Friday, December 28, 2012

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.


Saturday, December 22, 2012

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.


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,


Friday, December 21, 2012

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


Thursday, December 20, 2012

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."

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...


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

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.