Notes: Thoughts On Abortion

These are notes. I am not for or against, just thinking through it.

1.) If I was president I could leave the choice to the mothers.

2.) In doing so you are giving government permission to women to kill a living organism. FACT.

3.) By trying to define whether the organism is intelligent or not takes away from the issue. We can't define that, so why should that be a valid point with weight in the argument? That point is moot and null because it is unidentifiable. Let's work on what is identifiable to determine whether it is ethical to allow a woman to kill an organism within her.

M=W: What applies to a man must apply to a woman.

4.) If a man hit a pregnant woman crossing the street with his car and the woman miscarried could we call that murder...? Then we say it depends on the intention. A woman who is having an abortion intentionally kills the living organism within her. Okay, taking everything else out of the picture, if a man intentionally kills a fetus is it illegal...? We can say yes. Based on law M=W, if a woman does the same then it is also illegal.

5.) But see, we're not dealing with what's illegal or not, we're dealing with whether it is ethical and basing the law off of that. So is it ethical for a woman to kill a living organism within her...? Is it ethical to chop down trees...? Those are living organisms as well, are they not? But the argument is, trees are not human beings, trees are not people.

6.) This is why everyone is trying to set the point of intelligence for an organism inside the mother. It is arguably unethical to kill another human being. So if they find out when the organism becomes a human being, i.e. has intelligence, they can decide whether it should be law.

7.) Look, people have beliefs. These are BELIEFS. The question is, is it the RIGHT thing to do, if I had a wife, would it be the RIGHT thing to do to get an abortion...?

8.) There was a story a while back about a woman who needed an abortion and died because she couldn't get one. Hmmm...

9.) Should parental law be sovereign enough to allow mothers to kill the living organism within them...? If we say this, would we slippery-slope and eventually say that parents can kill their sons and daughters because parental law is sovereign...?

10.) "Are you for or against abortion...?" is equivalent to "Do you think it is right...?"... Do I think it is right...?

11.) What makes abortion wrong...? Is killing another human being wrong...? Yes or no...? If so, who defines what wrong is...? If we give permission to kill living organisms or prefactors to becoming human beings within us then how is it not permissible to kill human beings in general...?

12.) Concluding Thoughts: People should be able to do what they want. However, when does freedom turn into unethicalism...? If you give the people the choice, some of the people will take it, some of them won't. As president of a free country, if this is indeed 'free', one could allow the populace to think for themselves. However, as a leader, one would know that a population this massive is virulent under passive leadership, meaning, the masses think for themselves but that doesn't mean they think logically, all the time. In which case ample leadership is needed to set the record straight. No, America is NOT truly free. If it were so, anything could happen... use your imagination. Abortion could be legal, but we could make a law that basically says, if you have an abortion then it counts as a sort of label that is not punishable by law, but it holds on your record. However, that might be too governmentally invasive. Who says it's the government's duty in the first place to get into these matters...?

So am I for or against abortion...? Do I think it is right...? My answer is thus: I am not pregnant. I will never be pregnant. It is not my right or any of my business as a person to decide what pregnant women should be allowed to do with their lives. Seeing as it doesn't affect me or hasn't affected me, in all my intelligence, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot be "for" or "against" abortion. Whether it is legal or not, that decision belongs to the mothers out there or the would-be mothers who have or have not gone through it. They are the ones who know the pros and cons of doing it. They are the ones who know whether its consequences should determine the legal status of it. That decision does not belong to religious sects, cults, whatever you want to call them. And it certainly doesn't belong to the government. Don't ask a neighbor what you should have for breakfast in your own house. That is their house. Not mine. I am too limited in scope.

-XJ

Inventions: 3D Space Recorder and 3D Space Projector

This is the diagram of how this invention works...

Basically, what we have here is a field of small sensors, thousands of them, the more you have the higher the resolution. These sensors track the location and depth of the object in the field (including the depth of the object itself) while it is moving and record it in raw data. The data is then transferred to the projector to be processed / rearranged into a specific order that is respectively emulated and displayed in the cells or 2D planes of the apparatus.  The layering of 2D planes in concordance with the 'depth' data that is processed creates a 3D object.

-XJ

In My Own Words: Treating the Root of the Problem

Today, I got angry. That anger started out being projected towards another person who chose to do something that I disagree with. Because I was ignorant at the time of happening, I figured I was powerless to an authoritarian decision that affected my life in a negative way. I allowed this decision to be the final-say without questioning it until years later. That is my fault. Based on my anger projection theory (soon to come in my notes) I realized that I was angry with myself for allowing that person's choice to affect my life when it is my responsibility to do something about it.

It is my responsibility to get what I want in life, not what someone else wants for me. Consequently, what I wanted and needed were the same thing at that time, and they were denied by someone in a position of more power (but remember, this person only had power because I gave it to him). What did I want and need...? TIME. Time to be myself, to find things that I like doing instead of aimlessly trudging forward in the dark.

