Colors are one of those things for which we have no descriptions. There is no way to really objectively describe a color, rather, you must be shown it. How would someone describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue? The only way to really describe color thus far is to describe it in relation to another color. For instance, you'd describe purple by saying it was like a mix of red and blue. You could describe pink by saying that it was a light shade of red. In these ways you can approximate a description, albeit one that relys on the other person having some knowledge of color already.
The other thing is, how do I know that me and you see the same colors? Theres no way to tell here either. When we were both younger, we learned what the color green was. Green was that color that the trees and grasses were, and the outside of watermelons, and the top light on a stoplight. That was green. But maybe the color I percieve as being green is the color you percieve as being yellow. Would there be any way to really tell? I would still point at a tree and say "hey, thats green." and you would agree. Because we cant describe color, theres no way to know for sure.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Psychic Residue
Ever had one of those moments where you do something stupid, like drop your toothbrush on a super-grungy gas station's restroom floor? Now, everyone knows how dirty those floors are, so obviously you are grossed out by the thought of putting that toothbrush in your mouth. You turn a sink on so that you can wash your toothbrush off, but an odd phenomena occurs. No matter how much you wash and sanitize that toothbrush, the thought of it landing in some odd puddle on the restroom floor prevails. Ten minutes of washing later, you know that there's no way it could still be dirty, yet the thought of it being there makes you completely refuse to put it in your mouth. Eventually, you get a new toothbrush.
This phenomena is that of Psychic Residue, where the mere thought of something being dirty or used makes you think that it is actually filthy. No matter on what concious level you may know that you've washed something to the point that it is squeaky clean, the imagined filthyness prevails.
This also applies to the percieved grossness of using someone else's personal items. For instance, you may be spending the night at a friends house, and forgotton a change of clothes. You have no clean underwear. Your friend (who wears the exact same brand and type of underwear as you) offers to lend you a pair. Naturally, you'd be reluctant to wear another person's underwear. Despite the fact that you intellectually understand that his underwear is clean, the psychic residue prevails.
This phenomena is that of Psychic Residue, where the mere thought of something being dirty or used makes you think that it is actually filthy. No matter on what concious level you may know that you've washed something to the point that it is squeaky clean, the imagined filthyness prevails.
This also applies to the percieved grossness of using someone else's personal items. For instance, you may be spending the night at a friends house, and forgotton a change of clothes. You have no clean underwear. Your friend (who wears the exact same brand and type of underwear as you) offers to lend you a pair. Naturally, you'd be reluctant to wear another person's underwear. Despite the fact that you intellectually understand that his underwear is clean, the psychic residue prevails.
Reincarnation
Some people believe in reincarnation, or the beleif that your soul is reborn into another body upon your death. In your next life, you could be reborn into a higher social standing as a reward for your good deeds, or you could be brought back as a pig as punishment. But if people's souls are constantly being brought back in different guises, how many souls are there out there? If each person has a soul, and is reincarnated the moment their old body dies, then the population should never grow. Every time someone dies, someone else should be born. This obviously isnt the case--After all, our population is steadily increasing.
Why assume that you have to be reborn the moment you die? For that matter, why assume that your past life has to have actually been in the past, or your future life at a later date. Time seems to be a fluid concept, not a linear one. For this reason, it makes sense that a person's next life could be anywhere and anywhen. My current life would be that of a high schooler in 2007. My next life could be that of an 18th-century accountant, and the one before that a doctor from 3994. Time is not an issue.
But if time is not an issue, is it not also possible to be reincarnated when your first life is still in progress? To me, it seems possible. I could be living out my 2007 high schooler life right now, and cooexisting with myself 534 incarnations down the road, when I am reborn as one of my classmates. If you look at it this way, its possible for every person who ever lived to be an incarnation of the same being. Beats being reborn as a mosquito.
Why assume that you have to be reborn the moment you die? For that matter, why assume that your past life has to have actually been in the past, or your future life at a later date. Time seems to be a fluid concept, not a linear one. For this reason, it makes sense that a person's next life could be anywhere and anywhen. My current life would be that of a high schooler in 2007. My next life could be that of an 18th-century accountant, and the one before that a doctor from 3994. Time is not an issue.
But if time is not an issue, is it not also possible to be reincarnated when your first life is still in progress? To me, it seems possible. I could be living out my 2007 high schooler life right now, and cooexisting with myself 534 incarnations down the road, when I am reborn as one of my classmates. If you look at it this way, its possible for every person who ever lived to be an incarnation of the same being. Beats being reborn as a mosquito.
