"The writer must write what he has to say, not speak it". - Hemingway

I saw this quote on a gifty thing at Barnes & Noble, it was some sort of desktop pencil box, probably made in China like everyfuckingthing else nowadays. I won the battle with my compulsive gift giving urge and, after some deliberation, didn't buy it as a gift. What I did do was to carry the thought behind the quote with me as a kind of consolation, and reward for, my anti-materialist victory. It is, after all, the thought that counts...

I honestly don't talk like this in real life, by the way. Sheesh...

Hemingway's quote (after some lightweight web research to find out if he actually said anything like this) is something I have heard before. Not being a writer by any stretch of the imagination, I still find it a compelling thought. The quote could be modified very simply to fit just about any activity.

For example:

"The trucker must truck what he has to truck, not go shopping for chain-drive wallets."

"The cabinetmaker must create wooden storage units, not immerse himself in quasi-theoretical hyperbole."

Since I'm no writer, either real or imagined, I will keep this morphable quote in mind when I find myself doing things that I am not 'officially labelled' to do. As for you writers out there, listen to Hemingway, I think he said something that may help turn words into artifacts, not just hot air. Hemingway was an American, and like most things American nowadays, he could have been an inferior Chinese version of the real thing, shipped thousands of miles at no small expense, for your enjoyment. The gifty thing was the hot air in this case, some virtually useless throw-away consumer object that's sole destiny is to be eventually buried or shipped off to some foreign country to be melted down to produce more income producing shit, while the thought behind the quote inscribed on it was the real thing (memetics 101).

god Bless The U.S. of A.
(made in china)

Cabinet number 2, a project I recently completed, has taught me some valuable lessons. As a student cabinetmaker, cabinet number 1 was a team effort with another student, so cabinet number 2 is my first complete cabinet. In reverse order, an incomplete list of some of the more memorable lessons are:

3. When finished, a cabinet is akin to a piece of writing in that when it's done (which it really never is) it becomes an annoyance. Like the almost finished written work that the term 'killing your babies' applies, the cabinet should take on a life of it's own at some point, and go forth and be useful in the world (or die trying).

2. Unsolicited help from others (particularly in design stage) will most certainly lead to errors. Trust your own judgement. Get help and guidance when necessary, but make your own decisions and do your own work, the quality of the piece depends on it (alternately there's the possiblity that I'm simply a dreadful team player?).

1. Have a backup plan. Cabinet number 2 went through a significant design revision due to an expensive machine becoming unavailable (during early phases of Cn2's construction) due to abuse from an unsupervised student, and lack of funding for repairs. Cabinet number 2 benefitted from having multiple options for completion, though some of the options required more effort. Reverting to the 'old ways' always works if one has the patience and is willing to work a little harder. Problem solving skills and research help in this area. Expect to be tripped up at some point (whether it be your own doing or someone else's).

Convention and conformity seem to be a problem for me, a psychological one. On the one hand, I have been a conformist and continue to be in certain areas where I find it appropriate. I think that continuing to interact socially provides the stimulus for appearing, for lack of a better term, acceptable. In appearance, as well as in interaction, I evidently have the skills necessary to conform at some level that I find managable. I should probably add that I find non-conformity for it's own sake a somewhat disingenuous and silly behavior, so I don't subscribe to any of that nonsense. You won't catch me in an unnaturally colored mohawk anytime soon. There are certain benefits to conformity, namely the freedom to be less socially interactive through the lack of questionable behavior or appearance. The feeling that one is the focus of attention is uncomfortable (for me, the introvert). So I conform for my own comfort, as well as others. It's a win-win thing. Self observation and the observation of others is easy, being the subject of observation by others is not (for me). So the amount of conformity seems directly proportionate to the amount of attention desired. The skill is easily mastered in youth, generally speaking. The amount and kinds of input one recieves is the gauge, the personal comfort level is the guide. Any time spent with gossippers makes one immediately aware of the societal pressure that exists (gossippers, sheesh). The old saying is that imitation is the highest form of flattery. I have embarrassed myself exceedingly with this foolish behavior. Those whom I have flattered with this behavior I have developed no small amount of contempt for. I have discovered that what I was imitating was appearance, and that the reality beneath was alien, even revolting. What I mean is that I am not like that, and I feel embarrassed that I appear like that. Why do I look like that? It's not how I am! Why do I behave like that? It's not who I am! It is a betrayal of self. A regrettable, embarrassing betrayal. Knowing thyself, as the ancient Greeks rightly advocated, is of the highest value to a thinking being. It is at the core of *genuinely* existing in the world. Being that self aware person and interacting with others is an entirely different story. Convention demands that we conform. It feels like hypocrisy to me, a denial of my principles. How does one reconcile one's values and principles with conventional social interaction when they become less and less conventional as they are examined one by one? Like death and aloneness, it perplexes me.

