consistency in my prior attempts:

• Scope.  I have a tendency to be too grand with my posting ideas, which leads to a lot of interesting thinking, but not a lot of writing.  This time around, I'll attempt to be brief and modest.  Right now you're a post entirely about my attempts to write better and more regular posts, which is probably pretty boring.  I'll work on minimizing the meta in the future.
• Tools.  For the past couple of years, this was my laptop.  It was structurally unsound.  "Flaccid" according to my roommate.  Writing requires technology as much as it does a mindset, neither of which were readily available to me on my old machine.        
• Time.  When I was in school, the notion of writing recreationally was absurd to me.  That's because I associated all writing with the rigorously worded bullshit typical of most undergraduate academic work.  I preferred to spend my time doing more important things like becoming the single most dominant Super Smash Bros player on the Eastern Seaboard.  Now that I have a day job, it will be important for me to view blogging as leisure and carve out a certain amount of time per week.  This will require discipline, which, as a lazy fuck, is something I  definitely lack.

On a more positive note, here are some predictions about the topics I'll be covering.  Expect a focus on TV shows, most recently The Newsroom, which will hopefully be the subject of a forthcoming blog post.  Also, Breaking Bad, and although I will be out of the country during the premier, I will definitely be following the liveblog that Amir graciously volunteered to write.  I'll be covering some movies too, if I can ever get over the glorious mindrape (n.b.: mindrape is autocorrected to mandrake) that was Prometheus.  And finally, expect a smattering of pretentious high-minded observations about culture, technology, and ethics.  Because I know you secretly like it.         

A very cheeky symbiosis.

(2:35:30 PM) matteoplix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship
(2:35:31 PM) matteoplix: BOOM
(2:44:34 PM) bboyamir: SICK
(2:45:22 PM) matteoplix: i went in one
(2:45:24 PM) matteoplix: soooo cool
(2:45:30 PM) bboyamir: OH really!
(2:45:38 PM) bboyamir: in mexico?
(2:45:39 PM) matteoplix: yup in new mexico
(2:45:41 PM) bboyamir: new
(2:45:45 PM) bboyamir: damn thats tight
(2:45:50 PM) matteoplix: was sick nasty
(2:45:58 PM) matteoplix: it was so cool inside despite the temperatures
(2:46:01 PM) matteoplix: no ac
(2:46:42 PM) bboyamir: see like
(2:46:45 PM) bboyamir: technology and nuclear energy
(2:46:49 PM) bboyamir: thats us DOMINATING nature
(2:46:55 PM) bboyamir: but these earthships
(2:47:00 PM) bboyamir: thats us like smirking at nature
(2:47:05 PM) bboyamir: and i kind of like that attitude more
(2:47:09 PM) matteoplix: yeah
(2:47:09 PM) bboyamir: windmills too
(2:47:12 PM) matteoplix: like hey , i see u
(2:47:15 PM) matteoplix: nature
(2:47:22 PM) matteoplix: very cheeky symbiosis
(2:47:25 PM) bboyamir: hahahah
(2:47:34 PM) matteoplix: thats the way it needs to be
(2:47:39 PM) matteoplix: no more raping

What should be our approach to renewable technology? Shall we only focus on the utilitarian end goal, the destination, securing pure energy in the most efficient manner possible, or is the method, the journey, the approach, equally important? Is the world our gas station or our friend?

For more see: Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology"

Here is a supplement:

When Heidegger investigates 'the question concerning technology' he is interested in the essence of modern technology, not just any technology; for it is modern technology that poses the problem. Heidegger presents as an example of traditional technology peasant farming. The relationship of the peasants to the land is one of respect: they tend the land, are stewards of the land, cultivating it, synchronized with its patterns, to let the crop develop out of it. Modern technology, however, exploits the land as pure resource, trying to gain the 'maximum yield at minimal expense'. Modern technology challenges the land, or whatever it happens to be exploiting, to yield more. Objects are thus revealed as pure resource. Objects are exploited for all the energy or use they can yield and are left to stand there until they are to be challenged for more use again. For instance, the dam on the Rhine reveals the Rhine as merely a resource for hydroelectric power. Even viewing the Rhine for its beauty has been made into a tourist industry, again exploiting the Rhine as a resource for tourist gratification and photos.