 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I think everyone at Hopkins has posted something about this story on FaceBook, but for those of you not living in Baltimore, a burglar was killed with a samurai sword -- yes, a samurai sword -- by an undergraduate student of Johns Hopkins early this morning just three blocks from where I am now sitting. There are still a lot of questions and conflicting reports, but you can read the Baltimore Sun's take here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword0915,0,4027961.storyObviously, it is too early to say, based on just one witness, the killer, the facts of the situation; but as the burglar was just released from prison two days ago, it is likely that this was an act of self-defense, as the student has claimed. The issue of the right to bear arms in this country has come up a lot recently with the changing political sphere. I know a lot of you are actually going out and purchasing handguns, in fear that that right may soon be taken away. I am in favor of some gun ownership restrictions -- I don't see any reason why a citizen needs a bazooka or a machine gun -- but I do not think taking away the right of citizens to own handguns will have good results. I'm well aware that, when written up, the right to bear arms had less to do with self-defense and more to do with defending against a corrupt government, but the fact of the matter is that people want to be able to defend themselves if attacked. In an ideal world, cops could instantly appear wherever there is crime, but it's not an ideal world. While I am highly opposed to vigilantism, unfortunately self-defense is going to occur, and self-defense is not vigilantism. Where am I going with this? What I think will happen if gun rights are taken away is that people will resort to defending themselves in other ways -- such as baseball bats, knives,... and samurai swords. If you want to stop people from killing people -- even in self-defense -- you have to remove people, not guns. Do we really want this? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people would rather die from being shot than from having their chest sliced open and hand nearly severed off. (The robber in the present case died from blood loss due to the latter.) Perhaps it is just a Western way of thinking, but it seems somewhat more barbaric to club or hack someone to death than to shoot them.
I'm just pretending I didn't fall behind in blogging again, by the way.
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: news, politics, rights, violence
Current Location: Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood:  okay
Current Music: silence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't usually like to just post large quotes from other sources here in place of blogging, but I'll make an exception here, since the writer's reference to bodiless "brains" connects with my previous entry, and emotions are, in part, at one level, a physiological production, almost a type of sense.
A teenage boy's first philosophizing about emotions in third person: [He had been reading about] the great brains [without bodies] in their towers in Stapledon's splendid Last and First Men. He had been wont to despise emotions: girls were emotional, girls were weak, emotions -- tears -- were weakness. But this morning he was thinking that being a great brain on a tower, nothing but a brain, wouldn't be much fun. No excitement, no dog to love, no joy in the blue sky -- no feelings at all. But feelings -- feelings are emotions! He was suddenly overwhelmed by the revelation that what makes life worth living is, precisely, the emotions. But, then -- this was awful! -- maybe girls with their tears and laughter were getting more out of life. Shattering! He checked himself: showing one's emotions was not the thing: having them was. Still, he was dizzy with the revelation. What is beauty but something that is responded to with emotion? Courage, at least partly, is emotional. All the splendour of life.... [Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy]
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: body, books, emotions, senses, soul, vanauken
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood:  tired
Current Music: silence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of my readers have asked for clarification about my leanings toward thinking that souls cannot exist without bodies. I've used before the software/hardware analogy: [The soul] is like software, whereas the body is like hardware. Software can "exist" in the mind of a programmer or stored in written form on paper, but without hardware, software cannot function. How is it that we communicate with the software in our computers? We must use input devices -- keyboards, mouses (Yes, that's the correct plural,) the like. How do our computers communicate with us? They use output devices -- monitors, printers, the like. Humans and animals are no different. Our senses are our input devices. Without them, no other souls could communicate to us. Just like mouses and keyboards often have different functions, so too we have multiple senses. Without any senses, you would be powerless, about as useless as a computer without a working mouse or keyboard. Even if you were a super genius, without inputs what could you do? Yes, you could still be alive, but in a sad state of life. A computer can likewise we turned on and allowed to "run", but without input devices, what is the point? Our voices are an example of output devices. We also can communicate in other ways, such as touch and motion. Without them, we could not communicate to other souls. Without any methods of communication -- which all require a physical element -- you would again be powerless, the same as a computer without a monitor or printer or speakers. The super genius could never share what he or she had discovered, making the discovery rather useless. Of course, the senses and the forms of communication work together, just as input and output work together. Vision is the sense that observes communicative motion; hearing is the sense that perceives vocal communication, and so on. None of this would be possible without corporealness. Now by corporealness, I do not necessarily mean "limited to the four dimensions of space time". A hypothetical body of four dimensions passing through our three spatial dimensions could appear as a variety of differing and fluctuating solid shapes depending on how it chose to align itself when passing. Or it could hover "over" our dimensional "plane" thus being entirely undetectable to us. But if it is detectable to us, it must use a body -- even if it is a four-dimensional one. Even those forms of communication of today that would have seemed magical in times past still require corporeal input and output systems. Wireless communications still require transmitters and receivers. Wireless communication would be impossible without them. What I am suggesting is that one of the major "purposes" of bodies, of "hardware", is for communication -- both input and output -- and that without either input or output, you have a hopeless situation; you have complete and utter isolation and inability to really do anything. This is why I think that the idea of bodiless souls makes little sense.