I can dream up schemes when I'm sitting in my seat
I don't see any flaws 'til I get to my feet
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

I could make a mark if it weren't so dark
I could be replaced by any bright spark
But darkness makes me fumble
For a key, to a door that's wide open

Instead of worrying about my clothes
I could be someone that nobody knows
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

- Stewart Copeland

Mind numbing amounts of complete garbage have indeed been written (and in fact published), so how does someone jump the fact-value gap here? Wading through aisle after aisle after 'suggested' after 'chosen for you' after 'you may also like'...

The facts > Written communications via coherent linguistic artifacts.

The values > Something that is compelling in a way that does not feel like a foolish waste of time. Something memorable. Something moving. Something inspirational. Something that doesn't feel like an insult to my intelligence or sensibilities.

The idea of what I think would be a good book or a good bit of writing almost always turns out to be less satisfactory than desired or even predicted. It seems as if all the information that's been most compelling to me was completely accidental. The Accidental Reader, that's me. Try as I will, the absorbtion level just isn't there anymore. I hope it comes back someday, I miss it. Give me something to read that inspires my imagination and engulfs me in another world, give me something that makes me think and appreciate my own thoughts. But alas, searching in the desert for something that is only found in the oasis is absurd. One must first find the oasis.

I still maintain the silly belief that the oasis is not a mirage, that it lies on the horizon and I need only a compass. Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, and Oprah, you are not helping! Unbelievable amounts of purely worthless unnecessary manure. The trouble is, the manure that's out there only fertilizes more manure. What utter rubbish people will read is completely beyond my scope of comprehension.

Sorry for the rant, I will try diligently in the future to be more sarcastic. Doesn't sarcasm sound more fun? OK, how's this >> Here I am contributing to the manure, while lamenting the amount of manure I am forced to avoid. el oh el...

If I can stop one heart from breaking,

I shall not live in vain:

If I can ease one life the aching,

Or cool one pain,

Or help one fainting robin

Unto his nest again,

I shall not live in vain.

-Emily Dickinson

"The essence of friendship is entireness, a total magnanimity and trust. It must not surmise or provide for infirmity. It treats its object as a god, that it may deify both." - Emerson

Though Emerson was decidedly a religious man, I believe his work to be some of the most thoroughly inspiring and agreeable that I've read. The Essays are particularly insightful, and it makes me wonder about him. The reverence he obviously feels and speaks of in his Essays, in my view (er, my Occamistic view) needs no religious underpinning. On the other hand, I do think his work would also be less beautiful if it weren't for the religious overtones of his prose.

As for this quote from his 'friendship' essay, it may provide some partial explanation for my curious lack of true friends. Perhaps my solitary inner 'heaven' leaves room for only one 'god', and being thus, viewed as a deficiency by some.

After getting through a few chapters of Jean Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness', I found the obfuscation staggering, and the overall tone indulgent and insincere. But his quote "Hell is other people" redeems him nicely. For four words, his summary is by far the most accurate and succinct description of modern society that I have ever read. I consider this a rare bit of genius. :D

How nice it is to be able to appreciate considerate people. After seeing Michael Moore's documentary film 'Sicko', I believe him to be quite a humanitarian. The health care situation in the U.S. is indeed a sick thing, and indeed things are different (and admittedly obviously better) in other countries, but some places are much worse. Reaching across national borders to help people who are in very much more terrible health situations is also humane and worthwhile. So I start wondering what Moore's motivation is for making this type of film. If the health care system is improved in the ways that Moore indicates, will the U.S. be a better country for it? Will people be more patriotic? Moore is a patriot, of that there is no doubt, otherwise he might move to France or Canada where there is a better health care system, or would he? Despite any flaws I could find with the motivations I might attribute to this effort, I think overall that the humanitarian effort alone is remarkable. Moore is reported to be a generously charitable man, and that is also admirable. Other things I wonder about is the atmosphere in the U.S. that makes these kinds of awareness raising efforts possible. The U.S. may be oppressive in some respects, but it's very liberating in others.

Word of the day. Quote or aphorism of the day. << Some possiblilies for keeping the blog active in case I get tired of complaining about things. A this or that 'of the day' could turn out to be of the week, month, or even final installment. I will start with a quote. "Common sense is not so common". - Voltaire

I haven't read much of Voltaire's work, but this quote is an observation of his that I find agreeable. For whatever reason, I understand common sense to be related to experience-driven inductive logic. A lot of what I've read appears didactic and thick, with complicated arguments arising from simple foundations and reaching (sometimes bizarre) conclusions. A lot of it is less than helpful, to be kind, but sometimes, when something I read strikes me as a bit of genius, a little bit of reasoning that I hadn't thought of, I try to incorporate it (sometimes even successfully) into my thinking process until it seems to actually be common sensical. Now I know this isn't the common definition of common sense, like say, if you put your hand on a hot stove it will be painful common sense. But still, some of the very rapid reasoning that occurs in folks is remarkable, and not all that common. I find this uncommon type of common sense something to acheive, piecemeal if necessary, because common sense is the most pragmatic of reasoning abilities.

Having time to think and reflect is important, but for me, as far as computers are concerned anyway, it gets somewhat absurd after a while. Having somewhere to write down (in this case magnetically record on some server somewhere) some simple thoughts or reflections is not necessarily a good thing. I often want to tell this dreadful machine to leave me the hell alone. Life before the dreadful machine was more educational and more interesting, in that it made sustained thought much easier. Sustained thought is still possible, but the thoughts are not of the quality they were before the dreaded machine. Researching ideas is not what it used to be. The information available on the dreaded machine is not the same quality as the information collected by holding a book (with a trusty dictionary alongside). As I overextended my tenth grade reading level, I used to find myself challenged and captivated to an extent not possible with the dreaded machine. I still read things that are way beyond my reading level, but I don't pursue all the peripheral information the same way. Collecting information on the dreaded machine is quick and easy, it's condensed, often wrong, and incomplete. The incomplete part is troubling because it's presented in a way that doesn't inspire that analytic captivation that I enjoyed so much with just reading (just!). So in the time I sit here with my virtual shackles, sitting down not thinking anything very motivating, I could be doing much more, and much better. Let me go virtual shackles, I want to live in the real world! Dreaded machine! But I will say this, there sure is a lot of trivial garbage to be absorbed here, if I ever want to go on Jeapordy or Cash Cab, which I won't. Like television, it's simply an amusing waste of time for the most part.

This is my profile picture, I think it shows my best side.

Some deaths have affected who I am. The grief is unendurable and it never (ever) goes away. I don't have a choice in the matter, death happens. The things (and people) that I have eliminated from my life in one way or another, I had some choice about. I am truly fortunate for my ability to decide and choose for myself. Independence (particularly independence of thought) is truly the most awe-inspiring of human traits. I value my independence and self reliance immensely, more than any material thing I can conceive of. The deaths that have affected me most have been either lives that I have depended on, or lives that have depended on me. The irony in this is the dependence/independence dichotomy. I was told many times that 'no man is an island', but if one is an island at least there is some insulation from the sadness of losing loved ones. The real question is what joy is there in sharing or being interdependent versus the isolation of self absorption. The two realities of life that seem most perplexing are 1. Death, 2. Aloneness. Struggling against these realities may be amusing, but always futile.

