I was in the shower, as I usually am when I do any kind of philosophical thinking, when I came up with this crazy connection between post-modernism and Sarah Palin. Don't expect any of this to answer any questions for you in the end because I certainly don't have the answers but it might provide enough fodder to spend some time on wikipedia searching for the actual definitions of such words as postmodernism, neoconservatism, and feminism. I imagine that last one might not be too tough to figure out the meaning of but in truth it's more complicated than we've been led to believe. (edit: as an added caveat for getting through and reading all of the shit I've just finished spewing on this blagging... there is a joke and punchline at the end. So hold on tight...)
When I first learned about post-modernism I was pissed off because it was, and remains, a difficult word to define. In order to understand what post-modernism means first you need to know what its actually post- to. I've asked a few people how they would define "modern" and the answers were almost entirely "like, something going on today" or "contemporary" or technologically advanced, or something like that. While it's true that a lot of the things we have in our contemporary world would not exist if not for the modern movement, these answers all fall short of the definition. Modern defines an era of thought born through the eighteenth century European Enlightenment where the virtues of reason and science were held as the highest. Modernity meant believing in grand truths and finding them through natural philosophy which became "science" or "knowledge" in the mid nineteenth century. Modernity holds logic and reason to the utmost importance. If there is a question, there is an absolute answer and there is truth. In summary, modernism's goal is to construct a way of thinking that yields truth and aspires to answer the questions we come up with. The goal is to build something. The anti-thesis is post-modernism whose desire is to deconstruct and tear down the world that modernity built. "Whereas modernism was primarily concerned with principles such as identity, unity, authority, and certainty, postmodernism is often associated with difference, plurality, textuality, and skepticism." (wikipedia).
Post-modernism has a really broad definition though. It's really difficult to define but if you can think of it at its root... it declares itself as the world after modernism. In fact, it wishes to declare modernism (and even the idea that there is a truth to anything) dead. The idea is that nothing is true or concrete or absolute. In fact, we simply cannot know things but can only speculate and skepticize. (not a word). It's mostly famous for how art works and literature are deconstructed in various ways trying to gain different perspectives on the meanings but never claiming that there is a truth. Post-modernism lends itself to many disciplines such as gender issues such as patriarchy, and colonialism. The biggest problem that I have with post-modernism is that it's like Godzilla. Modernism built something... like Tokyo. It's not perfect but we're working to make it better... and then a big lizard named Godzilla comes along and sets the whole place on fire. What the hell did Godzilla do but leave a burning mess of rubble? To me, that's what post-modernism is.
Not only that, but there is a really cool quotation that I want to share... which is long but really great at defining post modernism:
"When it becomes possible for a people to describe as ‘postmodern’ the décor of a room, the design of a building, the diegesis of a film, the construction of a record, or a ‘scratch’ video, a television commercial, or an arts documentary, or the ‘intertextual’ relations between them, the layout of a page in a fashion magazine or critical journal, an anti-teleological tendency within epistemology, the attack on the ‘metaphysics of presence’, a general attenuation of feeling, the collective chagrin and morbid projections of a post-War generation of baby boomers confronting disillusioned middle-age, the ‘predicament’ of reflexivity, a group of rhetorical tropes, a proliferation of surfaces, a new phase in commodity fetishism, a fascination for images, codes and styles, a process of cultural, political or existential fragmentation and/or crisis, the ‘de-centring’ of the subject, an ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’, the replacement of unitary power axes by a plurality of power/discourse formations, the ‘implosion of meaning’, the collapse of cultural hierarchies, the dread engendered by the threat of nuclear self-destruction, the decline of the university, the functioning and effects of the new miniaturised technologies, broad societal and economic shifts into a ‘media’, ‘consumer’ or ‘multinational’ phase, a sense (depending on who you read) of ‘placelessness’ or the abandonment of placelessness (‘critical regionalism’) or (even) a generalised substitution of spatial for temporal coordinates - when it becomes possible to describe all these things as ‘Postmodern’ (or more simply using a current abbreviation as ‘post’ or ‘very post’) then it’s clear we are in the presence of a buzzword." (Dick Hebdige).
kkk... so... how do you tie this into neo-conservatism and feminism? Well, I intend on extrapolating it all from one of the most important of all post-modern philosophers and yet another quotation from wikipedia. Have a listen with your eyes:
Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007)
"In Simulacra and Simulation, introduced the concept that reality or the principle of the "real" is short-circuited by the interchangeability of signs in an era whose communicative and semantic acts are dominated by electronic media and digital technologies. Baudrillard proposes the notion that, in such a state, where subjects are detached from the outcomes of events (political, literary, artistic, personal or otherwise), events no longer hold any particular sway on the subject nor have any identifiable context; they therefore have the effect of producing widespread indifference, detachment and passivity in industrialized populations. He claimed that a constant stream of appearances and references without any direct consequences to viewers or readers could eventually render the division between appearance and object indiscernible, resulting, ironically, in the "disappearance" of mankind in what is, in effect, a virtual or holographic state, composed only of appearances."
If you got the same thing out of this as I did, you'd see that we have already reached the point of recognizing the indifference and interchangeability of important events. I mean, how many people have watched the North and South Korea debacle unfold but regard it like a movie? We see these things going on but soon realize that our lives haven't changed a bit and they didn't need to change. I think 9/11 has been one of the most significant events to combat this problem in that it changed the way North Americans live their lives in many ways for good and bad but only because it happened in America. Nine years later and 9/11 is a popular buzzword that has fueled political agendas ever since... those agendas are neo-conservative. Believe it or not, Bush's politics were pretty close to Clinton's until after 9/11. He didn't want to be a nation builder or a bringer of democracy to other countries... after 9/11 that seemed to be his only goal (and of course to get more oil). Neo-conservatives can be defined by these short points:
* a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organizations
* focus on the Middle East
* an us versus them mentality (Wikipedia)
Looks pretty familiar yes? Welp... now we have arrived at the feminism portion of this blagging. Palin has been held by some, and most importantly herself, as a feminist. Since feminism has many schools of thought which all fight with each other and contradict one another, I can't help but agree that she could be called a feminist. If I can be frank though, she holds the same views as other neo-conservative men in politics which is probably why McCain got her in the VP slot for the Republican party way back when. There is no denying that she is neo-con as is Christine O'Donnell of the Teabaggers and some more of those crazy women on the Fox news who eat from the finger tips of Glenn Beck (ffs). The thing that is important to remember here is that truth is not important to them. All that is important is emotion and ignorance. Iraq doesn't have a WMD program? oh well, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are practically brothers and so we should go to war. Did you know that the majority of Americans believes that there is a connection between Iraq and Al'Qaeda. In truth they hated each other... but if we're told over and over and over and over that there is a connection then that's all the public needs to believe it. To repeat what Baudrillard said, "a constant stream of appearances and references without any direct consequences to viewers or readers could eventually render the division between appearance and object indiscernible..." thus making us indifferent. But more importantly to neo-con politicians, when it comes to voting season it's important to know where the misinformation came from.
The neocon women are a new face of power for women. I know that a lot of feminists hate this fact because Palin and her cronies espouse philosophies that are damaging to other schools of feminism... but any press is good press. I suppose the only way I can justify calling Palin a feminist is that the definitions of words and philosophies evolve over time. If Palin calls herself a feminist, she changes the definition of the word to incorporate the things that she stands for... it might not jive with traditional feminism but it doesn't need to. Her feminism is allowed to be different from Virginia Woolf's feminism so long as its understood that they have a common ancestor. I liken it to gorillas and humans. They are not the same but the linkage is that we have a common ancestor and split off into different species. Can't the same be said for Woolf's feminism and Palin's feminism? I'd like to believe that this whole posting would come down to a punchline to the longest joke I've ever written, but there is no denying that while feminism is typically associated with hairy women... in a battle between Woolf and Palin, Palin is the gorilla of the two. =)
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The more interesting current events...
...as it pertains to anybody who might find interest in them. I've finally decided to jump over to blogger because it seems that my xanga account has been turned into a spambot for crappy watches and pills for larger penis sizes. I got 150 notifications yesterday that comments had been made on my blog. Either I had become extremely popular in a very short while or the bastards have finally caught me. At any rate, I DARE you to read all of the archived stuff that I've transferred over. It's a fair amount but definitely not all of it. I don't think I'm interested in keeping all of it since I think a lot of it should be considered tripe but whatever I have moved over, I've reviewed and I think it's the better of my musings if we were to put any of them onto a quality scale. As for the name of this blog attempt, I had used this phrase on my old blog and wish to stay true to the tradition. It turns out that all of the names for the website that I wanted had been taken so I needed to be disappointed about the one I was able to get... my WoW warlock's name. As for "Moving on to somewhere that always stays miles away" is from a song my MG on the album "Loser Anthems- B-Sides and Rarities" called "Life Beyond the Minimum Safe Distance." I'm the poison gas.
Today, something happened that I had sort of anticipated but I thought I could handle it. It was foolish of me to try it alone but I don't think it would have made any difference. In the end, it's probably good that Paige wasn't here to react or she would have freaked out and probably called an ambulance. Enough preamble Janzen, get on with your story.
Like anyone who reads this will know, I had knee surgery on Tuesday but what you don't know is that I was not allowed to have a shower until today. This morning, to be more precise. Paige left for school this morning and the last thing she said was "wait for me to get home before you shower just in case something happens." "Ok honey," I replied "I will wait until you get home to shower." The problem is that I really wanted to take a shower! It's been two days for Kris's sake! More than that, i wanted to take my bandages off and let the wounds breathe a bit. As I stripped the tensor bandages off I saw... or rather, I smelled something that I didn't like and I thought to myself "am i going to let this stink stay on my wounds all day? No fucking way...I'm taking a shower." The part of the tensor that was over my shin actually kept its form because of how the blood in it had dried. So you can tell that this wasn't a pleasant sight but it was relatively pain free. On top of the cuts and pokes was some kind of surgical tape to protect the stitches and all that from crap until I got a chance to clean it all up. I left the tape on until I got into the shower thinking to myself that the tape would soften up and would peel off easily due to the water. I was right of course. I got into the shower and was careful to only let water run over the wounds while I wash the rest of myself. Well, the first few pieces of tape came off easily enough and only covered the punctures from the light/camera/tools... the main wound was still covered. It's about 3 or 4 inches long and required more tape to cover. Right after I removed that tape and saw what it all looked like I began to get light headed.
I've felt these effects before. The first time I passed out I was probably 10 or 11. I had a skin tag removed from inside my mouth. I just remember waking up pale as a ghost afterwards. My parents thought it was an allergy to the freezing or something like that... but I later learned as I passed out more throughout my life that it was something different. The second time I passed out in my life, I was opening a syrup bottle by cutting the plastic cover off the lid. I did it in a way that caused me to stab my hand drawing very minimal blood. I didn't think it was that big a deal at the time and tried to shrug it off but then I got dizzy and saw some stars... then I remember waking up on the floor because my dad had caught me falling out of my chair. The third time I passed out in my life was when I saw the Passion of the Christ. The one with the particularly gory torture scenes. I passed out in the theatre which frightened some people behind me but when I came to I was alright and finished the movie. I nearly passed out watching one of the Saw movies... 3 or 4 I don't remember. I remember having the dizzy sensation and the stars but I focused on my legs and urged that we leave before that happen. I made it out of the theatre before I blacked out.
Well, there I was, standing in the shower, blood running down the drain, starting to get dizzy, my heart began racing, and stars began showing up in my peripheral vision. I shouldn't have been in the shower unsupervised to begin with but there I was, sans meniscus, and new acl, and here I was going to pass out and wreck it. So I had to act quickly knowing what would probably happen given the signs. I sat down in the tub, turned the water off and leaned back trying to relax as it all went black. As soon as I thought it would pass, I woke up. A weird sensation. Have you ever played Call of Duty or some other realistic war video game when a bomb goes off near you? The sound of distant humming, the blood in your ears is deafening as your heart pulses. It was like that except with no dead Krauts. Eventually my heart slowed down and the only hum I could hear was the bathroom fan. I turned the shower back on and washed my hair before turning it off again to towel off.
It was probably bad that I did that alone but I'm pretty sure if my wife were around to witness that she would have freaked out. Since she doesn't know about this blog, and none of you will tell her (right?), the secret is safe until I tell her a few weeks from now.
That's all the writing I want to do for now. Next time I will tell the story of how I nearly killed myself at work last week.
Today, something happened that I had sort of anticipated but I thought I could handle it. It was foolish of me to try it alone but I don't think it would have made any difference. In the end, it's probably good that Paige wasn't here to react or she would have freaked out and probably called an ambulance. Enough preamble Janzen, get on with your story.
Like anyone who reads this will know, I had knee surgery on Tuesday but what you don't know is that I was not allowed to have a shower until today. This morning, to be more precise. Paige left for school this morning and the last thing she said was "wait for me to get home before you shower just in case something happens." "Ok honey," I replied "I will wait until you get home to shower." The problem is that I really wanted to take a shower! It's been two days for Kris's sake! More than that, i wanted to take my bandages off and let the wounds breathe a bit. As I stripped the tensor bandages off I saw... or rather, I smelled something that I didn't like and I thought to myself "am i going to let this stink stay on my wounds all day? No fucking way...I'm taking a shower." The part of the tensor that was over my shin actually kept its form because of how the blood in it had dried. So you can tell that this wasn't a pleasant sight but it was relatively pain free. On top of the cuts and pokes was some kind of surgical tape to protect the stitches and all that from crap until I got a chance to clean it all up. I left the tape on until I got into the shower thinking to myself that the tape would soften up and would peel off easily due to the water. I was right of course. I got into the shower and was careful to only let water run over the wounds while I wash the rest of myself. Well, the first few pieces of tape came off easily enough and only covered the punctures from the light/camera/tools... the main wound was still covered. It's about 3 or 4 inches long and required more tape to cover. Right after I removed that tape and saw what it all looked like I began to get light headed.
I've felt these effects before. The first time I passed out I was probably 10 or 11. I had a skin tag removed from inside my mouth. I just remember waking up pale as a ghost afterwards. My parents thought it was an allergy to the freezing or something like that... but I later learned as I passed out more throughout my life that it was something different. The second time I passed out in my life, I was opening a syrup bottle by cutting the plastic cover off the lid. I did it in a way that caused me to stab my hand drawing very minimal blood. I didn't think it was that big a deal at the time and tried to shrug it off but then I got dizzy and saw some stars... then I remember waking up on the floor because my dad had caught me falling out of my chair. The third time I passed out in my life was when I saw the Passion of the Christ. The one with the particularly gory torture scenes. I passed out in the theatre which frightened some people behind me but when I came to I was alright and finished the movie. I nearly passed out watching one of the Saw movies... 3 or 4 I don't remember. I remember having the dizzy sensation and the stars but I focused on my legs and urged that we leave before that happen. I made it out of the theatre before I blacked out.
Well, there I was, standing in the shower, blood running down the drain, starting to get dizzy, my heart began racing, and stars began showing up in my peripheral vision. I shouldn't have been in the shower unsupervised to begin with but there I was, sans meniscus, and new acl, and here I was going to pass out and wreck it. So I had to act quickly knowing what would probably happen given the signs. I sat down in the tub, turned the water off and leaned back trying to relax as it all went black. As soon as I thought it would pass, I woke up. A weird sensation. Have you ever played Call of Duty or some other realistic war video game when a bomb goes off near you? The sound of distant humming, the blood in your ears is deafening as your heart pulses. It was like that except with no dead Krauts. Eventually my heart slowed down and the only hum I could hear was the bathroom fan. I turned the shower back on and washed my hair before turning it off again to towel off.
