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
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
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
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
Thursday, November 1, 2012
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
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
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
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
Monday, October 22, 2012
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
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
Thursday, October 18, 2012
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
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)