Then I thought, when I needed it the most, I couldn't get it. Now, when I don't need it, I have it. I have the time to relax and focus on me, to find out more about me, to be me. I have the time to work on things that I previously had more passion to do, even though now, my body physically doesn't want to. I've been tired out. Now this makes me angry.

"They didn't give it to me when I needed it. Why, why, WHY...!?!"

Why, exactly. And I start to think, why am I crushing myself to do this 'thing' anyways...? This supposed 'dream' that I've always wanted to do. It's in my hands now, the only way it will not get done is if I choose not to do it. Why wouldn't I do it...? I've always wanted to do this, right...?

But these years have not been kind to me. I know better than anyone, that once you look from outside the matrix, there is possibly no way of returning back to formal cognition. I know, this 'dream' is nothing more than the alteration and conditioning of my physical self earlier in my life to promote an idea that aids what I call, 'the Big Z'... You could also call it brainwashing. You see stars on t.v. Then you see a preconditioned audience wooing for that star. Everyone wants to be famous... but WHY...? Because we're conditioned to feel that way. We're conditioned to want power. To work for that power. And all in this process we're making the Big Z even more powerful.

Why should I want this 'thing'? Why should I want to be famous...? How can a person want to be famous but not even know the pretexts for it...? I am culpable. Culpable for being gullible and conditionable, but only because I know it. It wasn't my fault then but what I know now makes me guilty to my own anger. Because if you are not ignorant, then you must know that you are the only one who has control over you're life.

So in being angry with myself, I will write about "the Big Z". Why I have distaste for them. Why they are responsible for every violent outtake that happens in the United States and country that has tasted or smelled the lingering aftertaste of their presence. Disgusting is an understatement. No, I can no longer project my anger at other people. That doesn't solve the problem. If we martyr the criminals of society we are only treating the symptom of a problem emblematic of the larger picture. I have to go under the surface. I have to treat the root. I have to be responsible for being submissive to people who are created just as equal as us. And in doing so, hopefully, I will enlighten some people out there subjected to this issue.

In my own words,

-XJ

Previous Thoughts: "Analyzation"

The following was taken from one of my previous blogs. I included it because it fits more into this blog than it does the other one. These were my thoughts at that point in time, i.e. 9.25.2012. The writing is less formal, as I chose to leave it in its original state, but nonetheless, the message is essential...

I'm writing sloppy because i don't care that i'm writing sloppy. i just felt like writing and i want to get the gist down...

with so many different takes and beliefs out there it's hard to know what is the Truth... i'm sure more philosophical introspection and external observation will resolve this.

In fact, did you know, that I realized the Master Idea from philosophical query...? Yeah, it was just like, i was walking around everywhere, just broke as fuck, thinking about TIME and GOD and all that other stuff that relates to it. My first philosophy class was awesome because, as a studious and almost zealous learner, i took in everything and took time to analyze each question and homework assignment thoroughly to come up with the correct take/viewpoint/conclusion/insight/answer. even though some of my essays weren't great some of the conclusions i came up with were (brilliant?) for the first time.

 If you train yourself to do this over and over again it becomes very easy to think of some great ideas. I MEAN REALLY. AWESOME. IDEAS. When you do this it's almost like you are using another sense, you're 6th sense (or whatever you want to call it): a nonexisting term, "analyzation". if you analyze everything, scrutinizing everything, THINK about EVERYTHING, to the minutest detail, you will be able to form patterns based on what you analyze. you can become very successful at stuff when you use it.

For example, you could use "analyzation" for playing games with people, like POKER, CHESS, or HEARTS. I have become very good at Hearts and I seldom play it. Last time I played it was in 2010. My partner and I, no matter who my partner was, almost always won a match. Even if my partner was less skilled than me. This was because you can figure out the pattern of that game, how to win, fairly easily.

Poker is another game, that if someone, SOMEONE, had the time to come up with the WINNING FORMULA, it could be done, I have no doubt that it can be done: a person could win every match. Not every play, obviously, but every match. No doubt. The formula's out there, I was working on it a few years ago, when I used to be good.

Not only can "analyzation" work for just simple games, but it can work for coming up with INNOVATIVE IDEAS. These ideas are innovative, but at the same time, its like, they could be thought of by other people, if those people had the insight. Ultimately, the idea or insight that comes from "analyzation" could be something that will happen within a matter of time (or may not, but still an awesome idea), you're just the first to think about it. So, in a way you're sort of predicting the future through the patterns that you've assessed and nit picked.

A good job for an "analyzer" or 'innovator' or 'idea generator' would be in fields that require projection. Any type of projection really. What I mean is, predicting outcomes of a business, or popularity of a song, or how a movie will do at the box office, or maybe how many people will show up (Those are simple things). If it's Computer Graphics, which is the case for me, one could use their knowledge of visual media and anything associated with it, analyze it, eat it for breakfast, think about it all the time, to predict patterns or come up with new innovation.

