Question #1

Why does one often feel a dislike (or a lesser form of hate) after a break up? (Suggested by a friend. This is how I'm going to maintain my writing now, so question away!)

Relationships are a lot like playing the stock market, and I emphasize the word “play” because it’s ultimately a game:

At first you enter the ring and you’re bombarded with symbols and companies, you’re a little unsure at what to invest in but eventually you find something. So now you’re thinking about buying a number of shares; maybe you buy a lot because you think it’s going to work out or maybe you buy a few and see where it goes. Time passes. You’ve had your ups and downs and perhaps a couple dividends, if you know what I mean! Eventually this investment embodies not only your money but your time, it becomes a part of you—it has a value.

But just like in a relationship you don’t control everything and the stock market can be unpredictable at times, in fact, so unpredictable that one day you wake up and find that your investment has crashed. Naturally you’re angry so you start punching your pillow, drop a couple f-bombs, put a couple holes in the wall! No longer are you as wealthy as you once were—that part of you is gone! It’s this transformation of the self, this need to make up for what has gone astray, that ultimately sets in anger (hate) and vengeance.

It becomes no different in a relationship when one’s ‘investment’ is betrayed or no longer valued. A part of you is removed and that being that you once mutually-made with that person is squandered. No longer are you a “we”, no longer are you “one soul in two bodies” (Montaigne)—what you now become is an individual lost-at-sea who has to redefine his being. It’s the depressing realization that what you once considered meaningful and true is merely meaningless and artificial. Does it come as a surprise that love juxtaposes hate and vengeance? Not at all.

What anger/hate serves in such a situation is a replacement of that initial-meaning: you take that canvas and you paint over it with contrasting colors and opposing strokes—you redefine what it means to you. We don’t like to be empty, we like to feel complete and in control. It is for this reason that no paradox stands between love and hate since structurally they serve as profound implications for meaning towards the Other. A love-hate relationship works because both parties come to understand not only what they truly love about the other person but what they truly hate and this multiplies the definition and structure of the relationship. In contrast, a relationship purely based off love will have no experience coping with the possibility of anger and hate, making the relationship fragile.

Conversely with hate may come the urge for vengeance—a way of getting even. A want to make that person feel the same suffering and pain and experience what it is to be you. Interestingly enough it’s this desire to make the other feel such rage that stems from the bond the two shared initially. You want to think that you’re one and of the same, as twisted as that may seem, but not at all surprising. Vengefulness is nothing new to the human (If you look at the story of The Iliad, what is considered “justice” is simply revenge upon the enemy and further one looks at the Old Testament: “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” or “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”,) just like love isn’t; in fact, they probably spawned as one.

Overall what this all boils down to be it anger, hate, dislike, and/or vengeance is really just a means of negation; which is to say, when love dissolves one is faced with the realization that there is no longer the other person to make love, and though you may still feel it, it’s a hopeless and dead-end feeling and one replaces it with hate or anger. Now whether or not this is the best solution is open to debate, but hate, anger, and vengeance are understandable and possibly expected reactions, and more often than not they’re temporary directions to accepting the fate of one’s life.

Oh the irony!

So China, possibly in an act of compensation, has set claim to the largest built penis. Erect at 30ft this Sky Pillar, as they call it, will stand in Longwan (how about Longwang?) Shaman Amusement Park, and why you ask...

Legend says a Shaman hero named Ewenki vanquished a cruel female ruler and gave her a penis totem, telling her to respect males and not kill them at will.

Who would have guessed?

Actual article.

Mix on medium until you Cream Martha Stewart

Not much to say here other than I make good cookies but fail with the mix-master.

"Do like a pony now!"

Sorry that I’ve been away, I needed a little rest, but now I’m back and do I have a dance move for you! (I've been practicing these moves for the past two weeks - time to hit the clubs.)

Watch for the lasso-move!

Games ≠ Reality -- well maybe...

Decision theory via gaming simulation has always fascinated me; the way people make decisions in a made up reality. In no way do I think simulations prima facie define the way decisions are made in a general sense but it does shed light on the contrasts of how an individual will decide in a game (non-reality) versus reality. A recent simulation was done at the University of California at Davis which pointed out a reoccurring, as they would call it, Robin Hood impulse among players – article.