It was probably bad that I did that alone but I'm pretty sure if my wife were around to witness that she would have freaked out. Since she doesn't know about this blog, and none of you will tell her (right?), the secret is safe until I tell her a few weeks from now.
That's all the writing I want to do for now. Next time I will tell the story of how I nearly killed myself at work last week.
Archive retrieval from my old haunt
Despite it all...
Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:03 PM
...I'm feeling good!
This is my last weekend of full mobility before I go under the knife. Most people feel like it's a bad thing that I'm getting surgery but I'm looking forward to it. I'm not a masochist. I don't particularly like pain but what's a bit more? It's something new that allows me to get some seriously cool scars. My company seems to think that I'll be back at work in a couple days but after a scathing email full of references on acl reconstruction recovery time, they seemed to be a bit more hesitant to push me back into a machine... on oxycodone (or whatever heavy pain killer they will put me on). That and the bloody bandages, with icing, with my exercises, with elevation above my heart... ya I think I can still do my job. That would be funny. Very tough to get onto my machine while on crutches with no place to store them. Maybe on the roof? I could get a bike rack for my crutches and a winch to get myself into the pilot seat. I told them that they don't care about my well being. The only people who actually care about that is my physiotherapist, my surgeon, and my comp worker... the only ones who have no interest in production over my health. *shrug*
I know I'll get tired of being prodded by the crutches but eventually when it's back to a limp that should eliminate any such curiousity. I could just stay in my basement watching 30 Rock and other such funny things... or work on my tactics and endgame stuff. I'm sure I'll have a couple weeks of that. Visitors will be welcome of course but I doubt I'll have more visitors then than I do right now. It's been pretty slow with the hanging out lately even with school being out.
This is a banal blog posting... i must say. Maybe I'll write more when I'm high on pain meds... that should make for more interesting reading.
Posting for posting's sake.
I used to think I would get over everything...
Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:25 PM
I've been getting into a lot of conflicts lately. At work, at home, online, with friends even and I don't know where the root can be found. I don't know if I'm the source of all this tension or not. Am I the one who is hard to get along with? Sometimes people are ignorant about how they interact with others. They may say something with an intention in their head's but the listeners put a different spin on it, based on their individual contexts, and hear it differently than it was intended. I know people who are like this. They mean to be friendly but come across as plain bossy. Or if someone is excited about something, it could sound to others like bragging. This could happen to me a lot I think because I get excited about the weirdest things especially if they are new. When someone decides to take a shit on all that then it becomes time to take a look at what's really going on.
Too often I react in the same way that my dad would... especially in work situations. I think this rubs people the wrong way but it gets the point across that I was hoping for. I did a post a while back about the anatomy of silence. It makes people weary if words aren't being used. Silence, long pauses, the opportunity to become introspective occurs rather than the rantings of an angry man. I was at work the other day and it was a busy day. I was all over the place but I enjoyed the fast pace and the ability to keep up without people getting in my way. That is, of course, until someone decided to stop doing his job and thus fucking with my rhythm. Five times I needed to get out of my machine, which is a pain in the ass and unnecessary, to move stuff that was laying around on the ground so that I could do my job. My machine isn't small. It needs space because of the swing area and the tracks. When there is shit lying around on the ground, it bothers me... also because the person who is supposed to look after that part of the job, I used to have that job (for about 4 years). So I know when he's not doing his job. The fifth time I did it, the guy comes at me saying "you don't need to throw a tantrum everytime something goes wrong, just call me and I'll do it. You behave worse than my kid!"
I snapped. Up until that point I hadn't uttered a single word yet I got my point across. But then I did yell at him. "This is the fifth time I've had to do your job. Do your fucking job. Don't be a lazy prick about it... just do your job." And now, a few days later, he's taken my advice by putting stuff together and keeping it in a place that is safe from machines. Problem solved.
I don't particularly care that he treated me with such disrespect... all that matters is the job. Do your job and we'll get along fine.
Is this a flaw of mine? Did I create some kind of persona that rubs people the wrong way? I KNOW that at work I can be a grumpy gus. Well, no, I can be a prick. I just can't help myself... and every summer, that prick spills into my personal life. I just don't like being fucked with. If you fuck with me intentionally or unintentionally, you'll know I'm not pleased. It's pretty bad that right now I'm in a general state of displeased.
...but everything just got over me.
A Question of Morality
Sunday, June 13, 2010 2:13 PM
I originally meant for the last post to be about the question of morality but something came up that persuaded me to give into my emotional desire for a rant. This won't be a rant... probably. It's not an easy topic to discuss simply because the scope is very large. There are different levels of morality and different facets of each level which could be discussed in bookshelves each: so I will try to stay focused on one question.
Is morality absolute or subjective? That is, do morals exist as a body of inherent laws and predate human law or are our morals fabricated and interwoven into society (and evolve along with society)?
This is a question that I've pondered for a long time and have experience on both sides of the fence. When I was younger, I believed that morality came from an ultimate being (we'll call it god) and that morality was written in a book called the Bible. This is the typical view of how Christians view the world and how people should behave in our societies. The ten commandments and the words of Christ should guide our actions and we should always ask ourselves the question "what would Jesus do?" (now known as WWJD?) If Jesus would do it, it's moral. If Jesus wouldn't do it, it's not moral. For example, let's say that everyone has left work before I have and nobody knows exactly when I will leave work. Is it wrong for me to mark an extra 15 minutes on my timecard when 15 minutes is still 10 minutes away? Well, Jesus wouldn't do that... so it's immoral. Let's say I'm at my grandmother's house and she's not there... I've found some chocolate in the cupboard and I'd really like to eat it but I know it's not mine. Is it immoral for me to eat it? My gramma won't care one way or another because I'm family but Jesus probably wouldn't even eat chocolate.... so ya, it's immoral. Jesus wouldn't speed, Jesus wouldn't eat a lot of pizza, Jesus wouldn't play World of Warcraft. Does that mean that all of these things are immoral? If we make the assumption that the question WWJD? is the guiding principle of morality, then absolutely those things are immoral. But, Jesus wouldn't use credit cards or drive at all... he wouldn't do a lot of things that we do in our regular lives. He wouldn't lock his doors at night because that assumes that someone might try to break in!
Ok... so we've kinda figured out that morality isn't as simple as asking what Jesus would do. What is morality then? Are all of the laws that are stated in the Bible subjective too? My first real tinkering with subjective morality came from my experiences with dating relationships. Is it really wrong to do it before you're married or is it mandatory that I wait? The first many times I broke this rule I felt really really guilty (which, any Christian would tell you, that's the Holy Spirit telling you that you're doing something wrong). Am I sure that I haven't just been told that a whole lot of times and it makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong because the Church would disapprove? That's when it dawned on me that judging something to be moral and immoral came to a much more profound litmus test than WWJD. I reformulated the way that I thought about right and wrong so that I could get away from feeling guilty about stuff like eating pork and hopping around on one foot on Sundays.
The question that I began to ask myself, and in a large part I still use this method of judging whether things are right or wrong in my conscience was: "are my actions, or the actions of others, hurting anyone?" If someone comes to harm because of what I'm doing then it's probably wrong. This was my way out of the premarital intercourse argument... of course I'm not hurting anyone. It was another way for me to explain why I felt that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone by being gay. I never felt like any of that was wrong but the Bible says it's wrong. If I were to use my perfectly reasonable judgment of right and wrong, and nobody is getting hurt, then we've answered what's moral and immoral. I think that this question answers morality in the personal sense but not in an international sense.
There is a difference between me stealing from someone, killing someone, raping someone, or causing some other harm to another person... those things being wrong to the extreme as personal fouls. There is another sense of wrongness that I haven't discussed yet and that's the general morality. Is it wrong for me to consume large amounts of oil in my vehicle even though it's harming the environment? Is it wrong for me to wear a lot of diamonds even though many people suffer from the diamond trade? Is it wrong that we take long showers to clean ourselves even though millions of people have no water to drink? Are these things immoral? Answers that I don't have unfortunately. Do I feel really guilty about these things? No. I don't. Some people do, and that's a burden that they've allowed themselves to carry.
Different people act in different ways and have difference senses of what's moral and what's immoral. Like I've begun to say, "one man's evil is another man's playground." I'm not being totally facetious by using a comic statement to summarize a subjective morality. Consider the Christian denomination of The Jehovah's Witnesses. In their belief structure, it is immoral to allow a blood transfusion because once blood has left the body, it is impure and unclean. There was an instance of a woman who had been in a severe car accident and was shipped to the hospital. Upon arrival they hung a bag of her blood type in order to keep her alive and so they could save her... which they did. (she was unconscious this whole time). She woke up a few days later and learned that she had had a blood transfusion and being a Jehovah's Witness she became ill physically. She described the feeling as if she had been raped. Something had been done to her body that made her impure and defiled. Would she have rather died? Perhaps! What had been done to her, she considered to be immoral yet the vast majority of us would have seen that as a no brainer. Of course I want the doctors to give me blood if I'm dying! What is immoral for her is not immoral for me... and thus, morality is subjective.
Another way to look at morality is from a physiological perspective. Are we genetically wired with a moral code or is that socialized onto us? There is no way to answer this question. As it turns out, I don't think we give enough credit to genetics in explaining the type of people who we become. A perfect example of this is in my family. My father is an extremely talented heavy equipment operator. To him, the machines become an extension of his mind and his hands just know how to move so as to move elegantly. I've always admired that ability about him. Now that I've kinda followed in his steps, I've noticed that I too have what seems to be an innate ability to operate equipment. He didn't teach me how or anything, I just got on and things made sense to me. This isn't socialized into me... what else could it be?
Maybe morality is much the same as this? It's really hard to say since the argument can also be made that through human history, morality has evolved. We can notice changes in the last hundred years even. Before the 1860's it wasn't considered immoral to have slaves. Jesus didn't even speak out against slavery! Now it would be abominable. Racism as a term only really kicked in in this century because of the many atrocities that have resulted from them... such as WWII (a war created by a race driven tyrant). Before the war, however, anti-Semitism was rampant! FDR and Winston Churchill said things against the Jews publicly before the war... if they said it now they would be crucified (see David Ahenikew).
I think with these points alone we can say with fair certainty that morality is not an absolute body of laws unchanging over the ages. Morality has evolved along with mankind and society, culture to culture, individual to individual. I think the mistake that some people make when they say that morality is absolute is that they've not looked at the world from a different perspective. To a worm in horseradish, the world IS horseradish.
The only thing you know is that you don't know...
Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:13 PM
...the philosophy of a lazy man.
Apparently a lot of people have wasted their lives formulating answers to questions that we have all asked ourselves and our teachers. Those people write books for all to read and the popular ones become classics through the ages. The questions we ask are about life, god, morality, and how the universe came to be are answered in some way. Most people come up with some answers that suit them or there are answers forced on them from a very young age. The great thing about all of this is that nobody KNOWS the right answer 100% and so nobody is really wrong.
Over my 27 years of life I've moved from philosophy to philosophy picking things up and trying to formulate the ideas that make the most sense to me in order to fill up the "what I believe" column in my life. It seems like there are those kinds of columns that we try to fill in order to figure out who we are. What kind of person do I want to be? What do I want to be my life's work? What do I believe?
The things that I've compiled to create what I believe is by no means set in stone because I know that I'm probably not right and most people are probably just as wrong as I am. That's why I've incorporated a flexibility clause into my philosophy. If a part of my moral code and belief in the gears of our universe is faulty and replaced by something more compelling and closer to the truth, I have no choice but to accept it. I'm not so cynical that I will say that nothing is certain because that would just be really obtuse. I don't believe that all of our scientific research is wrong. I don't think we need to go back to Descartes and start over. I won't lie, of course, when I say that I have found what I believe to be what I like to believe. I didn't make it up myself... I found most of these ideas in books from philosophers over the past 300 years.
Is it wrong to believe something that came from someone else's pen? I was reading an essay Nietzsche's ideas on morality in the pejorative sense and came to realize some really interesting things. Many of which I would have never been able to come up with simply because I don't have the same mind as he did. I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel here. When I want a car, I will go buy it from a manufacturer who has many decades of experience in building cars. I would never want to make my own car because it's counter productive for everyone to make their own cars, isn't it? It makes sense to build on the past knowledge of our histories and move on from there. If you decide that none of it's worth anything then you can take the bus.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:08 PM
"Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. Its progress is only apparent, like the workers of a treadmill. It undergoes continual changes: it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For every thing that is given, something is taken. Society acquires new arts and loses old instincts....The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet."
-Emerson on Self-Reliance
I find myself wondering at times what would happen if our way of life would cease to exist as we know it. I'm not talking about brutal and massive physical death where only the strong survive to live on and repopulate the earth after some Armageddon or holocaust. There is no war to crush our bodies, steal our families, or even destroy our buildings. Let us suppose, for just an instant, how our world would look if the things we have created to make our lives easier are taken away from us and it was unforeseeable and impossible for which to prepare.
I think it helps to list the things that we have in our daily lives as examples so that we can ponder on them individually so as to really understand what I mean. There are some things that are more luxurious as trinkets or trophies of human achievement that we hold high above our heads to god almighty and say "Hey, look what we've created." What would the world look like if we had no internet. We'd have to go back to the mail system for all of our correspondence or playing board games instead of games online. Twitter, Facebook, Google... they are all gone and the time wasters of the decade will leave people trying to come up with things to fill their schedules. Let's take computers away entirely, in fact. Suddenly we don't have calculators, TVs, microwaves, or any kind of gaming platform. Since all forms of modern transport have computers and microchips in them, suddenly we are left without rapid travel. Even your digital wrist watches won't work and we'll have to go back to wind up clocks.
Alright, it's time to get serious about this. Let's eliminate electricity, running water, flushing toilets. These are considered bare essentials to a standard of living that is barely par in Canada. I know what you're thinking. What will we do with all of our human waste? It will smell like 15th century Paris. You can't just flick a switch to see what's going on anymore and you'd have to try and find fresh water. It would probably come from the river but most people wouldn't have the sense to boil it before drinking it. Since we've all grown pretty soft in our bottled water existence, I imagine a lot of people would get sick from their inability to drink from anything that hasn't been scrubbed with anything but 99.99% anti-bacterial soap. Ya... it's gonna be dirty. I can just see it. The world is falling apart all around us and society is in shambles... but there are still going to be some people who are still worried about their hair.
Have you ever been in a power outage for hours during the winter in -40C weather? It's scary as fuck. It gets so chilly in your house that you can see your breath. You wear all of your clothes and get under blankets to stay warm all the while praying that the power comes back on soon so the furnace will kick in. Well folks, I hate to say it but with the elimination of man made technology, the power is not coming on so you'd better start a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The very simplicity and nakedness of man's life in the primitive ages imply this advantage at least, that they left him but a sojourner in nature. When he was refreshed with food and sleep he contemplated his journey again. He dwelt, as it were, in a tent in this world, and was either threading the valleys, or crossing the plains, or climbing the mountain tops. Bo lo! men have become tools of their tools."
Thoreau- Walden, Chapter 1, Economy.
At the time, the railroad system was considered a pinnacle of achievement for nineteenth century America. It was an example of how man had conquered nature. We could live in leisure and travel to far reaches of the landscape by buying a ticket and enjoying the ride. The question posed by the natural philosophers of early American literature was, do we ride on the train or does the train ride on us? In and of itself, technology (not exclusive to the railway of course) does not need people. They are simply ideas and have no value without us putting value on them. The problem is, of course, once you build something then you are obligated to maintain it. A perfect example is when the University of Saskatchewan had escalators in Place Riel. You could choose to take the stairs or take the escalator. Most people took the easier option and opted for the motorized moving stairs. Well, every week it seemed that the escalators were broken and some kind of mechanic needed to be working on them to get them running. It cost the University energy to run them, money to pay mechanics, and ultimately more money to replace them with concrete stairs (which is the way it should have been all along). All you need to do is read Vonnegut's Player Piano to see the dangers of trusting technology to run our worlds. What happens when we become so reliant on technology that we cannot survive without it? What happens if it's taken away or breaks down to the point of no return?
People do not change easily. If we lost our means to a comfortable life through technology, I think the majority of our efforts would go towards trying to regain that lost life rather than embracing the change. It is, afterall, the path of least resistance.
I can't even make this stuff up...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:28 AM
...there I sat with my eyes closed wishing it was over.
Let's back up. I blew out my knee. It was painful but not the first time I'd done it. I knew what to expect. I remember thinking, "hmm, that didn't feel right nor did it sound right. It's not really going to feel good walking in this mud to the truck." Step by painful step, I walked my 1 and 1/2 legs to the truck using the bottom half of my right leg as a stilt to balance on rather than a mode of pushing myself forward. Have you ever felt your knee separating into two parts and your bones only held together by the skin wrapped around it? You might think that when I made it to the truck and finally got my rubber boot off (now with 10 lbs of caked mud globbed to the bottom of it), this is the time when I would have closed my eyes and wished it to be over. This wasn't that moment.
I've never really had a problem with pain. I've endured it a few times with injuries like collar bone breaks, and separated shoulders, and the other four times I injured my knee in the same fashion. There are coping mechanisms to deal with the pain and techniques to get by in day to day life. You get to relearn the simple things like getting down some stairs, putting on your socks, tying your shoes, and various other things we take for granted. I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE GRAVITY..... and also fuck you. In the end I find that other people make a bigger deal out of it than I do. I just see it as a change in my lifestyle as a temporary measure. I get to go to physio-therapy, visit with the person who works on my leg, then go to home and rest. Ice. Pills. Ice. Rest. Elevate. Those sorts of things.
Well. One thing I didn't anticipate changing in my life after the injury is that my company would come up with a scheme for "light-duty" so that I wouldn't "lose time." I still lost time to physio therapy and all that, but I get to work in the office instead of doing real work outside. My company decided that because I have a B.A. I would have the capable skill set to talk with people on the phone from their office. True. In and of itself, office work isn't that bad. Give me a stack of resumes and get me to call references for the applicants so I can detect character traits and grade applicants according to my own feeling as to whether they are worth looking into as a spring hire or not. It ended up being a complete waste of time as a make work project since most of the applicants only applied to satisfy their EI claims OR they had found work by the time we actually got around to them. Again, only a sidenote, not the point of my story.
One day, a Thursday if I recall, the Personnel Manager who fed me the work called me into his office just before lunch and said, "I just want to take some time out of our day to be thankful." At that moment he busted into some hardcore, eyes closed, non-formulaic prayer....
Here's some history of the company. About 90% of the workers who are kept on during the winter are from Hague, Osler, Warmen and surrounding farmland areas. These areas tend to be filled with devout Mennonites. Hamm Construction, one could not hesitate to say, is a Christian company. To illustrate this fact, one year as an award to everyone in the company at the annual Christmas banquet, we were all given Bibles. These were not your average Bibles either as a King James Version or New International Version... oh no... these were NLT Study Bibles (New Living Translation). It's not enough that they had a version of the Bible in a new translation but also filled with lengthy footnotes on particularly important passages. This is the Cadillac of Bibles befitting of a Bible College Course. (http://www.nltstudybible.com/) Averaging $75 per book. Gideon Old Testament... eat your heart out.
Hamm Construction as a Christian company can be put into the category of "not to be fucked with."
At any rate, my story continues with a bewildered worker who cannot run away because of a previously mentioned injury who must simply succumb to being pressured into a prayer. I reacted like most people would have....there I sat with my eyes closed wishing it was over.
As a sidenote that just dawned on me, I will probably end up going back and removing any mention of the company name that I work for because this posting will probably end up at the top of every Google search about it... and I doubt they would take kindly to being put into the category of "not to be fucked with" by an employee of theirs. It doesn't bode well but I have self-interest to consider.
Now is where we get to the heavy philosophical arguments for what is so wrong with this whole scenario. There are about a billion things wrong, I realize this point, but I only want to highlight the things that were going through my head at the time. The main gist of the prayer went approximately like this:
-thank you for providing this great weather
-thank you for the fellowship of this office
-thank you for bringing Tyler here with his injury so that all this work could get done
-it's amazing how even out of bad things, your plan is fulfilled
-yada yada yada
-throw in the elitist way that the evangelicals pronounce "God" (yes it's different from everyone else... ask me in conversation to see the difference) and you got yourself a nice pre-lunch prayer.
I struggled to remain calm and resist the urge of becoming belligerent with indignation at being called a tool of God's will. It was part of his plan to have me injured so that I could work in this office to complete this HR's workload for him so he could sleep at night knowing that he's got the help he needs in a make work project that ended up being unnecessary. Then I got to thinking about the inherent problems with what was happening. While I sat, my head slightly bowed, eyes closed, I thought for a moment about what could happen what with having these thoughts while being prayed at. Could I get struck down or turned into a pillar of salt?
The problem that I have with prayer is that it falls on the opposite side of a major inconsistency in the Mennonite faith. The main tenant of this organization is that we all have free wills to do what we choose. Through our lives we are supposed to have faith through our own power that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we wouldn't need to go to Hell because Jesus paid for our sins by sacrificing himself thus paying off all our debts ahead of time. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BELIEVE THAT... and you won't go to hell. There it is... in a nutshell.
YET- while we are said to have this freedom to choose and have control over our lives, there is another major tenant of Mennonite faith that God has a plan and His will be done. If God is in control and has a plan as so many times we have heard that "if it's part of God's plan, it will happen" then where is this freedom to choose to believe in Him? Why wouldn't His plan be to have everyone on the earth believe that Jesus died for our sins? Truly this would be fruitless of Him because then there is no point for this experiment we call humanity. I don't think there is a middleground here where God allows us freedom to have faith in him but he will control the rest of our lives... nor is this inconsistency ever addressed.
Ok... Prayer...
Let's look at prayer from both sides of the paradoxical inconsistency for a moment. First, let's assume that we are free to do as we please either believe in Him or not... go to the Extra Foods instead of Superstore... all the choices we are allowed to make are ours. Why then would we thank God in our prayers for doing all these things for us and having a plan? Why would this man sitting across from me have praise for my injury so that things work out for the best in the company? Even in a more general sense... another reason for prayer is to ask for help. Whether it be for a loved one's health or to some kind of bet on a football game. If we are asking for help aren't we admitting that we surrender our own control of the situation to God thus negating our control or need for praying? That is unless God made us pray as part of his design... but then if He knows all of our thoughts why would we even need to ask?
Now for the other side of the coin. As a refresher, what if everything that happens in the world is part of God's plan and we really aren't in control? If this is true then why do we even pray? It's like God makes us pray so that we can stroke his ego. Everything that we say in the prayer is scripted from God as it is, so why would we even need to say it? These are the problems I have with the current paradigm of prayer in Christian circles.
The most screwed up thing is that if I were to point out this inconsistency to the sorts of people who put a lot of stock into prayer and the Christian belief system, I would be considered a heretic... as if the Devil put those thoughts into my head to keep me from having faith in Christ. It's frustrating that any kind of logical problematic scenario that I could come up with to show the absurdity of such a belief system could easily be debunked by the influence of a boogeyman... like a Freddy Krueger. AH! I have it! Here is the greatest line one could use against me. "God is not bound by logic... you need to have faith and believe. Your mind is getting in the way of your faith."
If you're reading this Mom... I'm sorry but it's time that you know how I feel. Don't be distraught though since I still believe there is a God just not the version that I was taught to believe in.
(goes to unlink this posting from Facebook)
Saving graces...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:47 PM
...thank god for them.
I've been working out of town lately in a small town named Chaplin. The driving industry in this retirement town is salt. Over the last week I worked seven 12 hour days in a row from 10pm until 10am. Some of the obvious difficulties with this particular job are both that it's dark all night and that we're doing the same thing for 12 hours straight every night. I've been driving a John Deere 40 ton truck:
http://www.deere.com/en_US/cfd/construction/deere_const/adts/400d_adt_360.html
It's a big truck that I'd never driven before this job which was made doubly difficult due to learning in the dark.
So here's the operation in a nutshell. On one side of the number 1 highway outside of Chaplin is an enormous alkali pond which gets drained into five controlled ponds on the other side of the highway. The water sits in these five ponds for a while until the salt settles to the bottom and then in December they drain the water out which leaves a layer of salt about 1-2 meters deep. If you google maps Chaplin, SK and use Google Earth, you will see what I mean about the ponds. The salt is then piled into long windrows... probably 10-15 per pond like 3 meter high lines of cocaine. After the salt is piled it's best to let the ground freeze as much as possible before trying haul it out of these pits of despair. Naturally, mud that is mixed to full saturation of salt will only really freeze at -20C. We had that cold snap which helped but now we are getting into the 0C range which, needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), makes the ponds a little sloppy. Some of the pitfalls of driving 40 ton trucks in these evil salt holes is that the trucks will get stuck. And when they don't get stuck, it will be the roughest ride of your life. Going into this job, we were told that these trucks were meant to tip. That scares the crap out of me... I've yet to tip mine but that just gives you a sense of what sort of work I'm doing. Sometimes putting the truck into 6 wheel drive is enough to survive but if the bottom falls out of the pond underneath you, you won't move a whole lot. I went six days without getting stuck... but I've got 21 more days to try and survive it all.
I say that I drove for six days because on the first day I was in the excavator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2CXAQvgBnM&feature=related
It's much like in the video except with white salt and at night. I thought I would be on that machine all week because that's what I was doing when I was at my regular job. I was wrong. It turned out that my company went and hired on some local talent to fill missing positions. So the second day I was bumped to a rock truck even though the guy they put on the excavator had very little experience and was terrible at it. I spent a lot of time doing tactical chess puzzles while waiting for this guy to get his shit together. The more pressure that was on him the slower he operated. We put out, on average, 70 loads a night per truck. The day crew, who had a much better operator, put out 97 loads a night on the last day. I'm convinced that I could have done the same thing if I had been given the chance... but the rock truck requires less skill and less concentration anyway so perhaps it was for the best. It's not like I would have been paid any different.
There were three things that are responsible for my sanity remaining intact. First of all, the guy who I roomed with and drove next to is an excellent chap. He's a real stand up guy, easy to work with, and a lot of fun (the only guy who I didn't want to rip a new hole on the crew). There is something to be said for such small mercies. Secondly, my IPod along with several audiobooks and days worth of music. By the end of the week I didn't feel like listening anymore but I got through a lot of material over those 84 hours. If it weren't for my IPod, I would have had to listen to the radio and then I probably would have needed to slit my wrists. The final saving grace of the past week came inherently with working in the nighttime. I've been living in the city for many years where there is always light... and I rarely see the stars and planets. The first night I located a small bright red dot (Mars), an even brighter Jupiter, and then there was the moon. It was nearly a new moon so near 4am every night came a red orangish blade from the horizon piercing the night skyline. As the night past it flew past in the south and then disappeared as the Sun made its arrival signalling the end of the shift. My entire mood changed when the moon came up. I could have had the worst night of the week... but the moon was like a serene reset button.
I'm reminded of a quotation by Ptolemy "But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth." Of course Ptolemy was incorrect about the circular motion of stars and planets (they move in ellipses), you get my point and it conveys my general emotion. When the salty ground has got you down turn your eyes onto the skies and fly away.
Work will set you free
Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:22 PM
I tend to do a lot of thinking and very little doing. Some might call this being contemplative but it seems like contemplation is simply a gentler way of calling it procrastination. What the difference actually is, I don't really care to define but it seems to me that the discrepancy all comes down to urgency. If there is something that I need to do in order to keep others happy and they might be waiting on me, then it's procrastination; but, if I have been mulling over and using a lot of time on an idea then it's contemplation.
One of my many mottoes in life is "work will set you free." Those five words ring true for almost everything in life and how one lives his life. How can I be successful in whatever I choose to do with my life without putting work into it? How many people can you think of who are extremely successful but have put little or no effort into it? Look at Gene Simmons as an example. He is a marketing genius, knows six languages, is a millionaire, leads Kiss, and has locked down a Playboy bunny as a wife. Did he hit the lottery? There is something deeper here...
A friend once told me that "vitality" is one of the driving engines of history. No historical figure has become an icon in the annals of history by lounging around with no life's work. It might be aiming high to look for a place in history as if it's the only thing that matters. I already know that I have missed my prime for being a genius. Almost all geniuses have found their eureka before they were my age... through work of course. Musicians spend their lives learning instruments, perfecting their play, and exercising their creativity usually to be branded lunatics by family. Do you think chess grandmasters get that far by simply being talented and letting their lives take their natural course? Of course not!
Ok ok... so what of it? In summary I can say this: Nothing comes of nothing, a little something comes from a little something, and a lot will come from a lot. I was once "preached" to by a co-worker that things will happen if "it's part of God's plan." Mom, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, but I simply cannot buy that. The God's plan is a cop out and excuse for not working hard. If God wants me to have something, He will give it to me. Really? There seems to be no way out of this arguement if you plan on being consistent. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity both special and general... because of divine inspiration? You'd be hard pressed to believe that it's not because he was a genius who enveloped his life around his work fully instead of this weak arguement.
The amount of dedication and discipline that one puts into life the more results will be yielded. I believe my life to be a case in point. High school demanded little work from me and little work it got despite being given good marks probably because my personality worked well with the teachers. Getting a BA was extremely easy for me. There were few times when I felt compelled to try my complete hardest. There were times that I was stressed out but not because there was too much for me to do... I was stressed out that I wouldn't be able to get my discipline together enough to complete assignments. I always did even if in the nick of time. I only really editted one or two papers in the whole 5 years... because I didn't want to work. I could put out a 15 page paper in a day with 20 sources and hand it in the next day to still get an 80. Sometimes I got myself into trouble but always seemed to manage quite fine. In the end, I thought I had faked my way through University only to find out that it's just easy to me. What could happen if I actually gave my 100% into something?
I've ridden my career in water and sewer for 10 years and advanced quite well... but this can't be it. I will not be an excavator operator my whole life. Water and sewer doesn't challenge me enough for me to be satisfied. I mean, I was newly promoted so I am a little excited to move up, but I don't want this to be my life's work. I tried being a teacher and I didn't like that either.... but it's on the right track I think. There is a coin flip to be considered here too (like with most things). If you invest a certain amount of time into something, are you obligated to follow through with it even if you will be miserable? It's like being pot committed in a poker hand... you gotta go all in sometimes because what else is there to do when you're the short stack? Isn't that so true when it comes to my company. Almost all of the workers there are middle class... but still short stacked. I, like they, have no other plays except to invest their time and seeing where their cards ride out to.
Well, eventually, I plan on folding and trying a new hand. It's gotten a bit more complicated lately though since I am now married! I feel like I've had my chance to make something out of my life but I've folded and gone another direction. Now it's time for my wife to try a change in her life while I grind it out. It might sound like I'm being pessimistic here but I really am not. I'm excited for her and I hope it all works out in the end towards her (and ultimately our) happiness... because she was never given a chance to try this before.