For example, about 2 years ago, i was thinking about Holographics and 3D displays. At the same time I was thinking about how to teleport a person from point a to point b. I came up with an idea to project an enviroment 3000 miles away into an "environment room" in a way so that  the people in the room would feel like they are actually there. This includes all sorts of stuff like environment AI and messing with a person's 5 senses to 'trick' their brain into believing they are there... pretty cool huh...? that's all i'll say about that.

...

Anyway, Nintendo had just said they would release a 3D hand held soon. Taking the knowledge that i had about there being 3D capability without glasses, i projected this onto a grander scale; basically coming to the conclusion that if we don't need glasses for 3D, one day, a new type of medium will be used for large scale cinematics  and it will be 3D and we will not need glasses to view it. This means 3D movies without glasses; the movie will actually look like it's right in front of us. I also came to the conclusion that a more articulate and complex 3D holographic display would be needed. Furthermore, since I was making beats at the time, I figured that holographic display will soon shortly be used in the entertainment industry, specifically the MUSIC industry, for live displays and such. This means back up dancers, or dancers in general, on the stage will be 3D Holographic...

If you look up how a 3Dholographic works you will understand that there needs to be at least 2 separate images projecting onto the same plane. Thus the technology that is needed requires an ample amount of devices that can traverse or move fluidly (probably on programmed or animated tracks) to parallel the movements of it's projection. This also means that an additional amount of effort had to go in to the production (knowing that at least 2 images must be used, but more likely, 6 images will be used) but i was thinking the cost should go down once the technology becomes more widely used... Who is the first to set the largest 3D Holographic record...?

On a video game scale, this could be big. Computers, BIG. A 3D holographic laptop screen, that displays the depth of an environment of the person you are video chatting with. Along with it 3D web cameras for 3D laptops. Saving files in a 3D holographic format for easy mobility: 3DH (3D holographic). 3D Holographic Phone. The boom could be big. Am I not the first to think of this...?

Like I said It WILL eventually happen. It's just, I'm early, if not the first, to think of it. So it may take a while, maybe 5 years, maybe a decade, for us to see a Lady Gaga or such type on stage with holographic dancers around her....

the best part about it is that if we have a 3Dholographic camera, it could be used for other things, like solving crime scenes or what not, it would pick up things in 3D. We could watch a basketball game in 3D holographic from a 3D holographic projector.

Anyway, where am i going with this...?

...

eh, i'm just rambling

Like I said, if you analyze everything, you can get insightful results or patterns that will direct you towards possible outcomes. And it doesn't matter what you use, "analyzation" on. Anything really. even "Religion"... you just gotta set aside the time to do so...

the problem is, I haven't had time to be super-philosophical recently, my energy is being used elsewhere. like school

-XJ

Antagonistic Protaginism: Pre-Machiavellian Tactics in Religion

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for this blog, but I'm going to go with it anyways. This argument has to do with the method I have deemed, "AP", being used in religion. These are my stretched out thoughts, as of right now...

"A wise prince must, whenever he has the occasion, foster with cunning some hostility so that in stamping it out his greatness will increase as a result."
-Machiavelli

Is it possible for a company like Pepsi to covertly establish an alternate, formidable, "nemesis" company in an attempt to make their image look better...? I began thinking about this after reading (as is the usual case) an insightful bit about how Machiavellian State Terror is used in governments. Jumping the dots, I assumed this type of technique has been used in companies with *a lot of power. Hell, if we wanted to, we could even say the United States Government is a company itself. What are the differences...? Let's not get distracted from the purpose of this article: the applications of this method beyond governmental control.

* a lot is a term used to describe a significant amount.

We think about what other applications this 'method', which I will call 'antagonistic protaginism' (other names: 'antagonist proprellism', or 'the oppositional protagonist') or AP, for short, could be used in. We obviously see variances of AP in popular media that uses rhetoric to appeal to the audience. An example might be in a children's cartoon show, or in a comic book, or even in movies where the audience is built up to believe that the cause of conflict is independent of a main archetypal character, formally seen as 'good', but then realizes at the climax that this same character created that conflict to benefit himself.

Loosely stepping stones, we can apply this to religion. Could God have created Satan to make God's image look better? This could correlate or run parallel with the problem of evil (philosophy).

Now I will explain why I believe that God could not have used AP to benefit God and that it could only be a human who uses it.

Based on my experience, I cannot believe that God is intelligent. Intelligence in a higher power is probably a gross understatement that is not feasible, moreover, an intelligent God is a human construct because only humans can have intelligence. This construct is also a device that utilizes the natural properties of emotions (see earlier notes) to mechanically (or biologically) pull or force a human audience to relate to the image of the personified entity. However, I am not saying that God doesn't exist. Simply, based on my experience, God is not intelligent. God is not a person. God is far beyond intelligence. God doesn't have to think in order to do. God IS. And what God IS is what DOES.