Before I tear this article apart, an anecdotal insight in to the relevance of decision theory in games will serve constructive.

I played a well known massive multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) called World of Warcraft, which hitherto has 8.5 million players worldwide. The success of the game is undoubtedly due to its dynamic world and the sense of freedom guaranteed to the player. Tied in to this is luck factors, imaginary currencies, auctions, objects, trading, competition among other players/monsters, levels (prestige), the ability to talk, races, classes, professions, and fishing to fighting. Choices seem endless with people creating characters in their image, in essence living another life. Clans and guilds organize, ethics to play by contour out of chaos, players trust and work together, and certain behaviors flourish. The freedom to choose transforms players in to arbiters willing to define and judge, ultimately creating a stratification and socialization in and of itself (definition of reality) based purely on decisions and the a priori programming of the game; much like our own reality: the will of man to choose, manipulate, think, and create to a perceived world of objects, things, and others. Academically this game has been researched to a rather large extent - for being a mere game - with attention being focused on how the behaviors of people change in the game, the way people approach economics, and multiple other corollaries.

Similarly the MMORPG EVE online, an extremely realistic and social game played by thousands, has shown similar results, especially the behavior of politics. I recall my friend Jason, a dedicated player, telling me about the evolution of corporations in the game and the correlation of corporate structure to corporate success. Basically at the launch of the game various players started corporations of various structures i.e. some were egalitarian, some authoritarian, collectivist, democratic, etc. and as the years rolled by in the game, the more democratic corporations generally staggered behind the corporations that were authoritarian and direct. This is rather easy to explain: players don’t necessarily have feelings or responsibilities to worry about in a made up reality so a thuggish corporation doesn’t pose a threat to a person’s security in game, whereas in reality people generally oppose restrictions and control because it takes away from their freedom to live. This is generally the error in gauging and comparing the consensus of a game versus reality; in a game you never face genuine responsibility and death is generally nonexistent, such is not the case in reality.

In terms of the Robin Hood impulse and the game being played, in my opinion, doesn’t quite make sense in terms of reality but does make perfect sense in terms of a game. This is to say, that the study suggests that a Robin Hood impulse exist in the game but to suggest that the game shows the same impulse in reality is far stretched and clearly untrue.

“…egalitarian impulses in human nature consistently robbed from players assigned the most money while giving money to those with the least, scientists said Wednesday.”

This is incredibly misleading. In no way is human nature involved nor a hidden impulse. What is created is a game that allows players to actually be altruistic because the program allows for it. In no way is this money valuable, there’s no meaning attached to it, it’s rather easy to steal something that is valueless but there is a value in all this – character! Every player knows that there is no consequence for stealing (unrealistic in regards to all cultures), that the money doesn’t really have a function than standing for a meaningless number, and that to cooperate (think prisoners dilemma) is the best serving and easiest approach. What incentive does a person have to collect fake money?

Probably most influential to all of this is the importance we place on altruism in our society and the guilt people have for the belief in their own rational self-interest. If anything this game acted as a sublimation to rid people’s guilt of being selfish (that’s just the way we are) so much like a drug a person would be inclined to be altruistic in a game to psychologically make them feel better – altruism is simply peace of mind.

It should also be noted that the players were simply given money. In no way did they work for the money or earn the money and anyone who has worked a day in their life places a completely different value on money earned versus money handed to them without reason.

Fowler does however make note of some of this:

"I think in general we would find a preference for equality, but there may be significant variations between societies. And so it's certainly a possibility that our desire for equality is in part shaped by our upbringing,"

But continues to purport this moronic Robin Hood impulse:

"That's the classic story we all know, where someone's taking from the rich and giving to the poor, which is exactly what we're seeing in this experiment,"

Quite simply the simulation is unrealistic and harmful because people will think we’re naturally brought in to this world with the Christian ethic of altruism. Indeed humans constantly cooperate, but altruism is about being selfless whereas cooperation is about appeasing both parties self interests – big difference!