The question becomes, how can we make this work out? The answer is "vitality." Once again, work will set us free! I will need to work hard to keep us afloat while she attends school. She will need to work hard to get through school (hopefully at the top of her class). I feel confident that if we both work hard, nothing will stop us. Unlike poker, life isn't about bad beats with cards and gambling. Life is about reaping the fruits of your labour.
Avalanche start inside of me...
Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:14 PM
...hell down through the trees.
If everyone's a casualty
Then take your time there ain't no trouble
If the weather's fine and we're feeling crazy
There's always drinks and dancing in the rubble
I'm spinning and you're spinning
And the world's spinning and we're laughing
And I'm charming, the devil's charming
And we're ruined but we're building
And I'm selling and you're counting
The world's stopping but we keep going
And we're ruthless and we're cunning
And I'm heir to it all
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect your elders but do not follow them blindly.
Growing up I was a naive boy. Is naive the right word when you trust everything that your parents have told you? Not just my parents but nearly all those who were older than me... save my brother. I didn't listen to him so much despite the occasional rapping on the head.
I have encountered a person recently who is very ignorant. She posted some of the craziest anti-Semitic crap that I have ever read... and she was reprimanded for her ignorance viciously. That's all good and everything but it made me wonder how an idea could be believed in from a girl in her early 20s. Back in the "good ole days" there were plenty of Jew haters in both Europe and North America. Walt Disney, Henry Ford, and many other powerful people were profusely and unapologetically anti-Semitic. The remnants of an old paradigm will echo through the generations on some counts. I believe that this girl simply heard her grandpa or her dad say something about how Jews were taking over the world (unless her last name is Ahenikew). I think she simply heard an elder say something anti-Semitic and believed it without criticism. That'll happen. It's not right, but that'll happen.
Our parents have a tremendous influence over the people who we become. I know that they are not perfect people or they would have a perfect marriage. Being perfect means never having to say you're sorry... because you're never wrong. On the other hand, being imperfect can also come about from never saying you're sorry.
I've recently encountered another person who rubbed me the wrong way in the way he treated me. We were all in the lunch room filled with construction workers and I let a burp out. It was audible but definitely not boisterous or Barney Gumble like. This man looks up at me and says "excuse me?" I replied "I'm in a room full of men...I don't feel the need to impress anybody." The next day it happened again as I anticipated correctly "excuse me?" I said nothing this time. Instead I thought about it a little bit deeper. This man was no doubt religious and probably had sons whom he was used to reprimanding for not being polite at the dinner table. If I were his age, I wonder if he would have been so adamant that I could show proper table etiquette. I felt reinforced in this view as I observed another worker in the shack who swore up a storm whenever he spoke using mostly religious flavoured profanity. I knew that this bothered some people in the room but they all kept their mouths shut because he was in his 50s. Why is it acceptible to tell a 26 year old to be polite by something minor when someone their own age is clearly upsetting him more? The third time that I burped the following day I kept my eyes on my food but I could feel him watching me as if I were defiant... which I was. If I would have received a third rapping on the knuckles for this I simply don't know what I would have said but I continue to think about it.
The moral of the story? The maxim "respect your elders" is an incomplete statement. I would like to offer a revision. "Respect the elders who you respect."
Take not the young for granted...
Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:57 PM
...because on occasion they can kick your asses.
My final round was a real 4 hour grind session. It was the final day of the tournament... so David and Kris were itching to get out of Dodge in a real hurry. Kris lost his game in good fashion but probably took 2.5 hours to do it and I was more concerned about winning my game. In preparation for my opponent, Nicka Kalaydina, I saw that she played both 1.d4 and 1.e4. I opted to not prepare at all because I had literally no sample of how she would play. In the end, she played 1.c4. I continued with a nice Dutch-like set up without playing the overly commital f5 until she had played d3. The d3 move signifies that it would take her two moves to play d4 which is probably the greater threat to my dutch set up (i learned that lesson against Kucjaz). The opening went well enough until she created a ton of pressure along my a file which I was unable to prevent or counter. I had good central control with my pieces but in the end I gave a pawn up for the initiative.
Her queen required a good 3 or 4 moves to get back over to her kingside to defend so I thought i would try to take advantage of this. I made the typical f4 push to try and crack her kingside open but she defended very very well. I even played g5 and later g4 i think... with my pieces all lined up nicely at jumping into nice squares. She defended these threats and took on a proper continuation... crash open the centre and go for a better endgame. This is precisely what she did do and despite some inaccuracies I was unable to stop her. Analysing this game with Rybka later, I was stunned by her accuracy and defence. She was a monster on the board and walking away from the game 4 hours later I felt no regret for I feel like I played solidly and strongly... she just played better than I. She had lost many points this tournament and only really beat players who were lower rated than her... the win against me was one which only slightly dulled the loss of rating for her... and affected me very little.
My play in the tournament with a score of 3/9 (two wins and two draws) gained me 38 points to a cool 1694 with a 1751 performance rating. It's pretty good for me and I would love to have broken the 1700 mark but perhaps next time...
Monday, 12 January 2009
*
Pre-determination, the uncertainty principle, and the human condition
Many of my friends and colleagues know that I am quite interested in physics. I wouldn't say that I am mathematically gifted or even know the calculus involved to solve many of the problems of physics but I AM interested in cosmology and the implications that scientists have made throughout history to come to believe what they do about the human condition. We don't normally think that scientists bother too much when making their theories about a unified universe (or theories on part of how the universe operates) to comment on how it connects to the human element. That is, human behaviour is usually considered to be in the realm of philosophy, religion, or sociology... definitely not physics.
I suppose there is a bit of an historical explanation for this idea coming out of the mid 19th century. When "science" actually became a word in the the mid 1800's it was equated with the definition "knowledge." Science was anything that we had proven to be true and could be incorporated into what we call knowledge. Before the word science came to be used commonly, the phrase "natural philosophy" (an Enlightenment term circa 1600) was the discipline and the lines between "science" and "philosophy" were quite blurred. In fact, many scientists such as Voltaire, Newton, and Galileo made extensive reaches into the existence of God and usually tried to make their ideas consistent with a Christian God (Voltaire to a lesser extent). All of them believed in God but that didn't make them less scientific.
First I want to comment on the idea of Pre-determination, where it came from, and how science has picked it up as a possible answer for a theory about the universe. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, a denomination called Calvinism (created by a French guy named John Calvin) which believed very strongly in pre-determination. That is, God chose before an individual is born whether or not he/she would go to heaven. Because God is perfect, He must know the past and future and so would know in advance how a person would live his/her life. With that precept in mind, God would bless those who were already chosen by granting them good luck, personal wealth, and happiness. So, basically, people would try to be successful in their lives as proof that God favoured them and thus they would go to heaven. Maybe it's sort of a Skinnerian idea of dangling that carrot to be successful to show that God has chosen you to go to heaven. Obviously there are problems with this philosophy but I don't think it's unlike some of the ideas floating around in contemporary cults.
People have always tried to find out the future before it happens. It seems to me to be one of our problems as a society... maybe some people just have too much time on their hands. It's a way for us to find security in knowing that we're not doomed. According to Darwin, we should be getting smarter... based on the principles of the survival of the fittest. Animals and people adapt and evolve to suit their conditions for their own survival. I don't know if I believe that or not in the case of humans. I consider the theory of the survival of the fittest as an imcomplete theory. Maybe it should read "survival of the fittest...but doomed to kill themselves." I mean, the human species seems to be the only one in danger of killing themselves off either through nuclear arms or environmental damage. I am sure that we will find many more eloquent and thorough ways to end ourselves in the future... I wonder if this is what Darwin had in mind. If that's not pre-determination, I don't know what is.
The scientific pre-determination that I had in mind is of a different breed. You see, I've been reading a lot of Stephen Hawking and his extremely accessible works about cosmology and every time I do, new ideas pop into my head and questions that I would like to ask.
In order to determine how the universe came into existence, the theory requires that we know the exact initial state of the universe. As it turns out, scientists can calculate up until a millionth of a second after the universe was created, but the problem is that the theory fails any time before that because of something called a singularity. Apparently, our mathematics have trouble with infinite numbers (the definition of a singularity as far as I can tell). Since the universe is believed to be at an infinite mass density at the beginning with zero size, our math cannot really know what happened, where it came from... only ideas. Some people see God in this very fact. How or who else could have made such a thing? I suppose this would be a religious explanation for the beginning of the universe trying to coalesce with scientific theory... not a bad idea.
The theory states that if we can know the exact state of anything at any given time, it is possible to calculate the future based on predictable movements. So far, scientists have been able to calculate the hydrogen atom but it only contains one electron, so it's easy in comparison with more complex atoms. If they can progress to the point where complex molecules can be calculated to their exact state at any given point, then those molecules will be "cracked" as I like to put it. Now, the idea speculates that it's possible to calculate something as complex as a human being eventually... That is, every action that an individual person does could be calculated based on their atomic make up and knowing the state of that person. I imagine that it will be a long time and probably not a priority of anyone to even try this daunting task considering all of the variables. People are constantly in flux with their environment, affected by the sun, affected by germs, food, water, drugs, sex (or no sex)... and this requires that we know how other people interact with that person as well and so on goes the problem.
In fact, there is a problem with the idea even earlier than this... and this is called the the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You could wikipedia the idea but any explanation seemed too mathematical and filled with technical jargon for me to understand. Once again, I turn to my friend Hawking for an explanation of what it all means. The uncertainty principle is a theory in quantum mechanics (really small mechanics). Let's start at the beginning. In order to observe how an atom acts, it is necessary to use light on it. One quantum of light is needed to observe the atom...and to observe it even better, it's necessary to use more light. Well, the problem is that the more light one would use to observe the atom, the more the light would affect the atom. Yes, light energy (whether we use the wave or particle theory of light) affects the things it comes in contact with. This trade off will forever keep us from knowing the exact state most things (the exception being the hydrogen atom it seems). The more light you use, the less accurate the information... but you need more light to be more accurate... and so on. For the time being, we are safe from being pre-destined to anything but it was a nobel try Mr. Planck.
It is part of the human condition to try and figure things like this out and make theories. How do you think the National Enquirer got so popular? Despite the fact that "enquirer" is the most complicated word in every copy of the paper, they are definitely on to some facet of human nature that raises curiousity about our futures on this planet. Whether it's the "Bible codes predict the end of the world" or " My alien baby smokes Marlboro's" people are always curious. Unfortunately, our curiousity led to the experimentation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or some of the scientific breakthroughs the Nazis made illegally (some of the data still being valid in scientific arenas despire the morally dubious methods of obtaining it). I believe in evolution, and to a certain extent Darwin's take on it, but I will be damned if anyone claims that we have "advanced." Physically, we have adapted to climates, types of food, and the demand to be more cerebral rather than physically caveman-like is never more true. To me, the word "advanced" implies that we've gotten better for it. Well, the human condition hasn't changed. We still have war, greed, corruption, murderous tendencies, and the desire for KFC.. these things haven't changed in forever. Can we say that we've advanced if we haven't rid ourselves of these integral deficiencies? Yes, our technology has advanced, but that doesn't mean we're better for it. In many cases, I think the argument can be made that we are worse off because of technological advance. I think the escalator is a prime example of technology aiding people to do less physical work and thus making us lazier.
The question isn't whether we are changing or not. For me, the question is about whether we change for the better, the worse, or out of necessity.
Well, I hope this doesn't read like gibberish to everyone...and at the very least I hope it was interesting. It makes sense in my head but I guess we all have different heads. Also, expect more of the physics type of writing on this blog. I still want to write about the theory of relativity and time travel!
Wednesday December 17
Everyone else is doing it
...so I guess I should too.
That is, I am going to blag about my WBX experience in Edmonton. I know that everyone else uses blogger google something or another, but I have been a xanga member for about seven years now probably (thus explaining some of the stranger non-chess related postings in my past). I haven't been writing a lot either, but I intend to change that if I find the ambition it requires.
Before going to the tournament in Edmonton, I had a dream of winning a lot of points and having a very real shot at winning the tournament with the team I assembled. I can't take all of the credit of course. Eric is a phenomenal player... and judging by his draw with Robert, that is just a testament to how good he really is. Chris got some points against players that I probably wouldn't have been able to beat and that is why he sat on board 2. I knew that playing on board 3 would allow me to make more mistakes and not be punished as badly for them than if I were playing on board 2. Maybe that statement cheapens what I did this weekend but as far as I know, I am the only one who feels that way.
Yes, I won all of my games and took some points and cash away from Edmonton, but that doesn't put me in the same calibre as Robert or Jamin... but maybe it's just proof once more that Saskatoon players are underrated. More than anything, I proved to myself that I am an underrated player capable of winning. Despite others telling me that I'm not bad at chess, I needed to prove it to myself that I could pull off a 5/5 against lower rated and similarly rated players.
Ok, to the games.
Game 1- Ludwig vs Black- It's always been difficult for me to play against kids. John Ludwig is probably about 10 years old and didn't seem to interested in what was going on on the board. Ludwig is rated 1470 which isn't bad but I knew that it should be easy. I never really play well against odd openings and 1. f4 is one of them. I don't think he had much knowledge of the opening theory but neither did I (the computer later told me that we played most of the popular moves). I was nervous as hell in this game because it was the first... and I feared I would walk away from the weekend with a goose egg. I got a good position out of the opening with aggressively placed minor pieces and Ludwig not really knowing where his pawn breaks were... I openly blundered with a sac that was not accepted but I think the shock of the sac and the possibly disco check on his king and queen was enough to miss where the error was. If any of you see it, it would be obvious because it was obvious to me that I was dropping a piece instantly and should be losing the game, but he missed it and let me play on fixing the blunder by defending my hanging knight. Ludwig had development problems for most of the game, but he soon found squares for his pieces and it made it harder for me to attack his position. Eventually the web of pins was enough for his composure and position to fall apart. After forcing a mate or taking his queen, he soon resigned. 0-1
Game 2- White vs Sponga- George was more my style of play I think. He is an older gentleman who I actually got to talk with later and turned out to be a really nice guy. I played 1. d4 against his 1. f5 but there really wasn't any opening theory. He didn't play any of the Dutch moves that I expected and thus exposed my weakness. Tyler doesn't know how to play against players who know 0 theory and make seemingly meaningless moves. It didn't turn into a Dutch afterall. I got a great position out of the opening but I missed a tactic that forks a knight and my dark squared bishop but I was able to find a way to gain initiative from the sacrificed piece. I won't say that it was the best play, but it was definitely an erratic move combination that could have blown up in my face if he would have been ready for my attacking idea. I was able to get my queen involved in the attack after the g5 thrust and with some luck (he took my bishop instead of my knight) it became more and more difficult for him to defend the mating attack. After missing the best move, it was all over. A two move mate was inevitable and was enough to bolt my opponent out of his seat in surprise and frustration. 1-0
Game 3- Timm vs Black- Ah Josh Timm. One of the two opponents that I feared the most this tournament. He had played solidly in the first two rounds drawing Mike Zeggelaar and another player whose name escapes me. I knew that I would be in for some stronger competition than my previous two rounds so I was prepared, but I took solace in the fact that Josh would play some book moves and thus go into something more usual than rounds 1 and 2. Also, I know Josh plays the French Exchange which I despise, and thus, I opted for the Scandinavian Qd6 stuff. I had a sense that Josh didn't know much about this opening but despite that fact, he found some excellent activity against my kingside but could not find a way to pull the trigger. The middlegame got complicated and I was able to defend well enough to find initiative against the semi open g file with my rooks. At that point, I decided to switch gears because I saw that there was no hurry anymore. I could improve my position and he could do nothing but wait. Remove a defender and something would fall apart. I had begun to squeeze Josh a bit getting ready for some pawn thrusts on the opposite side of the board from his pieces when he tried to defend by lining his rooks up on a diagonal. One bishop move allowed me to go up an exchange. Josh was clearly rattled and irritated by this blunder. The rest of the position only demanded some pressure and material winning and mate was inevitable. 0-1
Nightime.... oh yes. Sweet beer and hangouts. Always a good time. Thanks to Andrew Boik for letting us use his pad for a sleeping hole. =)
Game 4- Zeggelaar vs Black- I was well rested for this match and I knew that it would be one of the most important of the tournament for our team. The team consisted of Roy Yearwood on board 1, Aaron Sequillion on board 2, and Mike Zegg on board 3. Before I get to my game, I would like to thank Eric for beating Roy (sorry Roy, nothing personal), and especially thank Chris for beating Aaron. Aaron drew Jamin the day before so that victory made the Achtemichuk triumph that much sweeter (although, I found out after the game that Chris was oblivious to the fact that this is the Aaron who drew Jamin and confessed that he was glad he didn't know in advance). /end tangent
I didn't know what Zeggelaar would play against me. He played 1. d4 against Timm who drew him on it but I knew that he liked 1. e4 as well. I hoped very much for a 1. e4 again so that I could avoid his French Exchange again and play my Scandinavian line. (just a note about this opening, I am 100% with this opening in tournament play). It became clear immediately that I made the right choice in playing the Scandinavian since my opponent used about half an hour of his time in the first 5 or 6 moves of the game as I blitzed out book moves. I think this was unnerving to my opponent. He may have thought that there was a trick or something but it turns out that the Scandinavian basically allows white to develop however he likes... oh well. In the middlegame, white thought that he would attack my kingside in one way or another. There didn't turn out to be any good place to sac for compensation or an attack, so it didn't really happen. He had a queen and rook lined up against my pawn on h6 which stayed just like that. Following the game, Zeggelaar told me that he missed his chance to crush me with a g4 g5 thrust to crack me open and mate me. Rybka made short work of that attack and soon restored my confidence that I had played well. After a rook move blunder, there was no looking back. I would either promote, mate, or win two pieces. Oh yes, please recall that I was pleased about white using a lot of his time early in the game, it really paid off. While I had half an hour left on my clock, white had about 35 seconds on his clock for the last 8-10 moves of the game. Time trouble was a factor, but Rybka shows that there was nothing he could have done anyway. 0-1
Additionally, I want to point out that we swept the Yearwood team. I did not expect that at ALL. I thought that we would take the lead after this match since there was a three way tie after the third round at 6 points. Unfortunately for Rybka Incarnate, E4 Effort also swept their match thus maintaining the tie. In the final round, it was Josh Timm's draw against Sponga that won the tournament for them. Timm is the hero of the day for them I think.