What I encountered, is that if God is not intelligent, how can Satan be? The intelligent higher power or nemesis of higher power, is the acutely narcissistic construct created by man for man to portray something that is more abstract and incomprehensible in a way that is relational to him. This is the argument for why only humans could use AP. Do you smell conspiracy...? Only if it is done so on purpose.

It is apparent that the life of Jesus may perhaps be conspiracy itself. There is contradictory evidence. However, this does not take away that Jesus still exists, whether he is fictional or not (Yes, similar to saying Harry Potter exists, or Santa Claus for that matter).

Even if it is a conspiracy, it all the more proves that Jesus's words have a purpose, even if they are not what we think them to be. If it is a conspiracy, we can say that Jesus's words are the words of a human with insight. If it is not a conspiracy, then all words coming from Jesus were original. Regardless of conspiracy (and I don't like to say "conspiracy"), there is 'conspiracy' even within this situation which proves that Jesus, or the man who wrote Jesus, used a form of AP to guide his audience.

We can say that Jesus, or the man who wrote Jesus, knew of this 'conspiracy' in the way he talks to his disciples. Jesus says in the Bible (I believe I am correct on this) that even what he tells his disciples is encrypted. Jesus tells (Paul?) something along the lines of, 'If you do not understand what I say to you now, how is it that you will understand what goes on in heaven...?' (paraphrasing). I take this to mean that there is a deeper message to what Jesus says. Jesus speaks in parables to the masses and metaphors to his disciples. He did this to protect himself and the message from ignorant backlash, so it would continue to survive.

Jesus, or the man who wrote Jesus, utilized the natural tendency of man to relate more with his own image by making God a "Father"; metaphorical words for an audience that, based on the technological state at the time, could not possibly interpret something as abstract as an unintelligent God that solely IS or exists just because. Remember, this is abstract to them, not to us.

And then we get to the same method of personifying used on, "The Evil One".

I'm not going to get into the WHOLE thing (including the Master Idea and such). But Jesus, or the man who wrote Jesus, knew of this conspiracy, that God is not a person, and in order to disseminate the 'message', i.e. "the word", rhetorical modifications must be made. There must be an "Evil One". There must be an opposition and this opposition must relate to man. I am not saying that evil doesn't exist. I am saying that Jesus, or the man who wrote Jesus, because God cannot be intelligent, constructed the perfect antagonist for a cause, and in doing so, he may have practiced the first form of antagonistic protagonism. The purpose of using AP was the same whether Jesus was a real person or fictional. The true meaning, whether it was for controlling of the masses or an actual revolution based on peace, however, is debatable.

Archaic, but not simplistic. Tactics were used far before Machiavelli realized it.

These are my thoughts...

-XJ

The Bi-ternal System: Two Is the New One

Suppose we had two suns. Two moons. Two planet earths. Two brains. Two bodies. How about two, ideo-genetically equivalent (and on the same plane) answers to every question...? Although the first objects mentioned may be, currently, scientifically impossible, the final question is more psychologically and abstract / metaphysically / scientifically possible than one might think. This proposition leads us to postulate on the actual outcomes of having two leading designs, within the same dimension, to every obstacle. The exasperating, age-old bout between ethics and politics may be daunting and over-the-hill for anyone, or any philosopher for that matter, to find an answer to, but implementing a new 'bi-ternal' system would show the positive effects of unanimously heading the world's greatest governments with, not one, but two leaders. Furthermore, the innovative genius behind the bi-ternal system reveals itself to be relevant in other competing fields.

...

(tbc)

-XJ

Ladies and Gentlemen, Evil Exists: The Lack of Empathy in People with High Positions of Power

Here are my beginning thoughts. For this semi-brief post, I was thinking about profiling (cross-profiling?) some of the most evil people in current history, that are still alive or have affected the United States in correlation with the World within the past 3 to 4 presidencies / wars. I'll try to find some scholarly research, although, I have already read quite a bit about several people...

"Ladies and gentlemen, evil exists...

...

...and ya know, it's one thing to have a lack of empathy. There is nothing wrong with that. But when a person's actions are based on this lack of empathy we start to see problems. Anybody can change. And to try to change might as well be considered change. But to refuse to change when it is grossly apparent that one's actions are negatively affecting millions of people, to refuse to change when there are better alternatives that are being shot down in favor of a 'corpulent' outcome, the refusal to uphold a moral and ethical RESPONSIBILITY that comes with POWER, ladies and gentlemen, THAT is evil."
-me

UNFINISHED.

-XJ

Unfinished Thoughts: Man Exists Eternally Through Truth

Unfortunately, the motivational drive I had earlier to encapsulate the total essence of this thought has somewhat diminished, so I'll do the best I can to explain it. It is just a thought. But, I think, there is Truth to it.

