I don't have an internet connection at home. Nor cable TV. Which means that I have fairly limited opportunities to keep myself amused, and occasionally fall into things like Star Wars marathons (excepting only Episode II, which not only do I not own, but which I deny the very existence of: there IS NO Star Wars Episode II), and drinking a lot. In fact, I went through a period a few weeks ago where I was doing my best to drink myself to death during movie marathons, but I kept passing out before I could reach fatal levels of alcohol toxicity. Hopefully I'll be able to correct that sort of behavior.
But it turns out that you can only spend so much time watching the same old movies while cleaning the same old guns and sharpening the same old knives, and you have to find something to do. When I reach that point, I usually go out to my backyard, sit around my campfire, and make s'mores while calling everyone I know. It's very relaxing; if you don't have a fire-pit in your yard, you really should get one. Nothing like beer and s'mores after a long day at work. Hell, I keep strategic reserves of chocolate and graham crackers on hand for that very purpose!
Alas, alack, eventually it gets late and I run out of things to burn (I am in the middle of the fucking desert, after all), and I have to go back inside. Sometimes when reaching that point, I'll close the blinds, change into sweats, dim the lights, and write. Lazarus Long says that there is nothing shameful about writing, so long as you do it in private and wash your hands afterward. (I like Heinlein, by the way. If you haven't read his stuff, you should.) It can be fun at times to see ideas you didn't know you had take shape, and to see what sort of interesting things you can come up with. I'm a big proponent of the idea that intelligence does not exist without expression, and vice versa. Liberal arts studies are nothing to be ashamed of. You're learning complex semantic and ideological building blocks that allow you to THINK. Our minds' abilities to comprehend and cognate are bounded by our vocabulary and our understanding of words; solid words, properly organized and coherently fused into concepts, form the basis for all intelligent analysis. If you don't have the words, you're not going to have the thoughts, much less express your ideas. Words are everything. Hell, even number are words, if they are to be effective. Symbolic representation will do in a pinch, but there's a reason the Romans never developed any higher math. XII + XXV is actually easier to instinctively calculate (XXXVII) than the same equation using hindu-arabic decimal characters. But you need a degree of intellectual abstraction (which decimal glyphs provide) to get anywhere near x = [(-b) plus/minus the square root of (b) squared minus 4(a)(c)] divided by 2(a).
The best place the find real art, whether you're talking about words or numbers, is in the grey area, between the pedantically simple and the amorphous abstract. People are generally bored with Roman numerals, and are generally stumped by the quadratic equation. But they are pleased with themselves when they remember that pi(r squared) gives the area of a circle. In words, people want to see words they know being used to paint a scene complex and diverse (and different enough from their own lives), that they can enjoy the created picture, without the scene becoming either so complex or so diverse that they lose their grasp of the picture being painted. Dr. Seuss gets real old, real fast, and nobody outside of professional literary critics spends any time at all on Flaubert. But Shakespeare's simple plots are still being adapted into screenplays, albeit divested of the complex iambic pentameter, which is beyond the masses. The Harry Potter books were astronomically successful for following a simple formula: a brightly colored world, not so different from our own but clearly not our own, into which people could escape. Complex characters and complex action, but where both the action and the words used to describe it all were simple enough that readers could follow the storyline, without needing a dictionary. I love the Harry Potter books, and I think J.K. Rowling deserves every one of the billions of cents she earned; she taught (or re-taught) several generations that reading could be fun. VERY well done. And I think it's ironic that romance novels are popular for the same reason; fantastic events, described in small words.
Of course, America excels at mediocrity, and the entertainment industry typically caters to the lowest common denominator, by capitalizing on the two primary passions of the American public: cynicism, and fleeting transcendence. How else is it possible that American Idol is a hit, when people can flip over to MTV and watch singers who's talent is already acknowledged? What that show is really predicated on is two simple things. First, the joy of people who can't sing (read: you, the viewer) watching while an asshole like Simon Cowell tears down people who can't sing either. Then, as the field thins, one contestant (who's entire back story, history of difficulties, and family problems you will learn), rises above all others, and faces down even the Mighty Simon to be crowned American Idol! People eat that shit up with a spoon, especially where their phone-in votes (at $1.99 per call) help choose the winner. I can't fucking stand Simon Cowell. But I do respect the man; he's playing the entertainment industry (and the TV-watching public) like a fucking harp.
Examples are everywhere. How did Jerry Springer makes his millions? Nothing like watching antics from the deepest depths of back-country in-bred trash to make you feel better about sitting at home jobless on a Tuesday afternoon. Phil Donahue had no successor because people were bored with his ho-hum stuff, although Geraldo stayed in business because he's willing to spew much the same trash Springer does. It warms my heart that Dr. Phil is marketed locally in a package time-block with Judge Judy and Divorce Court, but I still have to say that we'd be better off if all of them were replaced with Sesame Street re-runs. About the same intellectual content, but with the possibility of teaching the viewer something that prepares them for more involved lessons.
*Sigh*
The practical upshot of this line of thinking culminates in the classic artists' dilemma. What do I want to do? And what is going to sell? And how much must the artist sell out in order to sell. Fortunately, it's largely an academic debate for me; my income is based on billable hours, not buyable plots. But I do like to think that I might publish something someday. In fact, if anyone knows any literary agents, give me their contact info.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Little Green Bastards. And Us.
I like the Jedi. Or at least, I like the Jedi characters we get to see. But that having been said, I have to further opine that on just how thoroughly, completely, and overwhelmingly evil the Jedi can be. Especially that little green fucker, Yoda: the height of arrogant, altruistic oppression, sneering all who opposes his designs, belittling them for the sin of loving and hating. Mace Windu is not far behind, but he's just egotistical-condecending, rather than pedantic-condescending. He gets a pass by dint of still having some human emotions, to say nothing of (and I'm SURE this is true) having "Bad Mother Fucker" engraved on his lightsaber.
I'm talking about the actual Jedi philosophies and teaching of the Jedi Knights; the teaching that Yoda perpetually spouts until you're just dying for somebody to force-lightning him. Talk about an uncompromising totalitarian mindset! Obey your master. Follow the Code. "Empty your mind of questions." "Teach yourself to let go of everything you hold dear." No feeling, except the Force. Sounds a lot like Confucian China in terms of requiring impassive obedience, except that it's much, much worse, since you're not even allowed to get upset about it! