double blind

I find that when I am tired I am more likely to develop a thought roll but the longer I wait to write it down, the less sense it makes, much like dreams which vanish with time

I read an article that confirmed a belief I had concerning the efficacy of self-motivation, it stated that a personal goal is more likely to be accomplished when it is not public, interestingly, I am unsure if the reason I remember this article is because it agreed with my previous concept, if I had not found this article would I be so sure about its veracity (the idea not the article) and indeed would I have been open to contrasting beliefs if the article had found scientifically otherwise?

Is it possible that my subconscious is smart enough to have realized my conscious is defective? or the other way around? I don’t believe I am schizophrenic, but I sure sound like it sometimes, especially when I take care to document my beliefs and rationalizations rather than relying purely on memory.

This is the reason that I believe that all scientific research needs to be double blind, if you know the answer, the question is not real, it is merely an opinion in question form and those can be made to say anything

the american dream

The American Dream was never about wealth. Our ancestors did not come to America with aspirations of riches and decadence. Instead they came because they responded to our belief in hope. They heard of the vast opportunities and limitless horizons and hoped they could just have a chance at that. They knew what they were getting themselves into, they were crowded on the same boats as everyone else, waited in the lines our our shores just like everyone else and were confronted with the cold reality that once they got here, no one was going to be looking out for them.

That was perhaps the best thing that could have happened to them because they realized the importance of self-reliance, independence, and perseverance, but perhaps most importantly they realized the importance of community. Whether it was in the crime families from Italy or the residential neighborhoods like Chinatown or Germantown, they came to understand the value of extensive support systems designed to maintain if not promote the common good. The ones who made something of themselves, managed to become wealthy or influential because they knew the value of this and fed it.

Rockefeller and Carnegie donated most of their money back to public and community groups, they gave tirelessly to valuable charities which often provided care and comfort when government and corporate entities could or would not. Their kind is not forgotten as even today Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have donated most of their money to funding organizations that benefit communities. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does today what Carnegie did a hundred years ago for libraries but also has a program for international health care.

This good will has been copied by corporations who understand the best way to maintain a positive image with their customers is to give back to the communities that they reside in. The beauty of this system is that it was created naturally by pressure in economic markets not imposed iron-handedly by well meaning but mortal overseers. The benefit derived from this is that it creates a self-supporting and self-correcting system, one that responds naturally to cyclical changes rather than tyrannically by laws and regulations and avoids excessive resentment by the givers and receivers.

To see how the system has failed, or at least failed to succeed, one needs only to look at how the government works. While much good comes from government agencies, many feel left out and a growing resentment exists. The top down enforcement of mandatory regulations and a codified system results in a bureacratic and sometimes draconian organization out of necessity and liability rather than purpose and intent.

FEMA is a prime example of governing agencies being limited by and strictly subject to a style of charity and community service. After hurricane Katrina, donations both private and federal were piped in to aid in the rescue and rebuilding work required after the devastation. While many were more than happy to give their money and time, many were not or were at least hesitant. This was not because of a lack of empathy or sympathy, but rather a sense of resentment towards the recipients of their charity who lived in such a high risk areas.

This debate extened beyond Katrina and included the victims of hurricane disaster survivors who repeatedly refused to leave their homes. This characterization is unfair for many. Many could not leave because of a lack of transportation or congestion on the highways, many would have had to sacrifice their homes which too often was all they had. FEMA has recently enacted new policies limiting the amount of aid they can provide various organizations and individuals. The result is pressure on survivors to move away or pay enormous insurance rates to live in their traditional homes. Hard working citizens unaffected by these disasters are tired of their taxes going to buy other people’s new homes. This dichotomy fosters the resentment that leads to conservative or liberal biases.

The problem arises from the perception of freeloaders, but if we can all agree that in every modern society, such a problem will exist to an extent then we can begin to attack the solvable problems and isolate others. We can all agree that the people affected by the wildfires in California, the hurricanes in Florida and the south, tornadoes in the Midwest and floods nationwide deserve aid when the crisis becomes too gargantuan for their communities to prevent or recover from. Taking this into account with our previous assumption that freeloaders tend to exist, we should come to realize that our resentment lies not with the needy but the greedy.

Beyond this is the fundamental issue of money. Most of us do not have all the money of a Bill Gates so we assume that we can not help much. This misconception comes from a tendency to desire immediate gratification and immediate results. We look at the work that modern philanthropists do and see the thousands of computers they purchase for libraries and compare that with the child we have taught to use one computer and see the enormous disparity. We loook at the millions contributed to Katrina victims and compare it to the few houses we may have helped build and dispair at the work remaining to be done. Many of us are content to donate money to charities as a tithe of our generosity and compassion but we have forgotten what those charities are intended for, namely to provide support systems. Donations only work when there are people willing to put that money to good use in a community whether that is disaster relief or providing food to local homeless shelters.