Game 5- White vs D. MacKinnon- I knew I was in the money already, but there was one more blockade in the way. I needed to win this game but I feared I would not. The game turned into a broken Queen's Gambit Slav defence with an early ...Bf5. I wanted to prove that this move was wrong so I set up a series of tactics knowing that something would allow me to pick up some pieces or pawns. I put pressure against his queenside and centre by moving my knights and other bishop up to create disco attacks and checks and forks galore, Don made a critical mistake that cost him his bishop. After that, Don played like he was very irritated with himself so I did nothing to provoke it more in my demeanour. Later on, Don apologized for not giving me a better game... but what is there to apologize for? I got 5/5! I was on cloud 9!
I gained 106 rating points and $85. My play got better through the tournament so I was happy with how I played in the final 3 games... the first two I fear I only won because of luck. All in all, I think it was an excellent tournament! (for SK especially).
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
*
edit- for any new readers, I am not talking about Eric Hansen. No worries.
A few weeks ago I was in Calgary... because it seemed like the thing to do. We weren't there for any particular reason other than to get out of Saskatoon. Fair enough, it was a good trip as a whole but there was one particular aspect that bothered me.
While in Calgary, I met up with a chess friend named Roy Yearwood. The idea was to play chess, talk about some ideas and in essence I was going to pick his brain. The man is a good player who has read a great deal on many subjects. He's friendly, fun, and a real talker. The problem, as I saw it, was that he had another person meet us at Boston Pizza who had no interest in chess at all. He brought a cribbage board along and that is what we played instead of chess. So that was a minor disappointment in and of itself, but definitely not the bane of the evening.
The other man, Eric, is 22 years old and has 3 girlfriends (who all know about each other incidentally). I don't know this guy at all except for what he said in our little evening outting, but in my opinion he is one of the most despicable people who i have met in a long time. Eric is the worst parts of Bobby.... and Roy is the best parts of Bobby. (it's too bad that NONE of you knows who Bobby is except for me because I met him in Nice and travelled with him for about two weeks). This is the point where my socially conservative attitude kicks in and I judge Eric as someone who is an opportunistic, manipulative, narcissist.
Eric spends a lot of his spare time reading books on how to manipulate relationships so as to gain favourable outcomes for hisself. A book that he recommends is called "The Game." I have not read the book and I don't intend to but he describes it as a book that allows him to get as much sex as he can by using power plays and "yes-ladders." A yes-ladder is a method of questioning where the only answers are yes's and positive reactions. Every question that he asks, every answer that he gives is supposed to work into the end goal of manipulating women. Let me go back to the part where i said that he has three girlfriends. He said that he has one older girlfriend who is in love with him and wants to take him to France on a trip... he doesn't love her and has told her so but will take the trip with her nevertheless. The other two girlfriends live in two different cities, Calgary and Lethbridge. So, virtually every place that he goes, he has a girl to sleep with.
Now comes the tricky part... they all know each other. Do you want to know why? Because he told them all about each other. It's an experiment that he is conducting to see how far he can push the limits. They all hate each other but love him. Every breath that he takes he gain leverage to that end goal.
I wasn't impressed with this guy at all. At some point during the night i made the comparison of him with the Tom Cruise character in "Magnolia." To me, this is not a stretch even though he disagreed with me. i don't think he liked me either considering that i disagreed with him wherever i could make a case. For instance, he tried to make the case that without a doubt the American government orchestrated and organized the attack on 9/11... this all based on a movie he saw on youtube.com. *ahem* i'm not kidding.
I couldn't wait to get out of that bar. That evening left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. I couldn't believe that people like him actually exist. I'm curious to know what made him that way. To me, it shows an inherent lack of respect for women, people, even himself. Lack of respect might not even be the right description... it sounds like outright hatred and some sort of relationship hegemony over whoever he meets. I knew that i didn't like this guy the instant that I met him just from a sense... but as the evening progressed I came to understand why.
Thursday, 09 November 2006
*
Once again, quiet has proven the way to avoid problems.
i got into another car accident about 20 minutes ago. This is not a good thing for the female driver but i can only see this as a good thing for me. First, the narrative:
Coming home from work the roads were still pretty slippery so i exercised as much caution as i can muster given how aggressive i prefer to drive. The snow of yesterday has proven to be decisive in immobilizing most drivers but alas this probably isn't that horrible a crime. Again, on my street, likely not 20 metres away from the accident of last summer a black Tiberon struggled to turn left ahead of me...she was not signalling and there was no indication that she was going to slow down or turn until the very last moment. So, i tried to slow down but immediately locked up and slowly but surely skidded into the rearend of her car. Honestly, her car looks great compared to mine. She probably just has a few scuffs and no real damage (at least i saw no cracks). My car, on the other hand, will be written off after this one. It was actually very funny because a cop was following me too and he pulled over right after the accident. Now, in times of extreme stress, some people yell, some cry...but i don't say anything (she was a crier but i could tell that she was steamed). Who wouldn't be pissed off if their car got hit from behind? i decided not to inflame anything or cause problems so i just gave my information with a quiet apology and left.
Now, after i have called the claims adjustors, they deem it my fault and i will pay the deductible. Now comes the part that is probably good for me. i intended on selling it soon anyways for about $1500 to $2000 and that's what i will get for it after the deductible...i am certain that they will write it off on Tuesday. We will see though.
It should be driveable until then and drive it i will.
Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:03 PM
...I'm feeling good!
This is my last weekend of full mobility before I go under the knife. Most people feel like it's a bad thing that I'm getting surgery but I'm looking forward to it. I'm not a masochist. I don't particularly like pain but what's a bit more? It's something new that allows me to get some seriously cool scars. My company seems to think that I'll be back at work in a couple days but after a scathing email full of references on acl reconstruction recovery time, they seemed to be a bit more hesitant to push me back into a machine... on oxycodone (or whatever heavy pain killer they will put me on). That and the bloody bandages, with icing, with my exercises, with elevation above my heart... ya I think I can still do my job. That would be funny. Very tough to get onto my machine while on crutches with no place to store them. Maybe on the roof? I could get a bike rack for my crutches and a winch to get myself into the pilot seat. I told them that they don't care about my well being. The only people who actually care about that is my physiotherapist, my surgeon, and my comp worker... the only ones who have no interest in production over my health. *shrug*
I know I'll get tired of being prodded by the crutches but eventually when it's back to a limp that should eliminate any such curiousity. I could just stay in my basement watching 30 Rock and other such funny things... or work on my tactics and endgame stuff. I'm sure I'll have a couple weeks of that. Visitors will be welcome of course but I doubt I'll have more visitors then than I do right now. It's been pretty slow with the hanging out lately even with school being out.
This is a banal blog posting... i must say. Maybe I'll write more when I'm high on pain meds... that should make for more interesting reading.
Posting for posting's sake.
I used to think I would get over everything...
Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:25 PM
I've been getting into a lot of conflicts lately. At work, at home, online, with friends even and I don't know where the root can be found. I don't know if I'm the source of all this tension or not. Am I the one who is hard to get along with? Sometimes people are ignorant about how they interact with others. They may say something with an intention in their head's but the listeners put a different spin on it, based on their individual contexts, and hear it differently than it was intended. I know people who are like this. They mean to be friendly but come across as plain bossy. Or if someone is excited about something, it could sound to others like bragging. This could happen to me a lot I think because I get excited about the weirdest things especially if they are new. When someone decides to take a shit on all that then it becomes time to take a look at what's really going on.
Too often I react in the same way that my dad would... especially in work situations. I think this rubs people the wrong way but it gets the point across that I was hoping for. I did a post a while back about the anatomy of silence. It makes people weary if words aren't being used. Silence, long pauses, the opportunity to become introspective occurs rather than the rantings of an angry man. I was at work the other day and it was a busy day. I was all over the place but I enjoyed the fast pace and the ability to keep up without people getting in my way. That is, of course, until someone decided to stop doing his job and thus fucking with my rhythm. Five times I needed to get out of my machine, which is a pain in the ass and unnecessary, to move stuff that was laying around on the ground so that I could do my job. My machine isn't small. It needs space because of the swing area and the tracks. When there is shit lying around on the ground, it bothers me... also because the person who is supposed to look after that part of the job, I used to have that job (for about 4 years). So I know when he's not doing his job. The fifth time I did it, the guy comes at me saying "you don't need to throw a tantrum everytime something goes wrong, just call me and I'll do it. You behave worse than my kid!"
I snapped. Up until that point I hadn't uttered a single word yet I got my point across. But then I did yell at him. "This is the fifth time I've had to do your job. Do your fucking job. Don't be a lazy prick about it... just do your job." And now, a few days later, he's taken my advice by putting stuff together and keeping it in a place that is safe from machines. Problem solved.
I don't particularly care that he treated me with such disrespect... all that matters is the job. Do your job and we'll get along fine.
Is this a flaw of mine? Did I create some kind of persona that rubs people the wrong way? I KNOW that at work I can be a grumpy gus. Well, no, I can be a prick. I just can't help myself... and every summer, that prick spills into my personal life. I just don't like being fucked with. If you fuck with me intentionally or unintentionally, you'll know I'm not pleased. It's pretty bad that right now I'm in a general state of displeased.
...but everything just got over me.
A Question of Morality
Sunday, June 13, 2010 2:13 PM
I originally meant for the last post to be about the question of morality but something came up that persuaded me to give into my emotional desire for a rant. This won't be a rant... probably. It's not an easy topic to discuss simply because the scope is very large. There are different levels of morality and different facets of each level which could be discussed in bookshelves each: so I will try to stay focused on one question.
Is morality absolute or subjective? That is, do morals exist as a body of inherent laws and predate human law or are our morals fabricated and interwoven into society (and evolve along with society)?
This is a question that I've pondered for a long time and have experience on both sides of the fence. When I was younger, I believed that morality came from an ultimate being (we'll call it god) and that morality was written in a book called the Bible. This is the typical view of how Christians view the world and how people should behave in our societies. The ten commandments and the words of Christ should guide our actions and we should always ask ourselves the question "what would Jesus do?" (now known as WWJD?) If Jesus would do it, it's moral. If Jesus wouldn't do it, it's not moral. For example, let's say that everyone has left work before I have and nobody knows exactly when I will leave work. Is it wrong for me to mark an extra 15 minutes on my timecard when 15 minutes is still 10 minutes away? Well, Jesus wouldn't do that... so it's immoral. Let's say I'm at my grandmother's house and she's not there... I've found some chocolate in the cupboard and I'd really like to eat it but I know it's not mine. Is it immoral for me to eat it? My gramma won't care one way or another because I'm family but Jesus probably wouldn't even eat chocolate.... so ya, it's immoral. Jesus wouldn't speed, Jesus wouldn't eat a lot of pizza, Jesus wouldn't play World of Warcraft. Does that mean that all of these things are immoral? If we make the assumption that the question WWJD? is the guiding principle of morality, then absolutely those things are immoral. But, Jesus wouldn't use credit cards or drive at all... he wouldn't do a lot of things that we do in our regular lives. He wouldn't lock his doors at night because that assumes that someone might try to break in!
Ok... so we've kinda figured out that morality isn't as simple as asking what Jesus would do. What is morality then? Are all of the laws that are stated in the Bible subjective too? My first real tinkering with subjective morality came from my experiences with dating relationships. Is it really wrong to do it before you're married or is it mandatory that I wait? The first many times I broke this rule I felt really really guilty (which, any Christian would tell you, that's the Holy Spirit telling you that you're doing something wrong). Am I sure that I haven't just been told that a whole lot of times and it makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong because the Church would disapprove? That's when it dawned on me that judging something to be moral and immoral came to a much more profound litmus test than WWJD. I reformulated the way that I thought about right and wrong so that I could get away from feeling guilty about stuff like eating pork and hopping around on one foot on Sundays.
The question that I began to ask myself, and in a large part I still use this method of judging whether things are right or wrong in my conscience was: "are my actions, or the actions of others, hurting anyone?" If someone comes to harm because of what I'm doing then it's probably wrong. This was my way out of the premarital intercourse argument... of course I'm not hurting anyone. It was another way for me to explain why I felt that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone by being gay. I never felt like any of that was wrong but the Bible says it's wrong. If I were to use my perfectly reasonable judgment of right and wrong, and nobody is getting hurt, then we've answered what's moral and immoral. I think that this question answers morality in the personal sense but not in an international sense.
There is a difference between me stealing from someone, killing someone, raping someone, or causing some other harm to another person... those things being wrong to the extreme as personal fouls. There is another sense of wrongness that I haven't discussed yet and that's the general morality. Is it wrong for me to consume large amounts of oil in my vehicle even though it's harming the environment? Is it wrong for me to wear a lot of diamonds even though many people suffer from the diamond trade? Is it wrong that we take long showers to clean ourselves even though millions of people have no water to drink? Are these things immoral? Answers that I don't have unfortunately. Do I feel really guilty about these things? No. I don't. Some people do, and that's a burden that they've allowed themselves to carry.