Wouldn't it be easy to just post some found crap from the web, claim interest, then add some clever commentary? I apologize to those who find these ramblings of mine boring. Go surf then, find something more interesting. It has hardly bothered me to be uninteresting. I used to think that being interesting was agreeable, as long as it wasn't given much effort, but now I think being boring is a virtue, in fact it's almost a necessity for me. Just like everyone else I suppose, it's self-preoccupation, only with no social agenda.

So who needs an 'about me page' when everyone's entire blog is just that?

I think animal ethics really boils down to a couple of primary ideas. Nature, the observable world we inhabit, has evolved in a way to operate in certain regular patterns. The consumption of food to remain alive, for most purposes of argument, requires the consumption of other life, or the remains thereof. The overwhelmingly vast multitudes of life, present and past, have operated on instinct, consuming what they have evolved to consume. Human beings, with the development of the ability to manipulate the environment, consumes in a way that is different from the rest of all nature that we know of. We have the individual ability to make choices based on what we value, as well as the natural urges that we observe animals to have. We also have a complex society of various cultures that have developed more or less similar collective value systems. Some would set us above the rest of nature in a way that places higher value on human society and individuals than the rest of nature. Well, that's sure appropriate! And the funny thing about that is, nature doesn't care! There is no empirical evidence or any reason to believe that any part of our natural world values anything, except the part with human intelligence. Maybe there are marginal cases in the animal world that would appear to imply preference, I'm sure. We have pets that exhibit the kinds of behaviors that could be anthropomorphised in this way, among other creatures. So one of the basic ideas that I think is the most important when it comes to animal 'rights', or our ethical stance toward animals, which is a preferable phrase to me, is the idea of what kind of kinship we feel toward the rest of the various life forms that preside here. Another important consideration I have is about waste. Nature is excessively wasteful, by our standards, but there are no other standards! Nature doesn't care! The idea of what waste is and what it entails is a human construct. It's very human (and humane) to be concerned with what we think is wasteful. If we believe that an animal's consciousness is of some value, then we become careful of how we use our power over it. If we are hungry, we become careful to preserve things that could nourish us. The rest of nature is not like this, as the incalculable amount of species that have fallen extinct in the history of the planet could be thought to attest to.

Having been raised among pets and other animals, I certainly was able to observe and have thoughts about what these creatures thought, felt, how they experienced life, how they communicated, and the different abilities they had or didn't have. I got to know them in a sense, and came to respect and care for them. So I care, and I feel justified in that. I value them in a way that it would be appalling to me to see their lives gone to waste or to see them suffer, or more revoltingly, be abused or harmed by (what I consider) inferior human beings (you know, those inhumane ones). I think I have this attitude toward animals simply because what I don't know about them lets me give them the benefit of the doubt that they do feel things, think things, and experience life on some level similar to the way I do. My stance toward animals is a version of the 'behave toward others as you would have them behave toward you' idea. Only human behavior is much different, so only a version of this idea.

So in nature, living things consume other living things or the remains thereof. I don't see any difficulty in consuming animal materials whatsoever, it's the way nature seems to work. What I do have difficulty with is people not caring or even thinking about what they consume, or where it comes from, or what happened when there was a life there, and then it became food. I have been to ranches and feedlots where animals were put to death (among other places where animals were and are killed) and it was, and remains profoundly disturbing to me, but this feeling is apparently not universal. As I said, nature doesn't care, but humans do, but only some humans, so I have observed.

