86) Volunteer to Understand

My type of thinking music:

For a friend and my own sanity, I'd like to share with you a glimpse into some of my philosophical beliefs. I'll try to be reasonable (no guarantees).

A) The meaningless of life.

I've always been one to believe that philosophers and people curious about life were always lacking in a meaningful aspect of their lives. Maybe they were just overly curious. It saddens me to know that there are alot of lives in constant turmoil from trying to ask questions they can never really answer.

The longing to know information is very powerful. It can consume people as a dangerous obsession, that being able to understand might grant satisfaction. Luckily, people are smart enough to choose to be ignorant, or otherwise the phrase "ignorance is bliss" would carry little weight.

Which, in the end, explains my somewhat pessimistic view on life, this world, and the people in it. If understanding won't grant satisfaction or bliss, then it's safe to assume that there are simply things not worth understanding. That being said, many things are apt to be meaningless. I'm simply more inclined than my peers to believe that life may be meaningless.

Or to put it another way:

1) There are things we cannot understand.
2) What we cannot understand may be due to its property of being meaningless.
3) Life and existence may be subjectively incapable of being understood.

From 2 and 3:

4) Life and existence may be meaningless.

Let's ignore for a moment the numerous fallacies you could point out in this crude proof. Also notice I left in ambiguity by using the words "may be" in 2 and 3 instead of "is".

It is indeed a grim possibility I've come to believe in. With all the bad about humanity I've seen and written about it, I can't help but wonder if this way of thinking is indeed my own subconscious need for emotional satisfaction by understanding the meaningless behind meaning.

But that would mean that the meaning behind something meaningless has meaning, and I've just stumbled into a vicious regress.

Perhaps instead of fixating on the pessimistic feel of the glass of life being half full, I should wonder where the hell my sandwich is. Or if it exists at all.

B) Conceptional nonexistence.

Imagine for a second that the infinite universe theory is true. That besides our own world and universe, an infinite amount of other universes and worlds exist which account for every possible given scenario and variation. There are other worlds exactly like ours (down to the last molecule and timeline), worlds that are are slightly different (a world where Obama is not the current president), and worlds that are wildly different (filled without physics and inhabited by sentient cupcakes, etc.).

Given that these universes and worlds do in fact exist, we can assume they have validity in their presence and containing structures. In other words, we can assume that their philosophies, laws of nature, and overall meaning, etc. have validity and we would not be prohibited in comparing them to our own reality (assuming this is true, I have just proved validity by simply describing this fact).

In our world, murder is looked down upon (by most) because of ethical and moral standards we've set for ourselves and our societies. It is frowned upon to take a life that is sentient and living because we can associate feelings of guilt and shame for doing so.

Now, imagine another world where the concept of murder does not exist. Killing another person in this world does not have any moral, ethical, or legal consequences. It is as natural as breathing and there are no feelings associated with it. Nobody gains or loses anything from it. It simply is. There is no social stigma against killing. Here, you can choose to chainsaw the guy next to you and no one would even blink.

So from our standpoint, would we abhor killing in this alternate world, even though nobody there has any problem with it? Even though people in that world don't have the concept of murder?

What I'm trying to get at here is that our social rules, ethics, and laws exist according to the society and surroundings we grow up in. If we are taught that murder is wrong and accept that fact, we will regard it as true. However, what's important to understand is that these are concepts. Concepts are ideas that matter only if we give them coherence and existence. As such, morality involving right and wrong exist because we believe they exist.

So what's the problem with that? Concepts are non physical. They are in our minds. Humans simply made them up. There is no rule that says just because we believe in an idea and practice it, it is real and exists in the universe. It does not mean it has a real basis or is meaningful or important. If I tell you unicorns are real, you can believe that concept and give it life and meaning. But that does not mean unicorns exist. You simply wouldn't know. You can just accept it for what it is because it makes you feel better and helps you sleep at night.

The very same applies to morals. We don't follow them because we know without question that the universe tells us they are real and important. We follow them because we made them up and gave them meaning. We all follow them and acknowledge they are real because we believe they will make us happy and ordered. In a sense, all ideas and concepts are fiction. We are the authors, and we decided this is the story we will live by. Writing down the story on paper does not make it any more real if we choose not to give it meaning.

In the end, it might turn out that nothing exists. After all, physicality and existence are concepts. The words you read right now might not mean anything because none it might be real. We can't fathom what existence is because anything we use to describe it might not exist. There is no satisfiable metaphysical way to justify that reality is in fact real.

So in a way, existence does not exist because we have no way of knowing it exists.

My brain hurts. Good thing the concept of pain might not be "real".

C) The infinite marathon of fear.

Given that concepts might not exist, humans can create anything to be happy in reality. With a clean slate, we could imagine and live in a world where anything is possible if we choose to validate its concepts. We can create a society where we worship a color for half a day or require everyone to jump off a cliff when they become parents.

In our society, we have rules and morals that we follow because they make us orderly, happy, secure, and satisfied. However, it is a personal code. There is a different code for every person and society that exists in the world. You might think cursing is wrong, I might think it is right. It all depends on what set of morals and ethics you were raised on. Everyone has their own perceptions on life and how they choose to live it.

There is no hard and fast rule that everyone follows to make themselves happy and emotionally satisfied. We pick the set of rules we know and stick to them because they give us safety and emotional satisfaction. It justifies our lives and our existences. It allows us to have variations and differences of opinion. It allows us to live differently from the person next to us.

How would life be if we all had the same morals, ethics, and rules? A universal way of belief, some miracle truth that allowed us to coexist? Would we all act the same? Would we have eternal peace and harmony?

The truth is that society and its rules are lies, fiction that we create because we need order. It lets us believe that there is a plan, that there is meaning, that we have a purpose. It lets us escape the prospect of nothing. It is our way of defending against chaos. Chaos is uncontrolled, unpredictable, and unstable. Our fear of chaos far outstrips our fear of order.

That is why people begrudgingly accept governments that abuse them. They inherently know that the alternative is worse. Even if we choose to overthrow the current government, the end result is always the same: we simply create another government that was different from the former. It feels natural and safe to organize and order our lives. It is how we survive.

The problem is that it does not work.

Humans are not meant to be organized and orderly. We are animals and savages, no matter how much we pretend not to be. Elevating ourselves to be cultured and mannered to set up societies and governments does not eliminate murder, theft, or war. We create order because we do not trust ourselves. We live lives of hypocrisy and delusion that suppress what we were designed for. Humans are too unstable and random to control their emotions and actions. We are designed mentally and physically to be unable to control ourselves based on what happens around us.

If you are able to look past the rules and order, you will be able to find freedom. You are able to follow instincts and do as your humanity and physiology demands. That chaos is the zeal of anarchy that attracts so many people. Problem is, anarchy does not thrive because the people who fear chaos will always outnumber the people who don't.

To be truly free, you have to get over your fear of chaos and embrace its hold on what you cannot control about anything. You must let go of any fear or impulse against what you are. It is to understand that every controlling aspect about yourself does not matter and means nothing. That nothing might mean nothing. You have to able to embrace the human imperfections that go against your will to survive. You have to be able to accept that the price of freedom is the compromise of your safety. You might die.

Fear not death, and you shall be free.

It is a price many of us are unwilling to pay. It is impossible for many of us to simply unlearn all those centuries of ancestral experiences with law and order. After all, if your parents did not follow society and decided to be free and dead, you would never have been born.

It is my firm belief that the happiness we seek, the eternal satisfaction, lies in that deathly freedom. It is the freedom to do anything without rules or consequences, to accomplish your wildest dreams and fantasies without fear. Why else would I suggest an end to society? We shouldn't need society to restrict our search for bliss.

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, the argument brings up a good question. What is ultimate satisfaction and happiness worth to you? Is it worth your life?

----------------------------------------

This was all a short glance into my misguided and fractured philosophy. Hope I made you think.

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to understand another person's perspective. If I'm lucky, I'll force you to do something I bet you rarely do:

Challenge your beliefs.

62) Wolverines!

Damn it THQ. You and your creative minds stealing my video game ideas. Or maybe we're just both that good at predicting the future.

Their newest project in development is a game based on current political headlines. It's about the North Korean Army invading U.S. soil after things go bad. The title of this new game, Homefront, pretty much says it all. Check out the trailer:

As this article so clearly states (Alt video link in there too), the game is turning heads because it's based on today's political troubles. People often forget that North Korea likes to play with nukes. Or as my friends love to deflect: "If it ever happened, we'd nuke their asses."

And so hypotheticals are becoming eerily true. With the ailing Kin Jong-il standing down, it seems that his successor, Kim Jong-un, couldn't possibly make things worse. Or at the very least, he couldn't make things any better.

But as our fictional trailer illustrates, America is more than likely to tread a hard path in the future. Not to say that the U.S. is actually going to get invaded, but then again, North Korea has the capacity to copy American foreign policy: "Bullets solve problems."

If it happens, let's hope they don't crack open the nukes.

At the very least, this game is some delightful political commentary, if not just an excuse to switch public enemy number one from Nazis to Communists. Gamers are so tired of shooting Nazis in their favorite World War 2 video game that they've even explored the next best option: Nazi Zombies.

Thing is, I could actually see the United States starting this entire thing. I stick to my motto: "When the shit hits the fan, and the U.S. is involved, it suddenly becomes life, liberty, and the pursuit of crappiness."

Which brings me to my next question: How many wars will be fought in my lifetime? Scratch that. It's how many wars I will help fight in my lifetime.

And so if it starts with the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan and ends in North Korean control of the world, is that really such a bad thing?

Think about it: an entire world united in peace and prosperity, with the only real war coming from civil unrest, which could only help fuel improvement. Everyone's happy, and we advance as a society that got past that ugly thing called war. Problem is, you can't make a utopia without killing alot of people.

Sure they say that democracy is the best, but more than two hundred years of American policy has produced ALOT of wars, at a frequency, ferocity, and aimlessness the human race hasn't see since the Crusades.

And while the U.S. wastes away in the Middle East causing more and more deaths, we're still arguing over whether we should allow gays to serve openly. If I showed you a picture of three caskets and told you one of them was gay, could you tell me which one it is?

But back to our Korean point. With North Korea supposedly having free: housing, food rations, healthcare, and an educational system sporting a 99% literacy rate, some might argue that personal liberties are worth giving up for this society. Just don't ask too many questions if your neighbor suddenly disappears one day.

They also make some damn nice music:

At least the citizenry can act happy. I'm guessing if they believe it hard enough, it'll become true. I've seen enough of American democracy to want to know what it's like on the other side. Only for perspective, of course. Wouldn't want to be labeled any kind of traitor. That would be the worst.

But don't take my word for it, go watch The Vice Guide to North Korea. Once in a lifetime show:

And if there is indeed no heaven on earth, then we can all just wait to die. Sit back and watch the world destroy itself in a fallout shelter.

61) United

Remember when I told you about that speck of light in that new technological monument? You know, that Halo: Reach thingy?

Now that the game's been out for awhile, the monument has finally shut down (a personal Facebook message told me so), so let's take a look back on what was accomplished here.

Over the course of about a month, 118,422 people used their Facebook pages to post a contribution to the memorial. That's not counting the people who visited the site and didn't have an Facebook to contribute. (Rare these days, no?)

The dots came from all over the world, stretching from Milan to Osaka. Hell, they made a video about it:

In that earlier post, I talked about being united, having a sense of belonging. It all becomes much more satisfying once you know the numbers and statistics behind this little advertising campaign. People all over the world, many of whom will never meet each other, used the internet to share a single common passion. It's difficult to grasp that something like this, especially for a video game, could've happened just little over a decade ago.

That's what the internet revolution has done for us. If the new Facebook movie is any indication, it's that the internet plays a vital role in our lives. Instead of us mastering it, it now has the ability to master us.

It has the potential to bring us to tears, make us laugh, do stupid things, etc. Next to that, you've got the cultivation of a new online language as legal as ebonics, pictures of cats and their witty captions, or Youtube videos of morons hurting themselves.

I admit even I feel a bit internet incompetent sometimes. Coming from a seventeen-year old that spends 50% of his time on a computer, this might seem blasphemous. But then again, you don't see alot of seventeen year-olds these days convey information in readable grammar and spelling. (I try, anyway) Some of my peers would find this revulsive, just as their English teachers would cry tears over their texts.

Even a youngster like me can't help but feel a little slow when it comes to texting, Twittering, etc. I don't do texting or Twittering, but the fear exists in me that someday I might be forced to do it for some job or something.

Technology is indeed growing more generational by the day. Why a couple of days ago, I had a good laugh when my English teacher couldn't make his projector connect to his laptop. I sensed that he could feel our snickering eyes follow his every action, but when he finally got it to work, there was a loud and clear "Ha!" directed right back at us.

So there exists the possibility that when I'm old enough to be a sagacious teacher, I won't be able to keep up with technological trends. Who knows? By then paper books might be extinct, or they've perfected installing whole computers into a chip that can plug into your head.

At least I won't go it alone. As a generation, we can be united. Not necessarily to control the world with technology, but rather provide a voice of reason against technology controlling us.

For now, I can settle for being number 81,361 out of 118,422 little dots, all soldiers of an online generation.

Book Review: Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue In the Land of the Free

Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, is a rant conceived by Charles P. Pierce against the declining intelligence of America and its tendency to veer towards ignorance over experience. At the very least, it is a rant against the Republican right of United States politics.

This book is what you would get if you had to write down what a drunken Holden Caulfield and Bill O' Reilly had to say about American truth. It is a rant on the existence of fact smeared by the American tendency to ignore empirical truth and sell ideas, no matter how crazy and unbelievable.

That said, Pierce lays out the three main points of his theory:

1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.

2) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.

3) Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.

These three mantras pervade the book in a serious of examples from modern history, jumping from the crazy rantings of Ignatius Donnelly, the conspiracy of Templars, Terri Shiavo, and finally, the ineptitude surrounding 9/11 and its subsequent war.

All these examples are present to showcase the American twisting of truth and lies to destroy the facts along with any sensibilities that came with them. Most of the blame falls on the Republicans and their ineptitude surrounding many situations.

This is all presented in a series of nonlinear summaries of events introduced and ended by descriptive narratives to pull sympathy for Pierce's point of view. It jumps chapter to chapter with a different approach, sometimes going back to an original allegory of Madison and his vision of future America.

Some will find this format jarring, but Pierce's style forces you to focus on his points both independently and joined in the context of Idiot America. His endless capacity for references and wry cynicism also serves to bring a smile to your face, provided you know what he's talking about.

Perhaps I'm too young to understand the political motivations behind this book, but it seems to me that this rant does not serve its purpose well. The book jabs conservative rights with insult, as if Pierce is on some personal vendetta rather than just criticizing what he doesn't like.

Some people will undoubtedly find this book altogether unreadable as a whole, but I have to stress that any Republican with enough self esteem can put the book down and walk away as if this piece of literature were a insane hobo on steroids. It has a penchant for merciless opinion that forces the reader to challenge everything they've ever seen on the news or read in a newspaper. The pessimistic truth spells out that our search for actual truth is a waste of time.

That being said, I can't help but revel in the irony set by Pierce's three points. With his book being a national bestseller, wouldn't that make his theory irrefutable, even if it was utter bullshit? After wrapping my head around this, I couldn't stop smiling for a whole hour.

The fact of the matter is, the real "truth" is dependent of existentialist perspective. Pierce gives us his perspective and argues that the American standard for truth is deluded with misinformation that comes with popularity. Fine, we can pack that up in a box and put it in the theory storage warehouse.

But when you try to answer the question of what is true and what is not, you delve into a philosophical cluster bomb that undoubtedly differs from person to person. If you follow Pierce's pessimistic view to heart, you begin to realize that nothing you've been taught is true. You can only question the truth behind the truth, and so on. It becomes an infinite circle of existential crises.

If you decide to read this book, take it for face value. The very least it can give you is some perspective on American politics and media and their respective shortcomings. If it isn't your cup of tea twenty pages in, no one's forcing you to keep reading.

49) Day In The Life of Your Son

Welcome to another crazy addition of the ranting YOMcast, where we explore the vestige of the once great American middle class, economic admissions on Meet the Press by David Gregory and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the hypocrisy of gay anti-gay politicians, listen to some Bubblegum Crises, marvel at India's newest cheap computer tablet, wait anxiously on a movie about Facebook, and look at Youtube's ambitious "Life in a Day" project.