Different people act in different ways and have difference senses of what's moral and what's immoral. Like I've begun to say, "one man's evil is another man's playground." I'm not being totally facetious by using a comic statement to summarize a subjective morality. Consider the Christian denomination of The Jehovah's Witnesses. In their belief structure, it is immoral to allow a blood transfusion because once blood has left the body, it is impure and unclean. There was an instance of a woman who had been in a severe car accident and was shipped to the hospital. Upon arrival they hung a bag of her blood type in order to keep her alive and so they could save her... which they did. (she was unconscious this whole time). She woke up a few days later and learned that she had had a blood transfusion and being a Jehovah's Witness she became ill physically. She described the feeling as if she had been raped. Something had been done to her body that made her impure and defiled. Would she have rather died? Perhaps! What had been done to her, she considered to be immoral yet the vast majority of us would have seen that as a no brainer. Of course I want the doctors to give me blood if I'm dying! What is immoral for her is not immoral for me... and thus, morality is subjective.
Another way to look at morality is from a physiological perspective. Are we genetically wired with a moral code or is that socialized onto us? There is no way to answer this question. As it turns out, I don't think we give enough credit to genetics in explaining the type of people who we become. A perfect example of this is in my family. My father is an extremely talented heavy equipment operator. To him, the machines become an extension of his mind and his hands just know how to move so as to move elegantly. I've always admired that ability about him. Now that I've kinda followed in his steps, I've noticed that I too have what seems to be an innate ability to operate equipment. He didn't teach me how or anything, I just got on and things made sense to me. This isn't socialized into me... what else could it be?
Maybe morality is much the same as this? It's really hard to say since the argument can also be made that through human history, morality has evolved. We can notice changes in the last hundred years even. Before the 1860's it wasn't considered immoral to have slaves. Jesus didn't even speak out against slavery! Now it would be abominable. Racism as a term only really kicked in in this century because of the many atrocities that have resulted from them... such as WWII (a war created by a race driven tyrant). Before the war, however, anti-Semitism was rampant! FDR and Winston Churchill said things against the Jews publicly before the war... if they said it now they would be crucified (see David Ahenikew).
I think with these points alone we can say with fair certainty that morality is not an absolute body of laws unchanging over the ages. Morality has evolved along with mankind and society, culture to culture, individual to individual. I think the mistake that some people make when they say that morality is absolute is that they've not looked at the world from a different perspective. To a worm in horseradish, the world IS horseradish.
The only thing you know is that you don't know...
Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:13 PM
...the philosophy of a lazy man.
Apparently a lot of people have wasted their lives formulating answers to questions that we have all asked ourselves and our teachers. Those people write books for all to read and the popular ones become classics through the ages. The questions we ask are about life, god, morality, and how the universe came to be are answered in some way. Most people come up with some answers that suit them or there are answers forced on them from a very young age. The great thing about all of this is that nobody KNOWS the right answer 100% and so nobody is really wrong.
Over my 27 years of life I've moved from philosophy to philosophy picking things up and trying to formulate the ideas that make the most sense to me in order to fill up the "what I believe" column in my life. It seems like there are those kinds of columns that we try to fill in order to figure out who we are. What kind of person do I want to be? What do I want to be my life's work? What do I believe?
The things that I've compiled to create what I believe is by no means set in stone because I know that I'm probably not right and most people are probably just as wrong as I am. That's why I've incorporated a flexibility clause into my philosophy. If a part of my moral code and belief in the gears of our universe is faulty and replaced by something more compelling and closer to the truth, I have no choice but to accept it. I'm not so cynical that I will say that nothing is certain because that would just be really obtuse. I don't believe that all of our scientific research is wrong. I don't think we need to go back to Descartes and start over. I won't lie, of course, when I say that I have found what I believe to be what I like to believe. I didn't make it up myself... I found most of these ideas in books from philosophers over the past 300 years.
Is it wrong to believe something that came from someone else's pen? I was reading an essay Nietzsche's ideas on morality in the pejorative sense and came to realize some really interesting things. Many of which I would have never been able to come up with simply because I don't have the same mind as he did. I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel here. When I want a car, I will go buy it from a manufacturer who has many decades of experience in building cars. I would never want to make my own car because it's counter productive for everyone to make their own cars, isn't it? It makes sense to build on the past knowledge of our histories and move on from there. If you decide that none of it's worth anything then you can take the bus.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:08 PM
"Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. Its progress is only apparent, like the workers of a treadmill. It undergoes continual changes: it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For every thing that is given, something is taken. Society acquires new arts and loses old instincts....The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet."
-Emerson on Self-Reliance
I find myself wondering at times what would happen if our way of life would cease to exist as we know it. I'm not talking about brutal and massive physical death where only the strong survive to live on and repopulate the earth after some Armageddon or holocaust. There is no war to crush our bodies, steal our families, or even destroy our buildings. Let us suppose, for just an instant, how our world would look if the things we have created to make our lives easier are taken away from us and it was unforeseeable and impossible for which to prepare.
I think it helps to list the things that we have in our daily lives as examples so that we can ponder on them individually so as to really understand what I mean. There are some things that are more luxurious as trinkets or trophies of human achievement that we hold high above our heads to god almighty and say "Hey, look what we've created." What would the world look like if we had no internet. We'd have to go back to the mail system for all of our correspondence or playing board games instead of games online. Twitter, Facebook, Google... they are all gone and the time wasters of the decade will leave people trying to come up with things to fill their schedules. Let's take computers away entirely, in fact. Suddenly we don't have calculators, TVs, microwaves, or any kind of gaming platform. Since all forms of modern transport have computers and microchips in them, suddenly we are left without rapid travel. Even your digital wrist watches won't work and we'll have to go back to wind up clocks.
Alright, it's time to get serious about this. Let's eliminate electricity, running water, flushing toilets. These are considered bare essentials to a standard of living that is barely par in Canada. I know what you're thinking. What will we do with all of our human waste? It will smell like 15th century Paris. You can't just flick a switch to see what's going on anymore and you'd have to try and find fresh water. It would probably come from the river but most people wouldn't have the sense to boil it before drinking it. Since we've all grown pretty soft in our bottled water existence, I imagine a lot of people would get sick from their inability to drink from anything that hasn't been scrubbed with anything but 99.99% anti-bacterial soap. Ya... it's gonna be dirty. I can just see it. The world is falling apart all around us and society is in shambles... but there are still going to be some people who are still worried about their hair.
Have you ever been in a power outage for hours during the winter in -40C weather? It's scary as fuck. It gets so chilly in your house that you can see your breath. You wear all of your clothes and get under blankets to stay warm all the while praying that the power comes back on soon so the furnace will kick in. Well folks, I hate to say it but with the elimination of man made technology, the power is not coming on so you'd better start a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The very simplicity and nakedness of man's life in the primitive ages imply this advantage at least, that they left him but a sojourner in nature. When he was refreshed with food and sleep he contemplated his journey again. He dwelt, as it were, in a tent in this world, and was either threading the valleys, or crossing the plains, or climbing the mountain tops. Bo lo! men have become tools of their tools."
Thoreau- Walden, Chapter 1, Economy.
At the time, the railroad system was considered a pinnacle of achievement for nineteenth century America. It was an example of how man had conquered nature. We could live in leisure and travel to far reaches of the landscape by buying a ticket and enjoying the ride. The question posed by the natural philosophers of early American literature was, do we ride on the train or does the train ride on us? In and of itself, technology (not exclusive to the railway of course) does not need people. They are simply ideas and have no value without us putting value on them. The problem is, of course, once you build something then you are obligated to maintain it. A perfect example is when the University of Saskatchewan had escalators in Place Riel. You could choose to take the stairs or take the escalator. Most people took the easier option and opted for the motorized moving stairs. Well, every week it seemed that the escalators were broken and some kind of mechanic needed to be working on them to get them running. It cost the University energy to run them, money to pay mechanics, and ultimately more money to replace them with concrete stairs (which is the way it should have been all along). All you need to do is read Vonnegut's Player Piano to see the dangers of trusting technology to run our worlds. What happens when we become so reliant on technology that we cannot survive without it? What happens if it's taken away or breaks down to the point of no return?
People do not change easily. If we lost our means to a comfortable life through technology, I think the majority of our efforts would go towards trying to regain that lost life rather than embracing the change. It is, afterall, the path of least resistance.
I can't even make this stuff up...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:28 AM
...there I sat with my eyes closed wishing it was over.
Let's back up. I blew out my knee. It was painful but not the first time I'd done it. I knew what to expect. I remember thinking, "hmm, that didn't feel right nor did it sound right. It's not really going to feel good walking in this mud to the truck." Step by painful step, I walked my 1 and 1/2 legs to the truck using the bottom half of my right leg as a stilt to balance on rather than a mode of pushing myself forward. Have you ever felt your knee separating into two parts and your bones only held together by the skin wrapped around it? You might think that when I made it to the truck and finally got my rubber boot off (now with 10 lbs of caked mud globbed to the bottom of it), this is the time when I would have closed my eyes and wished it to be over. This wasn't that moment.
I've never really had a problem with pain. I've endured it a few times with injuries like collar bone breaks, and separated shoulders, and the other four times I injured my knee in the same fashion. There are coping mechanisms to deal with the pain and techniques to get by in day to day life. You get to relearn the simple things like getting down some stairs, putting on your socks, tying your shoes, and various other things we take for granted. I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE GRAVITY..... and also fuck you. In the end I find that other people make a bigger deal out of it than I do. I just see it as a change in my lifestyle as a temporary measure. I get to go to physio-therapy, visit with the person who works on my leg, then go to home and rest. Ice. Pills. Ice. Rest. Elevate. Those sorts of things.
Well. One thing I didn't anticipate changing in my life after the injury is that my company would come up with a scheme for "light-duty" so that I wouldn't "lose time." I still lost time to physio therapy and all that, but I get to work in the office instead of doing real work outside. My company decided that because I have a B.A. I would have the capable skill set to talk with people on the phone from their office. True. In and of itself, office work isn't that bad. Give me a stack of resumes and get me to call references for the applicants so I can detect character traits and grade applicants according to my own feeling as to whether they are worth looking into as a spring hire or not. It ended up being a complete waste of time as a make work project since most of the applicants only applied to satisfy their EI claims OR they had found work by the time we actually got around to them. Again, only a sidenote, not the point of my story.
One day, a Thursday if I recall, the Personnel Manager who fed me the work called me into his office just before lunch and said, "I just want to take some time out of our day to be thankful." At that moment he busted into some hardcore, eyes closed, non-formulaic prayer....
Here's some history of the company. About 90% of the workers who are kept on during the winter are from Hague, Osler, Warmen and surrounding farmland areas. These areas tend to be filled with devout Mennonites. Hamm Construction, one could not hesitate to say, is a Christian company. To illustrate this fact, one year as an award to everyone in the company at the annual Christmas banquet, we were all given Bibles. These were not your average Bibles either as a King James Version or New International Version... oh no... these were NLT Study Bibles (New Living Translation). It's not enough that they had a version of the Bible in a new translation but also filled with lengthy footnotes on particularly important passages. This is the Cadillac of Bibles befitting of a Bible College Course. (http://www.nltstudybible.com/) Averaging $75 per book. Gideon Old Testament... eat your heart out.
Hamm Construction as a Christian company can be put into the category of "not to be fucked with."
At any rate, my story continues with a bewildered worker who cannot run away because of a previously mentioned injury who must simply succumb to being pressured into a prayer. I reacted like most people would have....there I sat with my eyes closed wishing it was over.
As a sidenote that just dawned on me, I will probably end up going back and removing any mention of the company name that I work for because this posting will probably end up at the top of every Google search about it... and I doubt they would take kindly to being put into the category of "not to be fucked with" by an employee of theirs. It doesn't bode well but I have self-interest to consider.
Now is where we get to the heavy philosophical arguments for what is so wrong with this whole scenario. There are about a billion things wrong, I realize this point, but I only want to highlight the things that were going through my head at the time. The main gist of the prayer went approximately like this:
-thank you for providing this great weather
-thank you for the fellowship of this office
-thank you for bringing Tyler here with his injury so that all this work could get done
-it's amazing how even out of bad things, your plan is fulfilled
-yada yada yada
-throw in the elitist way that the evangelicals pronounce "God" (yes it's different from everyone else... ask me in conversation to see the difference) and you got yourself a nice pre-lunch prayer.
I struggled to remain calm and resist the urge of becoming belligerent with indignation at being called a tool of God's will. It was part of his plan to have me injured so that I could work in this office to complete this HR's workload for him so he could sleep at night knowing that he's got the help he needs in a make work project that ended up being unnecessary. Then I got to thinking about the inherent problems with what was happening. While I sat, my head slightly bowed, eyes closed, I thought for a moment about what could happen what with having these thoughts while being prayed at. Could I get struck down or turned into a pillar of salt?
The problem that I have with prayer is that it falls on the opposite side of a major inconsistency in the Mennonite faith. The main tenant of this organization is that we all have free wills to do what we choose. Through our lives we are supposed to have faith through our own power that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we wouldn't need to go to Hell because Jesus paid for our sins by sacrificing himself thus paying off all our debts ahead of time. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BELIEVE THAT... and you won't go to hell. There it is... in a nutshell.
YET- while we are said to have this freedom to choose and have control over our lives, there is another major tenant of Mennonite faith that God has a plan and His will be done. If God is in control and has a plan as so many times we have heard that "if it's part of God's plan, it will happen" then where is this freedom to choose to believe in Him? Why wouldn't His plan be to have everyone on the earth believe that Jesus died for our sins? Truly this would be fruitless of Him because then there is no point for this experiment we call humanity. I don't think there is a middleground here where God allows us freedom to have faith in him but he will control the rest of our lives... nor is this inconsistency ever addressed.
Ok... Prayer...
Let's look at prayer from both sides of the paradoxical inconsistency for a moment. First, let's assume that we are free to do as we please either believe in Him or not... go to the Extra Foods instead of Superstore... all the choices we are allowed to make are ours. Why then would we thank God in our prayers for doing all these things for us and having a plan? Why would this man sitting across from me have praise for my injury so that things work out for the best in the company? Even in a more general sense... another reason for prayer is to ask for help. Whether it be for a loved one's health or to some kind of bet on a football game. If we are asking for help aren't we admitting that we surrender our own control of the situation to God thus negating our control or need for praying? That is unless God made us pray as part of his design... but then if He knows all of our thoughts why would we even need to ask?
Now for the other side of the coin. As a refresher, what if everything that happens in the world is part of God's plan and we really aren't in control? If this is true then why do we even pray? It's like God makes us pray so that we can stroke his ego. Everything that we say in the prayer is scripted from God as it is, so why would we even need to say it? These are the problems I have with the current paradigm of prayer in Christian circles.
The most screwed up thing is that if I were to point out this inconsistency to the sorts of people who put a lot of stock into prayer and the Christian belief system, I would be considered a heretic... as if the Devil put those thoughts into my head to keep me from having faith in Christ. It's frustrating that any kind of logical problematic scenario that I could come up with to show the absurdity of such a belief system could easily be debunked by the influence of a boogeyman... like a Freddy Krueger. AH! I have it! Here is the greatest line one could use against me. "God is not bound by logic... you need to have faith and believe. Your mind is getting in the way of your faith."
If you're reading this Mom... I'm sorry but it's time that you know how I feel. Don't be distraught though since I still believe there is a God just not the version that I was taught to believe in.
(goes to unlink this posting from Facebook)
Saving graces...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:47 PM
...thank god for them.