RENT and minimum wage
So I watched Rent again the other day, and was reminded how aggravating I find that movie/musical. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good story and I love most of the music, but the personalities of the main characters frustrate me. One of the main themes in the movie is the motto “No day but today”, which refers to the philosophy that one should live as if that day was the only day that they had to live. While this is idealistic, and I suppose carefree, in my opinion, it is wrong. Living with no regard to the future or past is almost a form of escapism. After all, if today is your last day to live, then it’s easy to justify putting off whatever may be troubling you. Now, if the main characters of Rent had no problems, I suppose it’d be easier to begrudge them their little philosophy. Yet, we know that they’re hardly without problems. They’re struggling artists with little money, incapable of paying their rent (they get evicted at one point), and some carry HIV. Living “in the moment” doesn’t seem to work in this situation, yet they cling to it anyways, remaining unemployed for the sake of their “bohemian way”. Personally, I’d have looked for a minimum-wage job at McDonalds if I wanted to pay some Rent, but that’s just me. On the other hand, they believe so strongly in their morals that they're willing to make sacrifices for them, and thats something.
Frazzled Hair
There’s a really easy way to tell if someone’s having a bad day. Just look at their hair. If its all in line and sleek and shiny, then it can’t be that bad of a day. However, if their hair is disheveled and full of those little wispy hairs that stick up from the head, then you can bet that their day has been stressful. Frazzly hair is a perfect indicator of stress.
What is it about this hair that is so closely linked to stress? Maybe people who have a large amount of other, more stressful things would not have time to brush their hair or comb it out. That would be one that made sense. Perhaps stress does just make your hair frizz. Who knows.
People have many tells such as this one. Emotions can make physical impressions. Look at ulcers. Stress leads to a painful stomach condition. An attraction to someone can make your heart rate rise with no particular reason. Perhaps the telltale frizzy hair is just another way you can see how someone’s feeling.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Livestock Peace Corps
Youtube Link, since blogger is stupid and wont let me embed the video.
A preliminary glimpse into the mind's of the leading characters is as follows:
Rabbit's Point of View: Spot and Whitey are best friends. Every morning, they engage in a good-spirited game of tag. Because they are young and reckless, this game occasionally becomes physical and ends in a racous dogpile. One morning, Spot and Whitey are playing around when their game is interrupted by a violent pair of chickens who dont know that their game is fun sport, not fighting.
Chicken's Point of View: The Baron von Cluckenstein was surveying his territory early in the morning with his lackey Egg-or, when all of a sudden, he was disturbed by a pair of rambunctious bunnies. These bunnies were fighting viciously, and it was his duty to seperate them before they could harm him and his property.
Policing is a tricky business. On one hand, those who try and make peace often are doing so because they truely think its right. On the other hand, it seems like they are rarely appreciated. By definition, those who make peace are dealing with two (or more) parties who are in conflict, and thus probably acting confrontational. This means that at best, these two parties are going to be fighting, arguing, etc, and the peacemaker is often caught in the middle.
Interpretation can make the job trickier, as well. This is especially true when a cultural barrier gets in the way. What may appear to be a violent situation could in fact be a friendly one, and visa versa. Imagine a person with no knowledge of US culture watching a football game. To everyone else, it is a sport, but to the outsider, it may seem like a fight between two armies, one that they might want to stop. Could you imagine them running out onto the field to stop the fight?
Peacemaking and Policing are tricky indeed.
A preliminary glimpse into the mind's of the leading characters is as follows:
Rabbit's Point of View: Spot and Whitey are best friends. Every morning, they engage in a good-spirited game of tag. Because they are young and reckless, this game occasionally becomes physical and ends in a racous dogpile. One morning, Spot and Whitey are playing around when their game is interrupted by a violent pair of chickens who dont know that their game is fun sport, not fighting.
Chicken's Point of View: The Baron von Cluckenstein was surveying his territory early in the morning with his lackey Egg-or, when all of a sudden, he was disturbed by a pair of rambunctious bunnies. These bunnies were fighting viciously, and it was his duty to seperate them before they could harm him and his property.
Policing is a tricky business. On one hand, those who try and make peace often are doing so because they truely think its right. On the other hand, it seems like they are rarely appreciated. By definition, those who make peace are dealing with two (or more) parties who are in conflict, and thus probably acting confrontational. This means that at best, these two parties are going to be fighting, arguing, etc, and the peacemaker is often caught in the middle.
Interpretation can make the job trickier, as well. This is especially true when a cultural barrier gets in the way. What may appear to be a violent situation could in fact be a friendly one, and visa versa. Imagine a person with no knowledge of US culture watching a football game. To everyone else, it is a sport, but to the outsider, it may seem like a fight between two armies, one that they might want to stop. Could you imagine them running out onto the field to stop the fight?
Peacemaking and Policing are tricky indeed.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Horrible gruesome violence that fails to shock
Noah's blog made me think about something my dad said last night as we watched tv. It went vaguely like this:
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)