People can only be as strong as their weakest moments but with a strong support systems, with well organized, well meaning, volunteer driven community organizations, everyone should have others to turn to in time of need. That is what people with limited means can donate: their time.

master of all disciplines

There will be people who specialize in something and people who are jack of all trades, but sometimes you have jack of all trades who are capable of recognizing the vast interconnectedness of various specialization and attempt to make a point of enlightening others but since this concept is relatively complicated for masses to grasp these jack of all trades are ignored or forgotten because their idea is not as profound or poignant as specialists who typically can produce more immediate results. The net effect is a gradual growth toward a singular moment, when specialists finally realize that their niches and individual lines of thought do tend to be interconnected and their exists an interplay of their specific ideas within other disciplines, much like a thread is twisted into a braid which is twisted into stronger rope.

To use a non-specific historical example, imagine a king who conquers all the lands in his region and defeats his enemies. Ultimately, the king dies and his well groomed heir is a good administrator but realizes that there are enemies beyond his conquered territories, if he is a smart king, he learns  how to be a great general in battle as well as a great administrator, otherwise he turns to a strong general or is deposed. If he becomes a great general, he defeats the outsiders and the unity of the empire remains; if he turns to a strong general or fails at all to resist marauders, he either is overwhelmed by the invaders or deposed by the general because of the general’s might and hero status. If he is an exceptionally good king and has a son to succeed him, he will teach him the value of the lessons he learned and his son will be a good general and administrator but perhaps all this wars have strained the economy and money is tight and the citizens become disgruntled under heavy taxes, a truly great king might learn the value of trade and diplomacy with neighboring nations, herein lies a troublesome hurdle because it requires that the neighboring kings are friendly and wish to trade rather than conquer, but for arguments sake we will assume that it is a more modern era and warfare has become a means of last resort for other civilized nations… etc, eventually the best kings become masters of all disciplines, ideally being able to handle all problems which may arise and capable of looking for answers to new unexpected ones.

This is the way science and culture and society must and eventually, will evolve, because life is a grand experiment, history has taught us as much. The Roman Empire rose and fell as did the Empires of Genghis Kahn, the Chinese, the British, even our own American “empire”, we have learned that if an experiment  fails, whether its be because of war, disease or a more gradual decline, there is always another group or individual waiting in the wings to pick up where the others failed.

Depths

Cliche perhaps, but true. Why write from the depths of depression? So as to let everyone else know that you were there too and survived.

Hobby town

I know why people fall in love with their hobbies and hate their work. It is depressing to think about life in terms of the work you have to do in order to get by, instead be uplifted by the joy you get from the hobby that helps you get through.

Resignation

I look at my life and want there to be some order. At the same time I abhor order and it ability to turn mundane. Out side the box is no where to live bit inside the box is no way to live. Cliche, trite, call this what you will but it can cause a person fits to be so conflicted by the two things he confides in. I will say, talking about my life forces me to examine it, and comprehend it in a way that it is easy for the cursory glance to ignore. I try to find a unifying theme in my life but fail because I make a conscious effort to reject being stereotyped. I realize this sounds like a person who can’t make up their mind about the direction they want to live their life, exactly because that is what it is. I want to be happy, but on both sides of the aisle I see too many examples of unhappiness or worse resignation. Interesting word that is because it could be used to define our country and not be far from the truth. More later.

Evolution

I have long been fascinated by evolution, both the core concept and as it applies to species and societies. It is not impossible, I believe, for a person to grow or evolve in the same way technology does, slowly at first then exponentially to a plateau where they need assistance or else they need support to prevent a fall. This may not make much sense initially, but I believe I am making a valid point that will eventually congeal into a more refined and salient discussion.

Mind game

Nuerotic to the bone no doubt about it. Color me unimpressed. Sleep does not provide comfort the way it used to, if it ever did at all. Perhaps it is just a learned behavior like comfort eating, if so you can add that to the list of things I need to change. Thanks negative influences.

the information age

A Call to Arms

The information age is part of our natural cycle, an attempt by our hopeful subconcious to catch up with the progress we have managed to so quickly attain. We have reached a plateau and are afraid of the cliff despite the peak. The rise of information and social networks allow individuals of common interest to conerse freely. Because communication and information are such critical parts of the puzzle, much time will be spent creating the ultimate seemless interface which will allow later inventors to cooperate more fluidly and dynamically. While the major theorectical research is still being done by those in the think tanks and labratories, is is the rebirth of the common man’s practical application of technology and necessity that will begin to progress us again toward the future that we had almost forgotten.

I don’t want to go visit my friends in another city because I don’t think they would make the same effort to go see me exclusively, only as a tertiary bonus of seeing an old friend. As much as I pride myself on striving to foster change through my actions, there will always be people on whom those actions have little to no effect; so much so that I it is not worth the time and effort. Is this hypocrisy or merely good logic?