"... maybe hypocrisy is a natural ingredient of an effective moral system." says Robert Wright.

Like we're all supposed to hold each other to a higher standard than we ourselves meet. This encourages others to hold us to a higher standard in turn, and so we all force each other to at least pretend to be moral.

Well, that's one way to look at it. Fake it until you make it, I suppose. It's also a recipe for alienation. But I guess someone might say alienation is a small price to pay.

Ultimately the only measure of existence is how much universe you displace.

"I am not alone". Of all realizations, what could be more threatening? What could be more comforting?

Logic is a feature of the substrate.

"Potential energy" is a rather humble term to designate something as jarring as the opposition of the universe to itself.

A man leans way out over the edge, held by the people behind him. The thing is just barely out of reach. He strains for it. Behind him, on the faces of the people, concern and malice.

"The center of the sun" is a rigid designator. (It has also been rigidly designated at the title of a really good song: http://ping.fm/xuxUl )

Philosophy is definitely an off-label use of the human brain.

The utilitarian ethic is a frail and backwards ethic. It seeks to describe human actions as subject to human reason, when in fact it is not reason that compels us to live and survive; that drives us towards pleasure and away from pain. These values are imposed upon us. Reason has always been the slave of blind passion. Only in chains does reason find for itself a new motivation beyond the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. Thus science, thus art, thus culture. It is a mistake to say we prefer knowledge, truth, and beauty, because these things are useful. On the contrary, they are useful because we prefer them.

To create art, first you have to see what isn't there. Then you have to show it to someone else.

Postmodernism is the field of discourse which deals with the question, "what is postmodernism?"

On about how psychiatrists are today's secular priests. The scientologists are right about that much.

The problem with this life thing is, nobody knows what to want.

Every social institution is built around a kernel of necessary bullshit. None of us believes is, but in order for the thing to hold together it is crucial that we all SAY we believe it.

The fundamentalist is one who mistakes the game, and accidentally believes the bullshit.

Who among us has not made this mistake at one time or another?

We say we have an "intuitive" grasp of the things we know but cannot explain.

Man is a network.

The aesthetic enjoyment of tragedy. We know that it's just a story, and at the same time we recognize that it's very real. Our recognition off--and feeling of detachment from--the emotional content is what makes the thing enjoyable. We understand it could happen to us, we know how it would feel, and we see ourselves as contemplating it all from a safe distance. This ironic, distanced view of life's drama characterizes the best of our human experience, I think.

It's just that I don't believe in revelation. Or rather, I believe in the experience of revelation, but I think the contents of revelation need to be mediated through reason in order to become a part of social reality. Reason is the tool for conveying private truths publicly.

Of course you can never see your own future, because once you've seen it, it's no longer your future. You could see the future of things over which you have no causal influence, of course. But why would you want to do that?

ボロマケしながら「余裕だぜ！」と叫ぶ自分ｗ

In order to laugh at oneself, one must do something interesting. One must cease to identify with oneself, if only for a moment. How remarkable that we are able to do something as absurd, and as important, as suspending identification with our own self.

apeloads

To do:

1. Get a cat
2. Name it "Katya"
3. Feel pleased with self.

Maybe volition is just compulsion that you know about.

t0kt0k sent you a playlist: "Noam Chomsky @ Boston College [Feb 2009]"

	help center | e-mail options | report spam
t0kt0k has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. Hi. I thought you guys might like to know about this. -- t0kt0k Noam Chomsky @ Boston College [Feb 2009] Noam Chomsky speaking at Boston College on US foreign policy, the role of the media, and other topics.
© 2009 YouTube, LLC

Slavoj Žižek - Violence Interview (part 5/5)

Grounded critique of capitalism. In essence, it's going to end either way, so we'd better start looking for a new direction in the meantime.

Sedition -- by Edmund Vance Cook

Sedition
By Edmund Vance Cook
1917

You cannot salt the eagle's tail
Nor limit thought's dominion
You cannot put ideas in jail
You can't deport opinion

If any cause be dross and lies
Then drag it to the light
Out in the sunshine evil dies
But fattens on the night

You cannot make a truth untrue
By dint of legal fiction
You cannot imprison human view
You can't convict conviction

For though by thumbscrew and by rack
By exile and by prison
Truth has been crushed and palled and black
The truth has always risen

You cannot quell a vicious thought
Except that thought be free
Gag it, and you'll find it taught
On every land and sea

Truth asks no favor for her blade
Upon the field with error
Nor are her converts ever made
By threat of force and terror

You cannot salt the eagle's tail
Nor limit thought's dominion
You cannot put ideas in jail
You can't deport opinion

porn for robots

mmmm.. data

Hilary Hahn - Der Erlkoenig

Oh Bumbo Klaat

t0kt0k sent you a playlist: "U. Utah Phillips"

	help center | e-mail options | report spam
t0kt0k has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. U. Utah Phillips His performance at the Spring 2007 Strawberry Music Festival.
© 2008 YouTube, LLC

Language and the Mind Revisited - The Rest of the World

Language and the Mind Revisited - The Biolinguistic Turn

Obama's Non-Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

Barack Obama is a master of ambiguity and deception. Even though he manages to project an image of being against the Iraq War his statements leave no hope for any resolution. This article details his various statements and shows how he creates an image that he has no intention of living up to.

read more | digg story

THE PLEASURE OF FINDING THINGS OUT (part 5 of 5)

A hero of mine.

Iraq/Military-Industrial Complex/The Ruling Class

Iraq/Military-Industrial Complex/The Ruling Class

*THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CONTROLS THIS GOVERNMENT!*

t0kt0k sent you a playlist: "Physics 10 - Physics for Future Presidents"

	help center | e-mail options | report spam
t0kt0k has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. Physics 10 - Physics for Future Presidents Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents. Spring 2006. Professor Richard A. Muller. The most interesting and important topics in physics, stressing conceptual understanding rather than math, with applications to current events.
© 2008 YouTube, Inc.

t0kt0k sent you a playlist: "Physics 10 - Physics for Future Presidents"

	help center | e-mail options | report spam
t0kt0k has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. Physics 10 - Physics for Future Presidents Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents. Spring 2006. Professor Richard A. Muller. The most interesting and important topics in physics, stressing conceptual understanding rather than math, with applications to current events.
© 2008 YouTube, Inc.

Quantum Mechanics: Feynman Diagram

Richard Feynman talks about light

quikscript

Bubblegum Crisis - Asu e touch down

Chomsky - Perle Debate - Part 8

片山ゲリオン

ATL Hoodrat aka SOULJA GIRL REMIX!!!

(no subject)

* c^q has joined #obama
<humanerror> At any rate, even knowing that Fox News is lies doesn't
make you immune to it.
<humanerror> I know that the sexy lady on TV drinking a coke is only
doing it because they paid her to.
<humanerror> But the advertisement still works.
<humanerror> The defining characteristic of propaganda is that it
appeals to the emotions. It suberts, bypasses, or ignores reason and
goes straight for a conditioned or reflexive response.
<humanerror> The part of my brain that makes me look at the sexy lady
and then associates that with the coke logo has nothing to do with the
part of my brain that objectively decides what drinks are worth buying
and consuming. And when I go to the store, I have to bring both of those
parts of my brain along. They both get a say.
<humanerror> In the same way, when Fox News and MSNBC and CNN and the
lot create their TV personalities, even if you know that they're all
reading from scripts and that it's all crafted specifically to make them
sound good and win votes
<humanerror> You still get the image of "Grandpa war hero", "Articulate
black friend", "Strong women's rights supporter"
<humanerror> or "Guy I'd like to have a beer with"
<dipwood> articulate black friend
<humanerror> things that are meant to appeal to you (or repulse you)
without appealing to your reason or intellect at all.
<humanerror> and it works. even if you see it for what it is.
<dipwood> what the fuck are you talking about
<dipwood> shutup

(no subject)

we are seeking a collective understanding

COMMUNICATION

insane means we can't communicate with
can't share our experience of the world, or share in their experience

'moral sentiments' based on similarity of others' experiences to our own
we rejoice when they are similar.. when our experiences seem to converge

we're looking for a coherent and shared reality

Bush: Are you a servant, or an enemy?

Serve us, or face our wrath.
This goes for the US population as well

Democracy Now's Amy Goodman plays Hardball

Knifin Around

US policy in the Middle East-Noam Chomsky

Emailing: Screen_003.JPG

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Screen_003.JPG

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Flipmode

(no subject)

"Why do we have consciousness? is like asking why the ocean is wet.
Consciousness is not some special added feature; it's just what it feels
like when a central nervous system configured like ours processes
stimuli, recognizes patterns, sends and modulates signals to various
parts of the body, and goes about doing all those other things our
central nervous systems do.

So, you say, "why does it feel like anything, though? Why should it feel
like something to be alive"? Again, it's semantics. It feels like this
because we use the word "feel" to describe what this feels like. We made
that word to describe this phenomenon. We call it feeling, and that's
what it is. From the point of view of a rock, it probably feels like
being a rock. I doubt being a rock feels like being a human and having
consciousness, but there's no way the rock could tell us what it does
feel like, even if it could talk. Language requires common experience.
We all have it because we are all humans and we're all wired pretty much
the same way.

There isn't a special part of the brain that is the "conscious mind".
The mind is modular, with many different parts performing many different
tasks at the same time. You may think that the subvocalizing you're
doing right now as you read this is happening in some special, central
control room in your head, but it isn't. You're processing it in your
language center while other parts of you are thinking just as hard and
in exactly the same way about the temperature in your room, the noises
around you, what you were reading before you started on this post, what
you'll do as soon as you finish it, and a million other things.
Eventually you'll get to the end of this post — or you'll get bored and
give up on reading this — and you'll have to form a connection with the
part of your brain that has the information about what you were doing,
and what you're planning to do next. You'll probably subvocalize that
information to yourself again at that point, check it over to make sure
it makes sense and sounds right and that you still want to do it, and
then another part of your brain will stat making preparations to act on
it. All of this is happening, and would continue to happen even if that
part of your brain that "feels" like a voice in your head was burned out
and destroyed right now. With a big chunk missing from your language
processing center, you'd be unable to talk for a while, but you could
function normally in every single other way. And in all likelihood your
brain would eventually form new connections and you'd be up and talking
again, using a different part of your brain that got reassigned to the
task. But none of those parts are more or less conscious than the others.

Id/ego dichotomy, mind/body dichotomy, probably even self/other
dichotomy. These are useful models and useful tools, but they're not
truths and shouldn't be treated as such. We're all part of the same
soup, and the only reason you don't feel your keyboard is because your
nerves aren't wired to it. It's still no less a part of you than your
hand, really.

Matt Gonzalez-The Dems Complicity in the War Pt. 4 of 5

90% civilian deaths in iraq

(no subject)

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1202410&fr=

Sweep the leg, Jeffrey! The leg!

(no subject)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeFDFQsoRKU
This is actually how Kurt Cobain originally intended the song to be
played, but they didn't have enough ukuleles.

(no subject)

Attention Americans: America is a one-party government. Republicans and
Democrats are two factions of the same party; the corporate party. Or if
you want to be more accurate about the party that supports merging
business and state authority while maintaining the trappings of
representative democracy, call it the Democratic Fascism party. And
that's the only choice we get because the corporations decide who you
hear about.

Do you think Obama is not a member of corporate party? Do you think he's
not another spokesperson for the military industrial complex? Do you
think he doesn't fully believe in the US's permanent war economy? Look
behind his charisma, at his policies. He wants to expand the military,
yes he does. He wants to increase US unilateralism and intervention
around the world, yes he does. He wants to leave a permanent force of
upwards of 20,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, yes he does.

Look for yourself:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
QUOTE "Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military
needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active
force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000
soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

QUOTE "Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly
supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and
incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security
of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports
this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance
itself from Israel."

QUOTE "Bring a Brutal Warlord to Justice: Former Liberian President
Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by
international prosecutors. After taking the presidency following a
brutal civil war that decimated Liberia's population, Taylor created a
rebel group that fought in neighboring Sierra Leone's civil war."

Digg me down if you wish, but you'll only be helping to keep people from
discovering where their interests really lie. If nobody is allowed to
say that all of our candidates are pro-war and pro-corporation, then it
will never change. It's okay to like Obama (I like him myself), but
please know exactly what you're supporting.

(no subject)

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/28/amy_goodman_questions_sen_obama_on

What's amazing is how willing people are to actively participate in
their own indoctrination. I've posted direct quotes from Barack Obama's
own website regarding his policies on digg, only to be dugg down into
oblivion by those who would rather not know that he supports *expanding*
the military, *increasing* US intervention and unilateralism abroad, and
has voted and given vocal support for unacceptable domestic measures
like Real ID and the USA PATRIOT act.

It's interesting how people who love Obama for his positivity and his
charisma will then actively try to hide the truth about bad policies of
his that would affect us all, rather than confront him with them and try
to get them changed.

--

I will say this, though. I'm proud of Obama for actually answering Amy's
questions and not running away.

I have a lot of respect for the man and I'm glad he's a US senator, and
yes, I'd much rather have him as president than either Hillary or
McCain. The problem is, that's not saying much.

(no subject)

ATTENTION: Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.

You can make a law that applies to corporations and not to individuals.
You can do that because corporations are not people.

(no subject)

<i>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.02.07.pdf
ITEM 2
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and
determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict
with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because,
among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the
Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution
to suspendGeneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I
decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I
determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present
conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this
authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and
determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al
Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant
conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only
to "armed conflict not of an international character."

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the
recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the
Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify
as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because
Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees
also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

ITEM 3

Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many
nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including
those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has
been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its
principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall
continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extend appropriate and
consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the
principles of Geneva.</I>

Summary:
ITEM 2:
a) The Geneva conventions do not apply to our 'conflict with al Qaeda'
b) I have the authority to suspend Geneva if I want to. In this case, I
choose not to. (Because Geneva doesn't apply anyway).
c) Geneva does not apply to any al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners we have
captured, because they were captured as part of an international conflict.
d) Taliban prisoners are not prisoners of war. They are unlawful
combatants. Therefore Geneva does not apply.

ITEM 3:
We promise to apply the Geneva conventions whenever possible. We decide
when it's possible.

(no subject)

<i>re: "The occupation of the middle east is just one component of the
Class War. Wealthy elites sucking the blood from everyone else. War is
just one instrument in their toolbox."</i>

That sounds dangerously close to sedition citizen. Do you require
medication?
Resume consumer activities at once. Further resistance will precipitate
corrective action.

For the home land, patriot.

(no subject)

<i>re: springsteen endorsement of obama</i>

Celebrity endorsements are how you sell products to otherwise
indifferent consumers. The same companies who hire actors and musicians
to sell you shoes and soda are running the campaigns for all 3 corporate
candidates.

The sad thing is they know what they're doing. If you want to see what
happens to a potential leader who supports real democracy and doesn't
try to sell himself like a product, look at Nader or Gravel. And look at
how many votes they'll win compared to "Grandpa War Hero", "Articulate
Black Friend", and "Strong Women's Rights Champion". Those three are
playing characters. They are acting. They have easily recognized brand
names and very simple PR images and they never leave their scripts. And
that's how to win in America.

(no subject)

It's not hard. Just leave a note on the Luxembourg fridge and eventually
everyone will get around to signing it.

art is the process of getting things out of your head and into the world

science is systematic falsification

WARNING: Human beings may contain the dna of pineapples, chihuahuas,
ladybugs, and even bacteria. Avoid humans at all costs.

Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting record, and I'm afraid
to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. This is a
candidate who says he's going to usher in change; that he is a different
kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us
again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And
he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor. But his
record ... is one of accommodation and concession to the very political
powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly
lasting advances.

Obama is far and away the best of the Big Three. Matt Gonzalez reminds
us why that's not nearly good enough.
Please read and comment. Thank you.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Why_I_am_NOT_on_the_Obama_bandwagon

To Naomi Klein:
Looks like somebody on youtube compiled a collection of the (perceived)
gaps between how Friedman characterizes himself and how you characterize
him. Ignoring the uploader's dumb commentary, I think the clips
themselves are very good. You've probably seen them, but here they are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUFyEY3gmo

Just so you know, I'm very much on your side here. I'm as far left as
they come and I want nothing more than to see real, solid, compelling
arguments for why socialism works and how we can implement it. When M.F.
says we have to judge policies by their effects and not by the
intentions behind them, or when he talks about how violence always lies
behind trying to good with other people's money, I'm dying to see these
arguments soundly refuted. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to refute
them myself, and when I look to someone smarter to do it for me, they
seem to be saying what amounts to "he's wrong because he's a big meanie".

In your book, you rightly point out that the battle of ideas was not
lost, and where Friedman's views have taken hold it's been through force
and not through consent. But having established that, your work is still
ahead of you. You still have to argue with the ideas, and attacking the
man behind them just looks like a way to avoid doing so. It's precisely
because I do agree with you and I do think you're right that it makes me
wince to see you use that kind of tactic.

Matt Gonzalez-The Dems Complicity in the War Pt. 1 of 5

Matt Gonzalez's address starts at 1:08