Tomorrow, I may post on "the purpose of emotions," which I think connects to this topic.
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: body, communication, senses, soul
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood:  full
Current Music: my wife's fish puzzle game music
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my last entry, I was pleading with parents to use tact in discussing stories about their children that they may find cute and/or funny but by which others might be disgusted. While I in no way meant to limit this to on-line behavior, it is probably more prevalent of an occurrence on-line these days, with social networking sites becoming the norm. Good questions were raised in response to that post. Here is one that summarizes the issue at hand rather well: "[W]here does the line of being considerate of others' views end and 'welcome to my thoughts as they happen' begin?"I recently posted an entry on rudeness and taking offense that did not receive much notice, [1] so I'll restate some things from it here. First, what is rudeness anyway? Someone else commented once here that rudeness is "acting against the majority." I think that is a fair definition. Webster says:rude 2: lacking refinement or delicacy: a: ignorant , unlearned b: inelegant , uncouth c: offensive in manner or action : discourteous d: uncivilized , savage e: coarse , vulgar For most of these definitions, it seems to me that the issue is more a matter of cultural expectations than of any sort of moral or ethical issue. Take 2 a:, for example: rude people may simply be "ignorant" or "unlearned" as to these cultural expectations.
As is the case with much etiquette, there is little logic behind the reasoning of many cultural expectations.
On the other hand, I don't think it is a good thing to consciously offend others. I think we should try not to. The Golden Rule is found in some form in most if not all of the religions in the world and is also essentially stated in many theories about ethics: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." This does not mean that if I like to hear jokes about bodily noises then I should tell them to other people. Not at all! It means that if I don't like to be offended, I should avoid offending other people if I at all can. Now, I make a distinction between whether something in fact offends others and whether something should offend me. But the Golden Rule is not about me; it is about others. To reuse examples from this blog: I don't think it makes any sense at all that guys in the locker room would feel uncomfortable with nudity there, [2] yet I know some are (in America anyway), so I don't dally naked while there. While some people may find burping to be a funny thing, many others -- myself included -- find it disgusting, vulgar, and immature. It is polite to avoid it or apologize when it occurs in public. Maybe we are wrong to be offended by those who unapologetically burp in public. It's still irrelevant to the discussion; some people are offended by it, so it is my duty to them to avoid it unless I am certain that no one there would be offended. The act is rude regardless of whether or not I should be offended by it. This is why we teach -- or should teach -- children how to be polite -- not because of some moral absolute, but because we want them to be aware of cultural expectations both moral and amoral. If you want to teach your children that burping is funny, that's totally fine, but I gently suggest that you should also be clearly teaching them that not everyone does find it funny and how to act in light of that knowledge. *Now, when I am offended or "grossed out", I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't know that I and others would be "grossed out". Hence, my writing of my previous entry. What of strong language? I wrote once: [3]Now, as far as cussing goes, I know a lot of people who are offended by it. I've said before that I am not usually offended by curse words. On the contrary, I find the constant use of them unintelligent & uncreative and rude & intolerant to those who are offended by them.[4] I know that at least some of you agree with me on this regarding language. In any case, for whatever reason, most of you (who do not find such words inherently wrong) still are quite conscious of when you choose to say or write them -- on-line or real life. And this takes us back to the opening question. Due to the existence of so many "social networking" sites on-line, where does one draw the line? With whom do you share the funny potty story on-line? When do you use the words you really want to when you are furiously angry about some genuine wrong or hurt to the depths of your soul? I really don't see how it should be any different than real life. I know many of you have "filters" for various things that you think will be boring and/or TMI for all of your readers, so you allow them to "opt in" to reading such entries. I appreciate this greatly. Facebook has the same sort of friends filter for many of its features, such as photos and notes posts. But in my opinion, if something you are going to post on your Facebook wall might offend people -- anyone -- does it really need to go on your wall? Why not send it as a message to multiple people you think will appreciate it? Why not post a protected blog entry?
