Kneededadvokit

Biological Machines?

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:59:36 GMT

We as humans are driven to procreate because it feels good. We have a desire for the pleasure. On the insect level, there must be at least a small glimmer of this desire. For example, the insects that are born to procreate alone (the drones of bee colonies) must have a massive driving force that over takes their desire or will to live. Right? A desire must exist to commit the act. Yet a robot is perfectly capable of committing such an act, and there exists no such desire. It is machinery working on mechanical and electrical impulses. So it is NOT necessary for the insects to have a desire. They could be simply hardwired into acting as such; instead of mechanical and electrical parts, they are built of biological and chemical parts, but the action is the same and the thought/desire could be nonexistent in both. What does this point to in us as humans, sharing similar constructs of biological and chemical compounds? Is it still necessary that we have some higher sense of drive or desire or are we merely a more complicated hard-wiring?

God and Guilt

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 04:07:23 GMT

Today has brought us a new generation, so unique in the extent of how rebellious it is. Whether science remains the culprit or the reborn feelings of emphasized logic in society and politics lies at the core as the main cause, religion is slowly moving its way away from Dogma and doctrine into logic, acceptence and universality. At the individual level, many people have subscribed to a comfortable agnosticism, cynical and jaded by the church and its semantics. "Logic tells me that we are surrounded by lies and corruption, greed and personal motives in and outside of our religious and political centers of thought. Where is God? Is God involved in this world? "

We are all stricken, regardless of whether we are ingrained by it, given it by society or the church, with a guilt. Often, the most natural seeming actions, ones that would be assumingly what a natural creature of this planet would have, are considered some of the greatest transgressions on a higher authority. We are completely saturated in this sticky, infecting feeling called guilt. When something is denoted "wrong" by society and it is accepted as an ingrained "fall of morality" into our hearts and minds, it is an action we feel guilty about, and the feeling is so deeply ingrained we find more guilt in doubting it.

Human beings also adapt socially and culturally to the environment the generations turn over in. By this we are given dialects, cultural attitudes, geographically located mind-sets and so on. And among the population we have those that still subscribe to the "religions of yesterday". Is it possible that these are the people that have come to terms with the guilt we have interwoven into our moral cores? Is it not possible that a massive new majority in Today's generation of collegiate students now holds the same guilt as the previous generations on top of the guilt of denying these guilts in the name of logic, science and worldy matters. Perhaps this same generation has accordingly surpessed the guilt that would be associated with the actual possiblity of a higher religious authority of omniscience and omnipotence. In our great "transgressions" of today, in our bold denial of the guilt we "should" have, have we given ourselves a guilt we hold at our cores even we cannot handle. Perhaps those in our young men and women's generations of today that abide by the beliefs in our various religious facilities are those that have come to terms with the great guilt and have come to face the great weight of transgressions they hold. Perhaps they are the bravest of us all, not because they do it in spite of the peers, but in spite of the guilt they hold at the depths of their moral cores.

something to think about

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:08:45 GMT

I am plagued by the possibility that none of this is real. The very act of typing on this page could be an imagined act in an imagined world. Everyday I am faced with the possibility that is merely a dream. Or a day I have lived forever with memories created to withstand that day. What is a day? My memories hold onto a particularly significant night. I had needed to fall asleep early that night because I hadn’t slept well in days. I took two sleeping pills. One of their side effects, or perhaps their main action in the body is the slowing of my breathing. I was so exhausted, I could only acknowledge that my breathing was slowing to an unhealthy pace, going without taking in a breath for 15 to 20 seconds. I thought, what if I died here, tonight, like that actor did when his breathing slowed too much from sleeping pills. What a sad way to die. How un-glorious. What an anticlimax to a life I hope has made some difference in this world. But the question that reigns over me now is: Did I die that night? Could this not be my hell? That I am to live deceived by my own senses with the nagging, irritating question of whether this is real or not constantly on my mind? I suffer by my own skepticism. In this hell, nothing can ever be considered pure, unadulterated truth. Everything can be questioned. Is that not a hell? To have nothing that you can call true? Again I ask, did I die that night? Is any of this real? Will another person actually read this, or will this page remain a figment of my imagination forever. Will I write this page again and again, forgetting my previous times? Have I written this very sentence before?

the sound of change

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:45:46 GMT

And to the sound of car horns blaring, to the sound of young people screaming, to the sound of police officers and firemen sounding their alarms, to the sound of an eager America, desparate for change, we get what we have asked for.

As I sit on the edge of my seat awaiting a wave of change to strike the shores of our country, I hope, as we all do, that this will be a strengthening blow. Love is truly what makes the world go around. Anyone who denies this hasn't felt it and could not possible comprehend. For the deep and vast love I have for mine, I pray this change brings us peace and prosperity; a golden age for America we so desperately crave and need. I pray we haven't made, in our haste for change, a decision so brash that we have finally brought this country, this Empire to its knees. We are in need of change; change has come.

I hope for all of us that we get what we deserve.

Whats inside?

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:28:28 GMT

Its a little amusing how we as human beings hide our true selves in every day society. Is this for the best? Is it good that we hide our animal instincts? Or should we be "true to ourselves"? How would society function? Would it function or would there be chaos? But then of course, we have to satisfy these urges somehow or they will develop into "tics" of some type according to Freud. Some people itch their nose constantly, or tap their foot at some inner frustration. We all have suppressed urges, but what does this daily, hourly, minutely battle with ourselves do to us?

But then, of course, we have our outlets. Is a livejournal a satisfactory outlet?

There are some posts here that would be judged in every day society as truly demented. In fact, some posts would make the average psychologist question whether or not these people should be let to live within normal society. Are the posts merely creativity at its best? Are the posts an outlet to urges that must be satisfied in some way or another? If so, what happens when the live journal doesn't satisfy anymore? What if something more real is needed for the writer?

From Up Here These City Lights Burn

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:18:43 GMT

I find it amazing how quickly one can be torn out of naiivety. All that one requires is the perfect amount of ignorance; saturation is preferred, but not necessary. One can become the very thing he or she crusaded against not but a few months ago.

A friend of mine recently told me he had become racist.

Seemingly an overnight venture, I inquired how he came to this new "thought - process". His explanation:

"I wasn't always racist... in fact, the very opposite. I had friends of all races, and where I am from, this was the norm. Everyone had their place, but there was no heirarchy... or at least not one that I noticed. I think I would've noticed any type of "dominant" racial tensions and I didn't. I moved for my mother's new job to a city. The city was very different from the suburbs. I got a sense of separation from everyone. No one had any attachment to another. We were here, but not together. It was in this city that I would be accused for the first time of being racist. I had not done anything. In fact, I happened to be thinking about something comepletely different, but the man looked into my eyes with a very old hate and then walked away. He complained to my teacher and said that I had acted on the fact that he was of a different race. I was taken back. For days I had thought on why he would say that. I know, of course, that he said that because in this city its expected of people to be racist. But at the time, it seemed like he was putting me on a side by his accusation. Not but two months later, someone else accused me of being racist. It made me think, why would they think this? I've always been supportive of them... why would they accuse me? Of all people... But I was who they were accusing, and I began to think, perhaps they are onto something. Perhaps they are fighting a war that I have been staying neutral in for far too long. Perhaps it was time for me to choose a side and become more active for my own race. Now their accusations would be welcomed."

My friend is every child.

Normal?

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:02:40 GMT

The modern era has brought about a wave of liberal idealism that brought with it the need for re-evaluation of previously assumed “morals” by the general populus. Homosexuality has always been a lifestyle outside of the norm and more often than not an “unfamiliar” that was inevitably looked down upon. Today’s outlook does not differ greatly, but modern ethicists have proposed the possibility of not only a place for homosexuality, but a value. Using logical reasoning and his own personal experience, Andrew Sullivan will effectively dodge the classic attacks on homosexuality and ultimately present a possible value for homosexuality within a moral, natural, modern society.

Before Sullivan could present any type of value in homosexuality existing in the modern world, he had to prove its very existence and prove his task was born out of moral intent. His first audience or “opponent” was the greatest in number: the Prohibitionists. Using “holy text”, these people would utilize certain passages and would attempt to “cure or punish people who practice homosexual acts” (22). This particular strain of opponents, as Sullivan points out, strays closest to bigotry, not using reason, experience or any type of knowledge on homosexuality, but instead they judge via text written millennia ago. His reply to the prohibitionists lies within their very argument. Sullivan will point out that the prohibitionists utilize text designed to support the procreation of a people in great number. The Jewish people in Biblical time would have logically developed a policy against homosexuality because every man and woman within the tribe had a duty to procreate and make “vast” their numbers. At that period in time, it was a duty to procreate for survival, therefore logically, a law against homosexuality would have been developed because it did not “contribute” to the population. Today, however, we are not in need of procreation anywhere. We as a species populate all corners of the world and most “tribes” or races have great numbers and a firm grip on a location on the planet. This originally ethical law designed in Biblical times is no longer necessary. Sullivan then had to address the “New Testament” prohibitionists. Paul’s condemnation of the homosexuals as heterosexuals “spurning the ‘natural use’ of their bodies in order to ‘burn in their lust’ for members of the same gender” disregards the very existence of homosexuality (29). Paul views these people engaging in homosexual acts as heterosexuals who turn from their natural state of being. Sullivan will point out that Paul does not include where actual homosexuals fit in this equation. Does Paul deny their existence or does Paul merely not include them in his condemnation? Indeed, one of Sullivan’s recurring themes in his book is the project of honesty and heterosexuals actually turning from their natural, inner self would be dishonesty and in fact a crime worthy of punishment. However, if someone is naturally a homosexual, are they still to be condemned? By Paul’s standard, if a homosexual remain true to his or herself, are they guilty of a crime or are they living morally? Paul, ultimately, does not answer this, quite possibly because Paul does not feel homosexuality naturally exists.