It all started earlier this week, when I came unprepared to a meeting with my Professor. I'm taking an English course in 19th century English literature, which, I can tell you, until up to this point, has vexed the shit out of me ("Vexing" is an understatement. The first several books we were required to read were teeth-grindingly difficult to find interesting. I'm thinking, "God this is so boring! Why am I putting myself through this...?" (Based on my history, English is not my forte, but when a person WANTS something, physically, emotionally, they will get it: I am no less than determined to get an A or B in this course)).

The meeting was dependent on my required reading of Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, which, if any of you have read, is a pretty neat book. But my busy schedule hadn't allowed me to finish it yet. Disappointed, and being  awoken by the staunch aroma of dis-satisfactory unpreparedness, I was kick started in the ass by intrinsic motivation to complete the book by the end of the day, which, for the most part, I did. What I didn't realize is that I would learn something in the process, something I thought, reading English literature, was far from capable of teaching me.

I'm not going to go through the whole book, but basically the part that got my attention is that people and society in the 19th century England  were very 'stoic' and 'un-free' with their emotions. They had just been through a war which cost thousands of lives and the majority of society was trying to push a deep emotional baggage (or enigma) of it under the rug as if it had no volume. The social etiquette to remain silent and ignore 'the problem' further complicated the issue, especially since this type of behavior, i.e. the lack of emotional empathy or recognition, was further compounded by the unrefined heretical practices of treatment during the day, upheld and entertained by the disillusioned governing class that ruled over the majority. Obviously the lump under the carpet could not be ignored, since it was spilling out in a sort of mass social panic or post traumatic stress disorder.

Anyway, I'm thinking, "This sounds just like my struggle with college...!" In that, I keep trying to suppress something in me that is telling me that college is not the right choice for me, and hell, maybe it's not the right choice for a lot of people out there, but we feel like there is no other choice than to follow norms. So we suppress our inner voice, we kill a part of ourselves inside that wants to be free, and I think that later on this leads to psychosis. I was telling my sister the other day, who was at a dinner party she didn't want to be at, only because she had no money at the time:

"You shouldn't keep doing that. Because, when you keep submitting to superficial things that are against your morals or ethical values you commit a crime against yourself and really, it takes a part of you little by little that you may never get back again. A person can get a serious psychological order when they have to suppress their 'voice'. It starts distorting your identity as a person, then depression hits, etc. etc."

Any artist who has been oppressed knows what I'm talking about (How can a genius create if everything is taken away from him...?). But this can apply to anybody really.

Anyway, I realized that this was pretty interesting that this type of thing is cross-chronological. The problems of 100 years ago are still problems today, just with different technology. This leads me to believe that this type of problem relates to or is Truth (because Truth is constant).

Okay, well, I'm running low on time, so here's the gist:

1.) Then I realized, that in a way, we're all connected and the Truth is what binds us together through the memories or artifacts of the past...

2.) Just like an artist's drawing is an artifact of his subconscious, literature can be seen as a record of society's social subconscious...

3.) The 'past' exists via artifacts and memories. w/out literature or other recording medium we are doomed to repeat that which doesn't exist...

4.) In a way, art is like a vessel for the 'discoveries' of Truth. it carries them through non-existent time, allowing them to continue to exist...

5.) Artists before us left the Truth in their works, like an eternal part of them that allows us to realize, society was and is not wholly alone...

6.) So in a way, Virginia Woolf, and artists like her, continues to exist (abstractly, but still) today through her artifacts and works.

So, an important thing to think about is that the Truth is bigger than any physicality, than anything that ever exists in the material, because it is constant, it never changes, and it will continue to exist far after it is realized or discovered and even after it can't be realized any more. The Truth is something more powerful than the purpose of the legacy of man, which some may argue is to be forever remembered...

UNFINISHED.

-XJ

SEO: A Brief Thought on the Scientifics and Psychology of Website Broadcasting

This was a discussion assignment for one of my CG classes. I believe it pertains to a broader understanding of Propaganda and 'Image Broadcasting'...

What is Search Engine Optimization (SEO)?

"Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of affecting the visibility of a website or a web page in a search engine's "natural" or un-paid ("organic") search results.[jargon] In general, the earlier (or higher ranked on the search results page), and more frequently a site appears in the search results list, the more visitors it will receive from the search engine's users. SEO may target different kinds of search, including image search, local search, video search, academic search,[1] news search and industry-specific vertical search engines.