John Scones or Joan Scones

Most Canadians pronounce the word ‘scone’ /skəʊn/ (to rhyme with cone) however the alternate pronunciation /skɒn/ (to rhyme with gone) is widely used in England and often debated. In a pursuit to find the more accurate pronunciation I came across this gem.

3.1.1. Does scone more usually rhyme with John or with Joan? or even with June? British dictionaries have usually preferred /skɒn/, while recognizing the existence of /skəʊn/. The polling figures were 65% for /skəʊn/, 35% for /skɒn/, the latter gradually rising in popularity (oldest, 30%; youngest, 38%). Regionally, there was no important difference except that Scots overwhelmingly (99%) prefer the vowel of John.

I’m inclined to believe linguistically that the “cone/Joan” pronunciation is more correct in terms of phonology since it doesn’t succumb to a dialect which is probably the case with the “gone/John” variation. People don’t say stone like gone, or clone, prone, etc, so unless you’re of British descent or Scottish, the other pronunciation should be favored.

The Crop and Scarecrowites

(I can't remember when I wrote this, maybe a couple months back, but hopefully it curbs my lack of writing lately.)

Sir Robert Peel once said to Michael Faraday, “What is the use of science?” Michael Faraday responded, “What is the use of a baby?” I’ve always found this quotation curious. What was Faraday trying to suggest? To me, he was saying that though a baby appears hollow initially, with time and attention it will grow to be something magnificent – undoubtedly this is what science is.

Science not only demands attention but requires the passage of time to flourish. What we unearth when harvesting science is something called “evidence” - the agent that provides the seeds for the next yield and the next after that. Every harvest in turn becomes slightly different as time passes, but what stays the same is our attention to the crop. If neglected the crop dies and we ultimately live a life of starvation.

One can imagine a herd of men giving worship to the scarecrow in the field and never picking up the scythe to reap what sprouts around them, rather they bang ploughshares in to swords and shout, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing Scarecrow, for there is no authority except that which the Scarecrow has established.” (Romans 13:1)

Those that stay with the crop; however, become men of dynamic-thought, never sacrificing themselves to a single book or the cosmos and engage themselves in the world to achieve oneness with that of their own mind; forming individual beliefs and spare having to force them on others or impose them on blank slates. Eventually once these men of dynamic-thought pass away enlightened, they like old trees, cover much and their trunks lift to the sky. And as the generations roll by our pursuit of knowledge never caves to cave-men-absolutes, and never will it, for we only seek a belief in truth and not truth itself.

As for the Scarecrowites, they become men of static-thought, sacrificing themselves to a superior and a book comparable to Harry Potter. They will live their lives compartmentalizing their minds and become charlatans. Often they will go in to the fields and do like men of active-thought whilst holding their creeds, completely blind to the error they hold in themselves and the error they place on life. When asked to explain their actions of intolerance they selectively pick and choose from their worship baggie neglecting to see the whole picture. Often they will profess to be of a new-worship in an attempt to escape their past hypocrisy yet continually fail to realize that whim worshiping supports all whim worship.

Thus we get the dynamic-thinkers and the static-thinkers.

Science: The Dynamic-Thought

Science embodies more than just explanation and theory; it is hundreds of years of philosophy, mathematics, and art. It is the base of all good thought and the epitome of free thought. Its method lay in reevaluation and an engagement in thought. Conflict with fellow men is solved by compromise, explanation, and tolerance; though, not tolerance of intolerance.

Religion: The Static-Thought

Religion by itself and used as tool, not an end-all-know-all, shows mans creative force to represent the aesthetics of this world. In Psalms and the Song of Solomon great poetry is revealed, Job and Ezekiel give philosophy luminosity, suras in the Qur’an provide historical references that provide interesting correlations with other divine scriptures, the Torah purports understandable laws to be considered, Sanskrit scriptures (my personal favorite) philosophically introduce questions of being, and the list goes on. But there’s a forbidden fruit, a rotten apple in the bunch – absoluteness. It plagues religions with an underserved power, gives power to the weak and apathetic, and makes man blind. Fueled by certitude the common follower is made to feel just comfortable and the fanatic leaves reality completely, but they all eat from the same hand.