*Certainly, not all etiquette has to do with avoiding offending others. Unfortunately, much of it has to do with proving that you are in some sort of inner circle of the upper classes. This sort of etiquette I despise.[5]
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: children, culture, etiquette, internet
Current Location: The GRO office, Levering Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: full
Current Music: Rock & Metal mix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Young Moms and Dads of the World: Contrary to some rumors, I do like children. I love to hear stories about how they develop and learn and grow. I am especially fond of linguistic stories of how children learn to use language. I love to teach them things. I, however, have zero desire to hear what may be termed "potty stories". And I would further suggest that I am not alone in this. I am sure it is a struggle to potty train a child. And I understand that sharing a difficult experience with others who have also shared the experience is a way of bonding. I also understand that humor is a way of avoiding the facts of a situation. But just because you may have to laugh at such things to cope -- or perhaps because you genuinely enjoy the processes -- does not mean that other people want to hear about it. (If they do, by all means....) I am not being overly harsh. There are plenty of things in life that people keep to themselves out of common courtesy. In most instances, it would be rude for me to talk about dissecting a frog at the dinner table. I should probably not describe in detail the account of the last time I vomited. Talking about one's time in the bathroom is typically juvenile. Only under very special circumstances is it proper to discuss what goes on in bedrooms to one's friends. While, unfortunately, such topics are the bulk of most modern comedy films these days, not everyone is comfortable with discussing them. Maybe people should be comfortable with such things, but rudeness is based on what the other person is or isn't comfortable with, not on how things should be. Now, I also know that you selflessly love your cute and funny children no matter what they do -- and how rightfully so! However, it does not logically follow that, just because your child may well be adorable and/or hilariously funny, everything that proceeds from his body is also adorable and/or funny -- especially to other people. So please feel free to discuss such stories among yourselves, you who have little children, but please be kind to those of us who do not and refrain from publicly blogging, Twittering, or Facebooking about potty mishaps and successes. Thank you. Sincerely, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) lhynard
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: anti-favorites, children, etiquette, humor
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: Final Fantasy XII
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a rare entry of the more personal variety. I began teaching myself how to play guitar again today. As I understand it -- and I may be confused on elements of it -- back when sadeyedartist was in high school, her father gave or let borrow a 12-string guitar to a friend of hers. This friend and her made contact maybe a year ago through Facebook, and he said he would like to give the guitar back. It took multiple attempts for them to connect, but last weekend, he dropped the guitar off at our apartment, so now I possess a 12-string acoustic. My father, bigmister, has always been a guitarist. He had begun teaching me to play back in middle school and then again in high school. When I came to college, I discontinued. Why? It is clear from this journal that I dislike fads. But I've only once briefly stated [1] this weird (psychological?) issue I have with them. If there is something I otherwise would be interested in doing, and it is or becomes a fad, I won't do it. I wait till the fad has passed. It's not even just fads. The summer between my sophomore and junior year of college, I thought I might look better if I grew facial hair. I planned to do so when I arrived back at college. On my arrival, my roommate, shadewright, greeted me with a new goatee. So I waited an entire year to grow one, so as not to be seen as copying him. So to with the guitar issue. When I went to college, it seemed that everyone played guitar. I didn't want to be seen as "trying to be cool"; I abandoned playing. Back at home, my brother, niveus2001, learned to play. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but it extends into a great many areas of my life. (Anyhow, I went to an (enormous) music store today and purchased some picks and a tuner. I have some teach-yourself-guitar books from bigmister and shadewright. I played a three note song today.)