As an Internet marketing strategy, SEO considers how search engines work, what people search for, the actual search terms or keywords typed into search engines and which search engines are preferred by their targeted audience. Optimizing a website may involve editing its content, HTML and associated coding to both increase its relevance to specific keywords and to remove barriers to the indexing activities of search engines. Promoting a site to increase the number of backlinks, or inbound links, is another SEO tactic."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization

So basically, it is a science, an 'art-form', like any other art-form, a sub-facet of its parent, in this case Webdesign or Webdesign in correlation to its 'opaqueness' in search engines; it can be mastered, to a degree. Its purpose: to enhance and optimize, to make more efficient, the field that brought it into existence, the field it is a sub-facet of. The closest analogy I can think of is like the scientific dynamics of the popularization of a hot dog stand in Chicago. The hot dog seller (website) wants to reach an audience, so he needs to know what newspapers (search engines), or corners of various streets in downtown will be most efficient in promoting his ad and attracting customers. SEO helps in the process of that. Meh, analogy could be better...

What are some ways of improving your page rank on search engines? 

1.) Meta tags.
Although some people's opinions doubt otherwise.

2.) "As many of you are probably already aware, Google ranks a page according to the number and quality of links leading to that page. For example, if your page has 100 quality links leading to it, it will rank higher than another page that has only 20 links pointing at it. Quality links come from pages that are themselves "important" (Google's own terminology)."
- http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/google.shtml

So basically, if somebody set up an account linking to the website trying to be broadcast on the top 10 rated / most traffic-ed websites, i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Blogger, YouTube, etc., it would be higher on the search engine list.

3.) SEO books / Bible.
Surprisingly, my past roommates from France, whom were staying in the U.S. for an internship in web development, left (something like) a 'Web Search Engine' Optimization Bible in their room. I had no idea what it was for. It's pretty huge. I might look at what's inside now...

4.) Web design and Popularity / Keywords and Psychology
It is arguable that design is an important factor that correlates with the popularity of a website. But, contrary to this, just suppose, based on #1 from above, (excuse my language) a 'shitty' designed website had links from the 129 most broadcast websites pointing to it. It would obviously show up higher on the search list than a site with more efficient and aesthetically pleasing design that has no 'good' links pointing to it.

However, we all learned earlier in our CG training that every part of a design has a purpose to it; To paraphrase one of my CG professor's lectures,

"An airplane's wings aren't just shaped the way they are for no particular reason. The same for its cockpit, its windows, the shape of its nose, etc. Hell, even the miniature symbols on the dashboard and the design of the emergency booklets are for a specific reason. Everything on an airplane is shaped the way it is or looks the way it does for a purpose systematic to the 'being' or existence of the airplane. Otherwise, they wouldn't be shaped that way..."  
- my take from an Anonymous Professor.

This is important to think about when designing a site, because the design, including the words used in the design, affect its 'image', and when a user looks for something in a search engine, the first thing that comes to mind is the 'image' of what they are searching for.

What is the purpose of the site...? I would guess that it is important to think like a user who is searching for your site. What keywords would they put into a search engine such as Google...? For a site that targets a more secluded audience, obviously the keywords would be less 'open-ended' and more tailored to the 'image' trying to be broadcast. A site name would probably also factor into this. For example, if a potential client is looking for a new, alternative to desktop, online Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) that runs on HTML5 or Ajax, a site with an ambiguous name and/or unrelated keywords such as "Visual Basic" would not be appropriate.

A lot of this has to do with the psychology of naming conventions. I think, coming up with a great name for any product or website is as important as the design of it and is probably one of the most important factors that facilitates the 'broadcasting' of the image of the product as a whole, ultimately, bringing forth or acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy of its success. For example, if "Facebook.com" would have been named "BlueAlbum.com", the result of its success, in my opinion, would have been a lot different than what it was. If "Google.com" was named "BestSearchEngine.com", obviously, you get what I mean.

Coming up with a name or keywords to a site is like coming up with a subliminal design technique for SEO. When a person sees the word, "Green", what do they subliminally think of...? A website designer should think about what subliminal qualities are 'broadcast' through the image of their site. If the website's name is "Red.com", it would emanate psychological imagery pertaining to red. What do you think of when you see the word, "Red"...? Blood, perhaps...? Life, love, energy, war, hate...? It should also be noted that certain colors and words or word combinations are immune to cross-cultural interpretation. And other word combinations, such as "Red, White, and Blue" have universal / ideological meanings that could affect the SEO or popularity of the website.

The gist is, any name or word has a meaning or underlying meaning to it that, when part of your image, will direct or attract a user to it. Understanding the psychology of the 'image' is imperative to reaching the targeted audience and relies heavily on the psychology and scientific implementation of SEO. Although, it can be argued, that a lot of this is common sense.

Really, I have only touched the 'psychological' surface of SEO. And there are way more mathematical / scientific explanations of it. Of course, whole books could be devoted to this type of stuff.

Just my thoughts.

-XJ

Money is Power

No one can have power over you, unless you give it to them.

No one can have control over you, unless you give it to them.

No one can take your money, unless you give it to them.

You can't lose at a game, unless you choose to play it.

-XJ

Fear in Propaganda: The Ornamentation of a Lie

The following are my thoughts and hypothesis, that could probably go on forever...