I've been working out of town lately in a small town named Chaplin. The driving industry in this retirement town is salt. Over the last week I worked seven 12 hour days in a row from 10pm until 10am. Some of the obvious difficulties with this particular job are both that it's dark all night and that we're doing the same thing for 12 hours straight every night. I've been driving a John Deere 40 ton truck:
http://www.deere.com/en_US/cfd/construction/deere_const/adts/400d_adt_360.html
It's a big truck that I'd never driven before this job which was made doubly difficult due to learning in the dark.
So here's the operation in a nutshell. On one side of the number 1 highway outside of Chaplin is an enormous alkali pond which gets drained into five controlled ponds on the other side of the highway. The water sits in these five ponds for a while until the salt settles to the bottom and then in December they drain the water out which leaves a layer of salt about 1-2 meters deep. If you google maps Chaplin, SK and use Google Earth, you will see what I mean about the ponds. The salt is then piled into long windrows... probably 10-15 per pond like 3 meter high lines of cocaine. After the salt is piled it's best to let the ground freeze as much as possible before trying haul it out of these pits of despair. Naturally, mud that is mixed to full saturation of salt will only really freeze at -20C. We had that cold snap which helped but now we are getting into the 0C range which, needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), makes the ponds a little sloppy. Some of the pitfalls of driving 40 ton trucks in these evil salt holes is that the trucks will get stuck. And when they don't get stuck, it will be the roughest ride of your life. Going into this job, we were told that these trucks were meant to tip. That scares the crap out of me... I've yet to tip mine but that just gives you a sense of what sort of work I'm doing. Sometimes putting the truck into 6 wheel drive is enough to survive but if the bottom falls out of the pond underneath you, you won't move a whole lot. I went six days without getting stuck... but I've got 21 more days to try and survive it all.
I say that I drove for six days because on the first day I was in the excavator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2CXAQvgBnM&feature=related
It's much like in the video except with white salt and at night. I thought I would be on that machine all week because that's what I was doing when I was at my regular job. I was wrong. It turned out that my company went and hired on some local talent to fill missing positions. So the second day I was bumped to a rock truck even though the guy they put on the excavator had very little experience and was terrible at it. I spent a lot of time doing tactical chess puzzles while waiting for this guy to get his shit together. The more pressure that was on him the slower he operated. We put out, on average, 70 loads a night per truck. The day crew, who had a much better operator, put out 97 loads a night on the last day. I'm convinced that I could have done the same thing if I had been given the chance... but the rock truck requires less skill and less concentration anyway so perhaps it was for the best. It's not like I would have been paid any different.
There were three things that are responsible for my sanity remaining intact. First of all, the guy who I roomed with and drove next to is an excellent chap. He's a real stand up guy, easy to work with, and a lot of fun (the only guy who I didn't want to rip a new hole on the crew). There is something to be said for such small mercies. Secondly, my IPod along with several audiobooks and days worth of music. By the end of the week I didn't feel like listening anymore but I got through a lot of material over those 84 hours. If it weren't for my IPod, I would have had to listen to the radio and then I probably would have needed to slit my wrists. The final saving grace of the past week came inherently with working in the nighttime. I've been living in the city for many years where there is always light... and I rarely see the stars and planets. The first night I located a small bright red dot (Mars), an even brighter Jupiter, and then there was the moon. It was nearly a new moon so near 4am every night came a red orangish blade from the horizon piercing the night skyline. As the night past it flew past in the south and then disappeared as the Sun made its arrival signalling the end of the shift. My entire mood changed when the moon came up. I could have had the worst night of the week... but the moon was like a serene reset button.
I'm reminded of a quotation by Ptolemy "But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth." Of course Ptolemy was incorrect about the circular motion of stars and planets (they move in ellipses), you get my point and it conveys my general emotion. When the salty ground has got you down turn your eyes onto the skies and fly away.
Work will set you free
Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:22 PM
I tend to do a lot of thinking and very little doing. Some might call this being contemplative but it seems like contemplation is simply a gentler way of calling it procrastination. What the difference actually is, I don't really care to define but it seems to me that the discrepancy all comes down to urgency. If there is something that I need to do in order to keep others happy and they might be waiting on me, then it's procrastination; but, if I have been mulling over and using a lot of time on an idea then it's contemplation.
One of my many mottoes in life is "work will set you free." Those five words ring true for almost everything in life and how one lives his life. How can I be successful in whatever I choose to do with my life without putting work into it? How many people can you think of who are extremely successful but have put little or no effort into it? Look at Gene Simmons as an example. He is a marketing genius, knows six languages, is a millionaire, leads Kiss, and has locked down a Playboy bunny as a wife. Did he hit the lottery? There is something deeper here...
A friend once told me that "vitality" is one of the driving engines of history. No historical figure has become an icon in the annals of history by lounging around with no life's work. It might be aiming high to look for a place in history as if it's the only thing that matters. I already know that I have missed my prime for being a genius. Almost all geniuses have found their eureka before they were my age... through work of course. Musicians spend their lives learning instruments, perfecting their play, and exercising their creativity usually to be branded lunatics by family. Do you think chess grandmasters get that far by simply being talented and letting their lives take their natural course? Of course not!
Ok ok... so what of it? In summary I can say this: Nothing comes of nothing, a little something comes from a little something, and a lot will come from a lot. I was once "preached" to by a co-worker that things will happen if "it's part of God's plan." Mom, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, but I simply cannot buy that. The God's plan is a cop out and excuse for not working hard. If God wants me to have something, He will give it to me. Really? There seems to be no way out of this arguement if you plan on being consistent. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity both special and general... because of divine inspiration? You'd be hard pressed to believe that it's not because he was a genius who enveloped his life around his work fully instead of this weak arguement.
The amount of dedication and discipline that one puts into life the more results will be yielded. I believe my life to be a case in point. High school demanded little work from me and little work it got despite being given good marks probably because my personality worked well with the teachers. Getting a BA was extremely easy for me. There were few times when I felt compelled to try my complete hardest. There were times that I was stressed out but not because there was too much for me to do... I was stressed out that I wouldn't be able to get my discipline together enough to complete assignments. I always did even if in the nick of time. I only really editted one or two papers in the whole 5 years... because I didn't want to work. I could put out a 15 page paper in a day with 20 sources and hand it in the next day to still get an 80. Sometimes I got myself into trouble but always seemed to manage quite fine. In the end, I thought I had faked my way through University only to find out that it's just easy to me. What could happen if I actually gave my 100% into something?
I've ridden my career in water and sewer for 10 years and advanced quite well... but this can't be it. I will not be an excavator operator my whole life. Water and sewer doesn't challenge me enough for me to be satisfied. I mean, I was newly promoted so I am a little excited to move up, but I don't want this to be my life's work. I tried being a teacher and I didn't like that either.... but it's on the right track I think. There is a coin flip to be considered here too (like with most things). If you invest a certain amount of time into something, are you obligated to follow through with it even if you will be miserable? It's like being pot committed in a poker hand... you gotta go all in sometimes because what else is there to do when you're the short stack? Isn't that so true when it comes to my company. Almost all of the workers there are middle class... but still short stacked. I, like they, have no other plays except to invest their time and seeing where their cards ride out to.
Well, eventually, I plan on folding and trying a new hand. It's gotten a bit more complicated lately though since I am now married! I feel like I've had my chance to make something out of my life but I've folded and gone another direction. Now it's time for my wife to try a change in her life while I grind it out. It might sound like I'm being pessimistic here but I really am not. I'm excited for her and I hope it all works out in the end towards her (and ultimately our) happiness... because she was never given a chance to try this before.
The question becomes, how can we make this work out? The answer is "vitality." Once again, work will set us free! I will need to work hard to keep us afloat while she attends school. She will need to work hard to get through school (hopefully at the top of her class). I feel confident that if we both work hard, nothing will stop us. Unlike poker, life isn't about bad beats with cards and gambling. Life is about reaping the fruits of your labour.
Avalanche start inside of me...
Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:14 PM
...hell down through the trees.
If everyone's a casualty
Then take your time there ain't no trouble
If the weather's fine and we're feeling crazy
There's always drinks and dancing in the rubble
I'm spinning and you're spinning
And the world's spinning and we're laughing
And I'm charming, the devil's charming
And we're ruined but we're building
And I'm selling and you're counting
The world's stopping but we keep going
And we're ruthless and we're cunning
And I'm heir to it all
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect your elders but do not follow them blindly.
Growing up I was a naive boy. Is naive the right word when you trust everything that your parents have told you? Not just my parents but nearly all those who were older than me... save my brother. I didn't listen to him so much despite the occasional rapping on the head.
I have encountered a person recently who is very ignorant. She posted some of the craziest anti-Semitic crap that I have ever read... and she was reprimanded for her ignorance viciously. That's all good and everything but it made me wonder how an idea could be believed in from a girl in her early 20s. Back in the "good ole days" there were plenty of Jew haters in both Europe and North America. Walt Disney, Henry Ford, and many other powerful people were profusely and unapologetically anti-Semitic. The remnants of an old paradigm will echo through the generations on some counts. I believe that this girl simply heard her grandpa or her dad say something about how Jews were taking over the world (unless her last name is Ahenikew). I think she simply heard an elder say something anti-Semitic and believed it without criticism. That'll happen. It's not right, but that'll happen.
Our parents have a tremendous influence over the people who we become. I know that they are not perfect people or they would have a perfect marriage. Being perfect means never having to say you're sorry... because you're never wrong. On the other hand, being imperfect can also come about from never saying you're sorry.
I've recently encountered another person who rubbed me the wrong way in the way he treated me. We were all in the lunch room filled with construction workers and I let a burp out. It was audible but definitely not boisterous or Barney Gumble like. This man looks up at me and says "excuse me?" I replied "I'm in a room full of men...I don't feel the need to impress anybody." The next day it happened again as I anticipated correctly "excuse me?" I said nothing this time. Instead I thought about it a little bit deeper. This man was no doubt religious and probably had sons whom he was used to reprimanding for not being polite at the dinner table. If I were his age, I wonder if he would have been so adamant that I could show proper table etiquette. I felt reinforced in this view as I observed another worker in the shack who swore up a storm whenever he spoke using mostly religious flavoured profanity. I knew that this bothered some people in the room but they all kept their mouths shut because he was in his 50s. Why is it acceptible to tell a 26 year old to be polite by something minor when someone their own age is clearly upsetting him more? The third time that I burped the following day I kept my eyes on my food but I could feel him watching me as if I were defiant... which I was. If I would have received a third rapping on the knuckles for this I simply don't know what I would have said but I continue to think about it.
The moral of the story? The maxim "respect your elders" is an incomplete statement. I would like to offer a revision. "Respect the elders who you respect."
Take not the young for granted...
Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:57 PM
...because on occasion they can kick your asses.
My final round was a real 4 hour grind session. It was the final day of the tournament... so David and Kris were itching to get out of Dodge in a real hurry. Kris lost his game in good fashion but probably took 2.5 hours to do it and I was more concerned about winning my game. In preparation for my opponent, Nicka Kalaydina, I saw that she played both 1.d4 and 1.e4. I opted to not prepare at all because I had literally no sample of how she would play. In the end, she played 1.c4. I continued with a nice Dutch-like set up without playing the overly commital f5 until she had played d3. The d3 move signifies that it would take her two moves to play d4 which is probably the greater threat to my dutch set up (i learned that lesson against Kucjaz). The opening went well enough until she created a ton of pressure along my a file which I was unable to prevent or counter. I had good central control with my pieces but in the end I gave a pawn up for the initiative.
Her queen required a good 3 or 4 moves to get back over to her kingside to defend so I thought i would try to take advantage of this. I made the typical f4 push to try and crack her kingside open but she defended very very well. I even played g5 and later g4 i think... with my pieces all lined up nicely at jumping into nice squares. She defended these threats and took on a proper continuation... crash open the centre and go for a better endgame. This is precisely what she did do and despite some inaccuracies I was unable to stop her. Analysing this game with Rybka later, I was stunned by her accuracy and defence. She was a monster on the board and walking away from the game 4 hours later I felt no regret for I feel like I played solidly and strongly... she just played better than I. She had lost many points this tournament and only really beat players who were lower rated than her... the win against me was one which only slightly dulled the loss of rating for her... and affected me very little.
My play in the tournament with a score of 3/9 (two wins and two draws) gained me 38 points to a cool 1694 with a 1751 performance rating. It's pretty good for me and I would love to have broken the 1700 mark but perhaps next time...
Monday, 12 January 2009
*
Pre-determination, the uncertainty principle, and the human condition
Many of my friends and colleagues know that I am quite interested in physics. I wouldn't say that I am mathematically gifted or even know the calculus involved to solve many of the problems of physics but I AM interested in cosmology and the implications that scientists have made throughout history to come to believe what they do about the human condition. We don't normally think that scientists bother too much when making their theories about a unified universe (or theories on part of how the universe operates) to comment on how it connects to the human element. That is, human behaviour is usually considered to be in the realm of philosophy, religion, or sociology... definitely not physics.
I suppose there is a bit of an historical explanation for this idea coming out of the mid 19th century. When "science" actually became a word in the the mid 1800's it was equated with the definition "knowledge." Science was anything that we had proven to be true and could be incorporated into what we call knowledge. Before the word science came to be used commonly, the phrase "natural philosophy" (an Enlightenment term circa 1600) was the discipline and the lines between "science" and "philosophy" were quite blurred. In fact, many scientists such as Voltaire, Newton, and Galileo made extensive reaches into the existence of God and usually tried to make their ideas consistent with a Christian God (Voltaire to a lesser extent). All of them believed in God but that didn't make them less scientific.
First I want to comment on the idea of Pre-determination, where it came from, and how science has picked it up as a possible answer for a theory about the universe. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, a denomination called Calvinism (created by a French guy named John Calvin) which believed very strongly in pre-determination. That is, God chose before an individual is born whether or not he/she would go to heaven. Because God is perfect, He must know the past and future and so would know in advance how a person would live his/her life. With that precept in mind, God would bless those who were already chosen by granting them good luck, personal wealth, and happiness. So, basically, people would try to be successful in their lives as proof that God favoured them and thus they would go to heaven. Maybe it's sort of a Skinnerian idea of dangling that carrot to be successful to show that God has chosen you to go to heaven. Obviously there are problems with this philosophy but I don't think it's unlike some of the ideas floating around in contemporary cults.
People have always tried to find out the future before it happens. It seems to me to be one of our problems as a society... maybe some people just have too much time on their hands. It's a way for us to find security in knowing that we're not doomed. According to Darwin, we should be getting smarter... based on the principles of the survival of the fittest. Animals and people adapt and evolve to suit their conditions for their own survival. I don't know if I believe that or not in the case of humans. I consider the theory of the survival of the fittest as an imcomplete theory. Maybe it should read "survival of the fittest...but doomed to kill themselves." I mean, the human species seems to be the only one in danger of killing themselves off either through nuclear arms or environmental damage. I am sure that we will find many more eloquent and thorough ways to end ourselves in the future... I wonder if this is what Darwin had in mind. If that's not pre-determination, I don't know what is.
The scientific pre-determination that I had in mind is of a different breed. You see, I've been reading a lot of Stephen Hawking and his extremely accessible works about cosmology and every time I do, new ideas pop into my head and questions that I would like to ask.
In order to determine how the universe came into existence, the theory requires that we know the exact initial state of the universe. As it turns out, scientists can calculate up until a millionth of a second after the universe was created, but the problem is that the theory fails any time before that because of something called a singularity. Apparently, our mathematics have trouble with infinite numbers (the definition of a singularity as far as I can tell). Since the universe is believed to be at an infinite mass density at the beginning with zero size, our math cannot really know what happened, where it came from... only ideas. Some people see God in this very fact. How or who else could have made such a thing? I suppose this would be a religious explanation for the beginning of the universe trying to coalesce with scientific theory... not a bad idea.