The recurring and most powerful argument against homosexuality today is that of Natural Law. Born out of logic and human reason, it remains a difficult hurdle to jump for any advocate for the existence of homosexuality. Today, many people require more logical arguments regarding morality or ethics, so Natural Law Theorists were the next evolution of Prohibitionists. Instead of using text, however, they would utilize the natural order of things within the world or nature. Many homosexual rights groups will argue against the existence of Natural Law, claiming that there is no “natural” orientation; everyone is an individual with individual wants and needs. However, Sullivan interestingly takes head on the Natural Law Theory and uses it within his own argument. Sullivan begins the book with a very “up close and personal” presentation of his own homosexuality. Throughout the book, he continuously reinforces the idea that he did not choose his orientation, and recognized it as wrong within society. He could not, however, change the fact that he sought girls for personal friendships. He could not help that odd dynamic of the bond of a heterosexual male-male relationship and his own homosexual yearning for the same person, both of which conflicted with each other creating what he called the “strains of homosexual hurt” (5). Essentially, Sullivan claims throughout the book that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. He even goes as far as to denounce the gay-rights groups who disregard Natural Law. Natural Law not only exists but also is a commanding force in the universe, but as a naturally occurring phenomenon, which Sullivan argues for out of experience, then does it not fit naturally in the world? Why in this Darwinian- based world, where irrelevant or weak flaws in species are eventually wiped out over time, would homosexuality exist then? Sullivan will go on to claim that homosexuality has not only a place in society and the natural order of our species, but a value as well.

Sullivan will advocate the value and position of homosexuality in society through his project of living honest to oneself and society and through the contrast of the heterosexual’s duties in life to the homosexual’s. Throughout Sullivan’s project, he continuously pushes for living honest to one’s self and to one’s society. His platform is born like any moral project: out of authenticity or honesty. He reiterates the crime of living dishonestly. As a Roman Catholic homosexual, he stays firm in Natural Law and authentic living and as a naturally existing phenomenon, he as a homosexual advocates living true to his own nature. His moral stance, arguing from his own personal experience and the accounts from other homosexuals, reinforces, time and time again, the existence of homosexuality, which furthermore implies its existence as a natural phenomenon. Continuing from that, Sullivan will pose the question of who indeed is the morally guilty party: the one who shuns the homosexual for being open and honest about his orientation, or the one who advocates living honestly within his or her community. He does not ever regard homosexuality as a norm nor does he claim homosexuality is in fact better than heterosexuality. He merely remains adamant that it is naturally occurring and therefore it is only right to acknowledge, if one is in fact a homosexual, that nature within one’s self. Ultimately, Sullivan is then left with the final project of finding a role for homosexuality in our society. He proposes that the homosexual, “unencumbered by children… may be able to press the limits of the culture or business infrastructure, or the boundaries of intellectual life, in a way that heterosexuals, by dint of a different type of calling, cannot” (204). Essentially, Sullivan proposes that because homosexuals do not have children, they are not burdened with the great responsibilities children create. Logically, if an adult is not financially, emotionally, mentally, physically held back by children, they are obviously capable of accomplishing more. If a man is not required to donate his time, money and effort into children, his focus can go, as Sullivan points out, into developing himself as a “limit-pressing” individual in the cultural or business world. His next proposal is in fact one of wisdom. Sullivan points out that if one “[sees] one’s life as the end of a biological chain or seeing one’s own emotions as the object of detestation” this can provide insight to human nature and society itself (205). Perhaps, as Sullivan says, homosexuals have learned about life in a way most heterosexuals never will. “Life is fickle… there are parts of it that cannot be understood, let alone solved; that some things lead nowhere and mean nothing; that the ultimate exercise of freedom is not a programmatic journey but a spontaneous one” (204).

no subject

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:30:09 GMT

-What does it mean to exist?
to have form? physical, transcendental, mental?

-"existing" is not "being" = "to be" is not "to exist"
a building exists and yet is not a being, therefore, is "being" defined by having life? Being alive? I am a being and I exist and a stone exists but is not a being. Perhaps awareness defines being-ness. A rat is aware, but a tree is not.
a dead man was once an aware being, yet he has gone from existing to existed. He was, but is not now. Where is the line drawn in awareness to separate what exists to what is a being? A rat is aware, but only sees a limited world, and does not recognize itself as "I". Does the self denoting term and the ability to denote it make one a "being" instead of mere existence?

-because I recognize myself as a being, does that make me a being?

Heidegger - "Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of... being"

-I recognize I am, therefore I am.