It has become apparent that propaganda can be used for 'good' purposes or 'bad' purposes, but ultimately, it  can be difficult to discern between either.

However, when it is also realized that FEAR is a device used to (push) motivate people, in a more forceful, immediate way, we can conclude that other, more peaceful, and more credible options, were passed in favor of it. Can one say that to be controlled and manipulated by FEAR is right...? Therefore, it can be said that FEAR used in propaganda can be morally wrong (this, however, is a moot point).

But then there is the argument that a person is only controlled or manipulated if he lets himself be controlled or manipulated. That is to say that a person who is controlled is choosing to be controlled. But how is it a person's choice if they are ignorant to their own decision? This leads to conclude that the only audience the 'choice' is apparent to is the manipulator or creator of that choice, or the people who are aware that the choice exists.

By meaning, a Truth is a Truth, regardless of it's arbitrary name. It is unnecessary and probably not possible to augment the reality of a Truth, therefore showing us that it is only necessary and feasible to augment the reality of a lie. Questions pertain as to why...? A simple assumption would lead one to conclude that if a lie is in need of augmentation then it must be more difficult to assimilate and believe, whereas the Truth must be more quick to be comprehended without ornamentation, because it obviously 'makes sense'. This leads to another question as to whether people have a 'sense' or 'universal (or biological) method' that basically leads them to the Truth.

Therefore, if using FEAR as a device in propaganda is morally wrong, then why are BOTH opposing sides using it...? It can only be concluded, since FEAR is used for a specific purpose, as opposed to other methods, to force an ignorant audience to choose to be manipulated, that BOTH sides are augmenting a lie (because the Truth can not be augmented, for if it is not the Truth wholly, it is a lie).

In a perfect scenario, "augmentation" or "ornamentation" will be obsolete in the dissemination of a Truth. A message with black Times New Roman or Arial Font on a white page is almost void of any ornamentation, leading us to conclude that the message is more important than the visual propaganda that goes with it. Furthermore, when a person reads this message through their own inner voice or lens, without having the audio / visual animation and stimulation that comes with much propaganda, they don't have the manipulation of the message being broadcast through a 3rd person narrator (although the text could be rhetorical / biased in it's own account).

In the future, unpopular manipulation from a third party will lead to the creation of a device that 'reads' a person's 'inner voice' (the one in the mind) and broadcasts the world news through that person's 'inner voice' (to avoid any manipulation). Make a note, this could become standard in disseminating ideas, the same ideas that are pushed through FEAR. Obviously, the results will be different.

It can not be said that FEARING something means that it is a lie. However, if a device of propaganda can be recognized in 'pushing' FEAR or evoking FEAR in order to manipulate an ignorant audience, this can lead to conclude that the message that is trying to be broadcast and communicated could not be as Truthful as it may seem. As an audience to the venue of broadcasting stimuli, permeated by propaganda, it is essential to know the purpose of the communicated idea. And without knowing why they react to FEAR, or any other device of propaganda, the audience may remain oblivious to their choice to be manipulated.

-XJ

Etiquette in Effectively Disseminating a Green Idea

After a smidge of research on a third party in relation to tonight's presidential debate, I could come to the slightly preconceived conclusion that, based on the image projected through the media, some of these groups or 'parties' do not have the etiquette to compete. There are various things a party or group could do that leads to such an opinion, and one of them is GETTING ARRESTED. Unless you're Rosa Parks, GETTING ARRESTED does not help "the cause." It only shows that you do not know how to play by the rules of 'the game', that, might I mention, were not created and are not controlled by YOU. Not only does it not help "the cause" by GETTING ARRESTED, but it does not help your IMAGE either.

Your "image" plays an important role in how others assimilate you in their mind and, moreover important to you and your group, how they incorporate YOU into THEIR lives. If your IMAGE doesn't fit into people's schema, you will not gain their support. Consider this: IF you wanted to explain an unorthodox theory based on FACT to a 'normal' American, would you do so by standing on top of a garbage can, SHOUTING in the street? Obviously you know, this would create adverse results and the opposite of effective dissemination of your theory. People will not only be repelled by your vulgar actions, but they lose respect for your point of view. The last thing you want is to be labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" (a negative connotation), especially when your cause is based on factual evidence.

People want to see change, but to do so in such a dis-eloquent manner projects ignorance. A Mouse does not take out an Elephant by laying in front of it's path, when the Elephant can clearly STOMP on it altogether or ignore it (although I'm not saying the Elephant does not fear the Mouse, because, as we all know, the Elephant FEARS the Mouse (philosophical inquiry pertains as to WHY...?)). There are times when GETTING ARRESTED is appropriate for a cause, but when a political party is trying to "infiltrate the government", it probably isn't the best choice.

There really is no other viable option to 'win' than to play by the rules of 'the game', and this means 'playing' 'the game'. Because if you don't, you become another intricate yet trivial part of that which you are against.