As for my 'personal god' Atheism, let's get this out of the way first. Most foundationally, and going to the very core of my awareness of the world, I believe there are things that I have no knowledge of. What I do know, and know well, is your gods! What's not to know? You tell me what it is, what it means to you, how to prove it, etc, etc, etc. In fact, you blather on about your gods so much it's absurd! Now I don't claim to know what's in your head (other than in a behaviorist way), but it's certainly not in mine. A simple definition and my simple interpretation of it says it all for me, and there have been volumes and volumes written about the subject of belief/non-belief by all types of people, factions, geniuses and fools. I have read a ton of it. My first real dictionary, Webster's Fifth Collegiate, says atheism is "1. Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God, or supreme being. 2. Godlessness". This definition fits me in this way; since I don't think that a disbelief is a belief, then I don't have a belief. I am a non-believer. I do not have this belief. Not a non-believer in things I don't know or the unknown in general, but about inane garbage that is fabricated by people who have found it useful somehow, for whatever reason (and I use the term 'reason' loosely when it comes to 'believers'). I think also that the more I have read about it, the more easily I am able to dismiss, and/or accept whatever position anyone takes without much interest, simply because I have for the most part exhausted the subject in my own mind and have led myself back to a much simpler definition and stance on the whole (formerly irritating) subject. For you idiots that believe in some god or other, let me say this >> I think you're either a simpleton, or you want to tell me what's what, and you're full of shit. For you believers in atheism, let me say this >> You don't know what atheism is. It's not a belief, it needs no promotion. You're full of shit too. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". - Wittgenstein

And for you god-people who would try to insert the god-idea into the area where I believe that there are things I have no knowledge of, then you are more stupid than you apparently think I am. My bible says "Hell is full of proselytizers."

And to further clarify, there is a big difference between 'disbelief in' and 'believing there is not', for those of you who would pick that nit.

Following a vegetarian diet for me does not mean I am A vegetarian or A vegan amongst some vast society of kindred souls. Oh, you can group me with people with the same dietary habits, sure, but it's really not that important if you misunderstand, I mean who really cares... However! I don't have some kind of religious belief in diet, nor do I seek out others of this kind to commune with! But people make their assumptions, so being ridiculed or subtly snickered at comes with the territory. The group of vegetarian/vegan folks who make this a sort of 'way of life' choice do not have much to do with my dietary habits. It seems as most of these folks combine their ethical choices about animal rights (whatever that is, a follow up forthcoming), and their eating habits. I think maybe I differ from that in at least two significant ways. First, I don't have a serious problem with using animal material in general. Secondly, I don't think that my ethical beliefs (for the most part) dictate my diet. So all you veg-heads out there can leave me off the mailing list. I've never been very 'clubby' anyway.

Nothing seems to mark the passing of time like my daughter's birthday. Her birth is one of my most profound moments and a memory that seizes my thoughts every time, no matter what I'm doing. These kinds of memories are rare indeed.

What vegetarian means to me is that I only ingest food that does not come from animals. I think it's fortunate that I am free and able to consciously decide this and that I live in an environment where it is possible. I think some environments prevent following a vegetarian diet. Some climates, particularly extremely cold ones necessitate one to eat richer sources of protein and fat. I think also that there are social climates that make this type of dietary habit very difficult, if not impossible to follow. If my survival depended on consuming things that I had to hunt down and kill, I would do this readily, but not in a wasteful or irreverent way. My decision to follow a vegetarian diet was based on health reasons. I was approaching a situation where I would have hypertension to a degree where it would jeapordize my health and longevity. I was also overweight to a degree that fouled my quality of life, or the quality of life that I remembered having when I was younger (and thinner). After experimenting with some different ways of maintaining a diet, and from what I've read and heard about dietary theories, I found that simply not eating animal products would be the most efficient and maintainable way to improve my health. I do think that when people are young and growing, it's important to get a more balanced diet. I also think that when people get to a mature age, there are foods that become more habitual than necessary. There are also some ethical considerations that I will address forthcoming.

Popular culture is an aggravating disease. Television is the height of this phenomenon, with it's narcotic effect. I had a profound indoctrination to TV, and it's interesting how much trivial (and ultimately useless) information I can recall from it. I regret the countless hours wasted in front of the damned thing. An odd thing about this is that I remember information from TV that, when I relate it to others, most of the time they don't remember it, even if it was something as simple as an advertising jingle that was repeated over and over. Was I there watching while they were doing something else? Do they have the ability to not retain this information, to dismiss and purge it somehow? If this is the case, I am envious. What numerous interesting and important other things I could have committed to memory! Still, when I am in front of it, paying way too much attention, the narcosis seems to soothe the irritation.

What a lot of self indulgent unloading blogging is. This blog will be no different.