The theory states that if we can know the exact state of anything at any given time, it is possible to calculate the future based on predictable movements. So far, scientists have been able to calculate the hydrogen atom but it only contains one electron, so it's easy in comparison with more complex atoms. If they can progress to the point where complex molecules can be calculated to their exact state at any given point, then those molecules will be "cracked" as I like to put it. Now, the idea speculates that it's possible to calculate something as complex as a human being eventually... That is, every action that an individual person does could be calculated based on their atomic make up and knowing the state of that person. I imagine that it will be a long time and probably not a priority of anyone to even try this daunting task considering all of the variables. People are constantly in flux with their environment, affected by the sun, affected by germs, food, water, drugs, sex (or no sex)... and this requires that we know how other people interact with that person as well and so on goes the problem.
In fact, there is a problem with the idea even earlier than this... and this is called the the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You could wikipedia the idea but any explanation seemed too mathematical and filled with technical jargon for me to understand. Once again, I turn to my friend Hawking for an explanation of what it all means. The uncertainty principle is a theory in quantum mechanics (really small mechanics). Let's start at the beginning. In order to observe how an atom acts, it is necessary to use light on it. One quantum of light is needed to observe the atom...and to observe it even better, it's necessary to use more light. Well, the problem is that the more light one would use to observe the atom, the more the light would affect the atom. Yes, light energy (whether we use the wave or particle theory of light) affects the things it comes in contact with. This trade off will forever keep us from knowing the exact state most things (the exception being the hydrogen atom it seems). The more light you use, the less accurate the information... but you need more light to be more accurate... and so on. For the time being, we are safe from being pre-destined to anything but it was a nobel try Mr. Planck.
It is part of the human condition to try and figure things like this out and make theories. How do you think the National Enquirer got so popular? Despite the fact that "enquirer" is the most complicated word in every copy of the paper, they are definitely on to some facet of human nature that raises curiousity about our futures on this planet. Whether it's the "Bible codes predict the end of the world" or " My alien baby smokes Marlboro's" people are always curious. Unfortunately, our curiousity led to the experimentation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or some of the scientific breakthroughs the Nazis made illegally (some of the data still being valid in scientific arenas despire the morally dubious methods of obtaining it). I believe in evolution, and to a certain extent Darwin's take on it, but I will be damned if anyone claims that we have "advanced." Physically, we have adapted to climates, types of food, and the demand to be more cerebral rather than physically caveman-like is never more true. To me, the word "advanced" implies that we've gotten better for it. Well, the human condition hasn't changed. We still have war, greed, corruption, murderous tendencies, and the desire for KFC.. these things haven't changed in forever. Can we say that we've advanced if we haven't rid ourselves of these integral deficiencies? Yes, our technology has advanced, but that doesn't mean we're better for it. In many cases, I think the argument can be made that we are worse off because of technological advance. I think the escalator is a prime example of technology aiding people to do less physical work and thus making us lazier.
The question isn't whether we are changing or not. For me, the question is about whether we change for the better, the worse, or out of necessity.
Well, I hope this doesn't read like gibberish to everyone...and at the very least I hope it was interesting. It makes sense in my head but I guess we all have different heads. Also, expect more of the physics type of writing on this blog. I still want to write about the theory of relativity and time travel!
Wednesday December 17
Everyone else is doing it
...so I guess I should too.
That is, I am going to blag about my WBX experience in Edmonton. I know that everyone else uses blogger google something or another, but I have been a xanga member for about seven years now probably (thus explaining some of the stranger non-chess related postings in my past). I haven't been writing a lot either, but I intend to change that if I find the ambition it requires.
Before going to the tournament in Edmonton, I had a dream of winning a lot of points and having a very real shot at winning the tournament with the team I assembled. I can't take all of the credit of course. Eric is a phenomenal player... and judging by his draw with Robert, that is just a testament to how good he really is. Chris got some points against players that I probably wouldn't have been able to beat and that is why he sat on board 2. I knew that playing on board 3 would allow me to make more mistakes and not be punished as badly for them than if I were playing on board 2. Maybe that statement cheapens what I did this weekend but as far as I know, I am the only one who feels that way.
Yes, I won all of my games and took some points and cash away from Edmonton, but that doesn't put me in the same calibre as Robert or Jamin... but maybe it's just proof once more that Saskatoon players are underrated. More than anything, I proved to myself that I am an underrated player capable of winning. Despite others telling me that I'm not bad at chess, I needed to prove it to myself that I could pull off a 5/5 against lower rated and similarly rated players.
Ok, to the games.
Game 1- Ludwig vs Black- It's always been difficult for me to play against kids. John Ludwig is probably about 10 years old and didn't seem to interested in what was going on on the board. Ludwig is rated 1470 which isn't bad but I knew that it should be easy. I never really play well against odd openings and 1. f4 is one of them. I don't think he had much knowledge of the opening theory but neither did I (the computer later told me that we played most of the popular moves). I was nervous as hell in this game because it was the first... and I feared I would walk away from the weekend with a goose egg. I got a good position out of the opening with aggressively placed minor pieces and Ludwig not really knowing where his pawn breaks were... I openly blundered with a sac that was not accepted but I think the shock of the sac and the possibly disco check on his king and queen was enough to miss where the error was. If any of you see it, it would be obvious because it was obvious to me that I was dropping a piece instantly and should be losing the game, but he missed it and let me play on fixing the blunder by defending my hanging knight. Ludwig had development problems for most of the game, but he soon found squares for his pieces and it made it harder for me to attack his position. Eventually the web of pins was enough for his composure and position to fall apart. After forcing a mate or taking his queen, he soon resigned. 0-1
Game 2- White vs Sponga- George was more my style of play I think. He is an older gentleman who I actually got to talk with later and turned out to be a really nice guy. I played 1. d4 against his 1. f5 but there really wasn't any opening theory. He didn't play any of the Dutch moves that I expected and thus exposed my weakness. Tyler doesn't know how to play against players who know 0 theory and make seemingly meaningless moves. It didn't turn into a Dutch afterall. I got a great position out of the opening but I missed a tactic that forks a knight and my dark squared bishop but I was able to find a way to gain initiative from the sacrificed piece. I won't say that it was the best play, but it was definitely an erratic move combination that could have blown up in my face if he would have been ready for my attacking idea. I was able to get my queen involved in the attack after the g5 thrust and with some luck (he took my bishop instead of my knight) it became more and more difficult for him to defend the mating attack. After missing the best move, it was all over. A two move mate was inevitable and was enough to bolt my opponent out of his seat in surprise and frustration. 1-0
Game 3- Timm vs Black- Ah Josh Timm. One of the two opponents that I feared the most this tournament. He had played solidly in the first two rounds drawing Mike Zeggelaar and another player whose name escapes me. I knew that I would be in for some stronger competition than my previous two rounds so I was prepared, but I took solace in the fact that Josh would play some book moves and thus go into something more usual than rounds 1 and 2. Also, I know Josh plays the French Exchange which I despise, and thus, I opted for the Scandinavian Qd6 stuff. I had a sense that Josh didn't know much about this opening but despite that fact, he found some excellent activity against my kingside but could not find a way to pull the trigger. The middlegame got complicated and I was able to defend well enough to find initiative against the semi open g file with my rooks. At that point, I decided to switch gears because I saw that there was no hurry anymore. I could improve my position and he could do nothing but wait. Remove a defender and something would fall apart. I had begun to squeeze Josh a bit getting ready for some pawn thrusts on the opposite side of the board from his pieces when he tried to defend by lining his rooks up on a diagonal. One bishop move allowed me to go up an exchange. Josh was clearly rattled and irritated by this blunder. The rest of the position only demanded some pressure and material winning and mate was inevitable. 0-1
Nightime.... oh yes. Sweet beer and hangouts. Always a good time. Thanks to Andrew Boik for letting us use his pad for a sleeping hole. =)
Game 4- Zeggelaar vs Black- I was well rested for this match and I knew that it would be one of the most important of the tournament for our team. The team consisted of Roy Yearwood on board 1, Aaron Sequillion on board 2, and Mike Zegg on board 3. Before I get to my game, I would like to thank Eric for beating Roy (sorry Roy, nothing personal), and especially thank Chris for beating Aaron. Aaron drew Jamin the day before so that victory made the Achtemichuk triumph that much sweeter (although, I found out after the game that Chris was oblivious to the fact that this is the Aaron who drew Jamin and confessed that he was glad he didn't know in advance). /end tangent
I didn't know what Zeggelaar would play against me. He played 1. d4 against Timm who drew him on it but I knew that he liked 1. e4 as well. I hoped very much for a 1. e4 again so that I could avoid his French Exchange again and play my Scandinavian line. (just a note about this opening, I am 100% with this opening in tournament play). It became clear immediately that I made the right choice in playing the Scandinavian since my opponent used about half an hour of his time in the first 5 or 6 moves of the game as I blitzed out book moves. I think this was unnerving to my opponent. He may have thought that there was a trick or something but it turns out that the Scandinavian basically allows white to develop however he likes... oh well. In the middlegame, white thought that he would attack my kingside in one way or another. There didn't turn out to be any good place to sac for compensation or an attack, so it didn't really happen. He had a queen and rook lined up against my pawn on h6 which stayed just like that. Following the game, Zeggelaar told me that he missed his chance to crush me with a g4 g5 thrust to crack me open and mate me. Rybka made short work of that attack and soon restored my confidence that I had played well. After a rook move blunder, there was no looking back. I would either promote, mate, or win two pieces. Oh yes, please recall that I was pleased about white using a lot of his time early in the game, it really paid off. While I had half an hour left on my clock, white had about 35 seconds on his clock for the last 8-10 moves of the game. Time trouble was a factor, but Rybka shows that there was nothing he could have done anyway. 0-1
Additionally, I want to point out that we swept the Yearwood team. I did not expect that at ALL. I thought that we would take the lead after this match since there was a three way tie after the third round at 6 points. Unfortunately for Rybka Incarnate, E4 Effort also swept their match thus maintaining the tie. In the final round, it was Josh Timm's draw against Sponga that won the tournament for them. Timm is the hero of the day for them I think.
Game 5- White vs D. MacKinnon- I knew I was in the money already, but there was one more blockade in the way. I needed to win this game but I feared I would not. The game turned into a broken Queen's Gambit Slav defence with an early ...Bf5. I wanted to prove that this move was wrong so I set up a series of tactics knowing that something would allow me to pick up some pieces or pawns. I put pressure against his queenside and centre by moving my knights and other bishop up to create disco attacks and checks and forks galore, Don made a critical mistake that cost him his bishop. After that, Don played like he was very irritated with himself so I did nothing to provoke it more in my demeanour. Later on, Don apologized for not giving me a better game... but what is there to apologize for? I got 5/5! I was on cloud 9!
I gained 106 rating points and $85. My play got better through the tournament so I was happy with how I played in the final 3 games... the first two I fear I only won because of luck. All in all, I think it was an excellent tournament! (for SK especially).
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
*
edit- for any new readers, I am not talking about Eric Hansen. No worries.
A few weeks ago I was in Calgary... because it seemed like the thing to do. We weren't there for any particular reason other than to get out of Saskatoon. Fair enough, it was a good trip as a whole but there was one particular aspect that bothered me.
While in Calgary, I met up with a chess friend named Roy Yearwood. The idea was to play chess, talk about some ideas and in essence I was going to pick his brain. The man is a good player who has read a great deal on many subjects. He's friendly, fun, and a real talker. The problem, as I saw it, was that he had another person meet us at Boston Pizza who had no interest in chess at all. He brought a cribbage board along and that is what we played instead of chess. So that was a minor disappointment in and of itself, but definitely not the bane of the evening.
The other man, Eric, is 22 years old and has 3 girlfriends (who all know about each other incidentally). I don't know this guy at all except for what he said in our little evening outting, but in my opinion he is one of the most despicable people who i have met in a long time. Eric is the worst parts of Bobby.... and Roy is the best parts of Bobby. (it's too bad that NONE of you knows who Bobby is except for me because I met him in Nice and travelled with him for about two weeks). This is the point where my socially conservative attitude kicks in and I judge Eric as someone who is an opportunistic, manipulative, narcissist.
Eric spends a lot of his spare time reading books on how to manipulate relationships so as to gain favourable outcomes for hisself. A book that he recommends is called "The Game." I have not read the book and I don't intend to but he describes it as a book that allows him to get as much sex as he can by using power plays and "yes-ladders." A yes-ladder is a method of questioning where the only answers are yes's and positive reactions. Every question that he asks, every answer that he gives is supposed to work into the end goal of manipulating women. Let me go back to the part where i said that he has three girlfriends. He said that he has one older girlfriend who is in love with him and wants to take him to France on a trip... he doesn't love her and has told her so but will take the trip with her nevertheless. The other two girlfriends live in two different cities, Calgary and Lethbridge. So, virtually every place that he goes, he has a girl to sleep with.
Now comes the tricky part... they all know each other. Do you want to know why? Because he told them all about each other. It's an experiment that he is conducting to see how far he can push the limits. They all hate each other but love him. Every breath that he takes he gain leverage to that end goal.
I wasn't impressed with this guy at all. At some point during the night i made the comparison of him with the Tom Cruise character in "Magnolia." To me, this is not a stretch even though he disagreed with me. i don't think he liked me either considering that i disagreed with him wherever i could make a case. For instance, he tried to make the case that without a doubt the American government orchestrated and organized the attack on 9/11... this all based on a movie he saw on youtube.com. *ahem* i'm not kidding.
I couldn't wait to get out of that bar. That evening left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. I couldn't believe that people like him actually exist. I'm curious to know what made him that way. To me, it shows an inherent lack of respect for women, people, even himself. Lack of respect might not even be the right description... it sounds like outright hatred and some sort of relationship hegemony over whoever he meets. I knew that i didn't like this guy the instant that I met him just from a sense... but as the evening progressed I came to understand why.
Thursday, 09 November 2006
*
Once again, quiet has proven the way to avoid problems.
i got into another car accident about 20 minutes ago. This is not a good thing for the female driver but i can only see this as a good thing for me. First, the narrative:
Coming home from work the roads were still pretty slippery so i exercised as much caution as i can muster given how aggressive i prefer to drive. The snow of yesterday has proven to be decisive in immobilizing most drivers but alas this probably isn't that horrible a crime. Again, on my street, likely not 20 metres away from the accident of last summer a black Tiberon struggled to turn left ahead of me...she was not signalling and there was no indication that she was going to slow down or turn until the very last moment. So, i tried to slow down but immediately locked up and slowly but surely skidded into the rearend of her car. Honestly, her car looks great compared to mine. She probably just has a few scuffs and no real damage (at least i saw no cracks). My car, on the other hand, will be written off after this one. It was actually very funny because a cop was following me too and he pulled over right after the accident. Now, in times of extreme stress, some people yell, some cry...but i don't say anything (she was a crier but i could tell that she was steamed). Who wouldn't be pissed off if their car got hit from behind? i decided not to inflame anything or cause problems so i just gave my information with a quiet apology and left.
Now, after i have called the claims adjustors, they deem it my fault and i will pay the deductible. Now comes the part that is probably good for me. i intended on selling it soon anyways for about $1500 to $2000 and that's what i will get for it after the deductible...i am certain that they will write it off on Tuesday. We will see though.
It should be driveable until then and drive it i will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)