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: fads, music, self-observation
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood:  melancholy
Current Music: Apocalyptica
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't pretend to understand meteorology or the other five scientific fields one would need to comprehend in order to truly understand global warming, but if global warming is affecting Maryland by making it colder, which it seems to be, however that works, I say, bring it on! I was looking at my gas and electric bills for the last few months. As I suspected, this has been a much cooler summer, which is delightful, because I hate hot weather. This June was a couple degrees cooler on average than last year, and July was four degrees cooler! Perhaps even better, I seriously saved $100 on by gas and electric bill relative to last July. Granted, I've also been trying to use the AC less, but I simply haven't needed it at all for multiple days this month. So please continue spraying things into the atmosphere, because maybe BG&E will owe me next year.
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: environment, humor
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: silence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A while back, I posted an entry about the sentence, "This is him," and how in some cases, I think it is grammatically correct. Those cases are when "this" refers not to him but to something that belongs to him. Now, back then, some disagreed with my assessment as being simple over-analysis, but here is an example. Say I have a gift under the tree for my brother. I point at the gift and say, "This is him." I point at my gift and say, "This is me." My argument was that "him" and "me" are datives and not accusatives in such cases. Well, the other day I was thinking of the phrase "Woe is me!" (I don't know why; I just was.) It dawned on me that "me" in the above sentence is a dative. It happens that there is a book out there titled Woe Is I. It's a little handbook that attempts to teach people proper grammar. As I suspected, the author states briefly that Shakespeare was incorrect for saying, "Woe is me!" and suggests that he should have said, "Woe is I!" hogwash People aren't woe; woe is something that is "given" to people. If I am cursing you, I say, "Woe to you, knave!" "To you" is a dative construction, and dative constructions can often be shortened by dropping the "to" -- as in "He gave [to] me the pomegranate." Shakespeare wasn't incorrect; he was dropping a needless preposition. Ophelia was calling down woe on herself -- "Woe is to me!"
Edit: corrected a typo
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: grammar
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: silence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(My apologies to Mr. Rishel for the title of this entry....)
In both religion and science, the question often comes up as to what existed before the universe began. The question itself is meaningless in both "fields", because the universe includes time. Even Augustine understood this, [1] though he would have known nothing of the modern, scientific understanding that time is a dimension, just like height, width, and length. But empty dimensions are no dimensions. While conceptually you may be able to imagine a grid with an origin and distances but nothing plotted, it is simply abstract imagination. No, the dimensions themselves come with the things "plotted". A lay understanding of the Big Bang is often that the universe exploded/expanded from nothing, but this is not entirely accurate. The theory is that all matter and energy were compressed into an infinitesimally small (and by definition, dimensionless) point. This is termed a singularity. In other words, the entire universe's energy was compressed into a single point. In one of my earliest entries [2], I presented my "Third Postulate" in my hypothetical epistemological journey: Either the universe has always existed or it had a beginning.In other words, to believe in anything at all, I think one has to believe that there was never nothing. There always has been and always will be at least something. Whether that something is me, you, a god, or the universe or whether some of these options are one and the same is a foundational difference among the world's religions and philosophies. Back to this singularity — there are various options: A) It is eternal. B) It is not eternal. C) It is an illusion inside my head; only I am eternal. Most people will reject option C; I will not consider it here. But what of A? If the universe is eternal, what caused it to expand in the Big Bang? Here I only can see one sub-option, if it is all there is, it must have caused itself to expand, which would end up leading to a more Eastern philosophy like pantheism — god is all. So having discussed and thought about "nothing" this morning, I am wondering why more scientists are not pantheists....
In other news, this is my 5 th anniversary of blogging. So it seemed a fitting time to return to it. As always, I'll be sure to go back and read all of your blogs to catch up. I look forward to it. If you've continued to post a lot, expect lots of comments! I'll also get around later this week to a summary of "happenings"; there were quite a very a lot. I may also consider doing a "week" of "Wednesday entries", because, having completed my early church history study, I've a lot to say on such topics.
Comment link for Facebook readersTags: deism, epistemology, lj, origins, pantheism, philosophy, questions, religion, time, world views
Current Location: Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: Enya
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Page 