-XJ

Power And Innovation: Responsibility of a Leader

To know Truth is to have Power. And "with Great Power comes great Responsibility." The goal of anyone with Power, as humans with Power seek more Power, is to achieve the highest illumination of insight possible; to find Truth through this Power so that one can live life in the most Responsible, RIGHT way. To do anything otherwise would be unethical and a squandering of Rights, or control: A world where Power is equivalent to the monetary unit of an 'incentive' allows RIGHTS to be controlled by the 'highest bidder.' Leaders, especially, must be Responsible to set precedence and become paradigms of the society, or world, they wish to come to fruition. However, there is the argument, of course, that a corrupt leader with Power will not do what is RESPONSIBLE, but, rather, what is "WANTABLE."

Words are arbitrary among humans, however, meanings are not, and it is arguable that whether we choose to call anything by any name, in any tongue, a concrete existence, perpetually reaffirmed by our senses, confirms that the object or entity exists universally. The sun inevitably continues to exist, and exists universally, regardless by what name it is or has been called by. The fact that it is Universal, means that it exists. It is the same as saying, "Two men from two different backgrounds, from two different continents, from two different time periods, both came up with the same idea without any influence from each other." This could be called, 'indirect convergence': the 'acknowledgement' (better word could be used) of an idea by two non-connected sources, proving it's either universal 'Truth-ness' or existence.

Thus, RIGHT can be seen as something that is Universal, and one definition that culminates from thoughts on indirect convergence is that RIGHT is something that 'promotes survival' (Note: just because someone is doing the RIGHT thing, doesn't mean they are telling the Truth). It is vague; it could lead to a whole other argument or postulation I've already done, so I will leave it at that.

And we get to the point. Obviously, the leaders of the country in question did not do the RIGHT thing. And by this, I mean, they are UNORIGINAL. I am reading a scholarly book about 9/11 and one of the sections is about "Machiavellian State Terror". Why would "enlightened", "powerful" leaders emulate the works of a past philosopher...? It is important to note, something that is universal or Truth will remain Truth no matter what name is given to it. I've only loosely researched it, but there is a 'supposed document'. IF there is a document, 'Truthing' that "Machiavellian State Terror" was, indeed, an objective, it just shows how non-genius the manufacturers of 9/11 were. But, then again, being a criminal doesn't take brains, it takes Power.

Okay, I have to go do a lab now, otherwise this would be longer and better formulated...

The Gist:
The Responsibility of a Leader with Power is NOT to Emulate, but to INNOVATE.

-XJ

The Contract of Man to his Society

Why do i do the things that i do, what is the ultimate force that is pushing me to do these things...? i have come to the hypothesis that human behavior is not controlled by them, instead their behavior is determined by an outside force, the same force that acts on all of us. Because obviously, i dislike doing some of this college shit, yet, i continue to do it anyway....? IF i am not controlling myself then what is...?

Jack: but you are controlling yourself. you're controlling yourself to do what you dislike because in the end you will be better off.

John: that's good Jack, but who defines 'better off'...? "Better off" for who...?

i hypothesize, that some persons' real motive in life can be masked over by a film of "the outside force"'s motive. in other words, we do things, we are driven to do things for this 'outside force' first, before dealing with our own wants.

What is the ultimate factor that makes a man do what he dislikes? And don't tell me you absolutely enjoy working at a fast-food restaurant, when YOU KNOW that you have a creative mind that could be used for other things in more positive ways... like overthrowing the Big Z, which i am sure, this has something to do with.

Postulation ensues, and most assured, some new insight will be encountered.  I believe it is a network, everything connects to everything else. So i'll see what i can come up with.

i need a dry erase board and some markers...

-XJ

OWS Propoganda Fails

In this response, I use the word "propoganda" to describe the positive efforts to broadcast an idea, regardless of bias and lacking in misleading nature.

In my opinion, one thing OWS does wrong is how it informs its target audience. OWS uses vague, yet glittering one-liner trademarks that by no means educate the passer-byer, who could potentially be a supporter, on the specific grievances that propelled the movement. At first glance, an Occupy facebook page is filled with pathos-attention grabbing (at least that's its purpose) rhetoric that might make us want to join the revolution. But this is exactly what's wrong with it. People are not supposed to join because it's 'inspirational' or convenient in our city. In a movement, the medium must be ethical; people are supposed to join because it is the right thing to do. The propoganda should reflect this. If you can't educate your audience on why it is the right thing to do, the exact reasons why they should join, then the propoganda fails to complete its job. This would assume that valid points exist that need to be reiterated. I would recommend, again, a list of exact grievances and how they correlate to current negative situations. Then, if you really wanted to reach a mass target, come up with an animated display or video that will educate the audience. And I'm not talking about videos of "protests".

-XJ

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/money/occupy-wall-street-list-demands-shows-ignorance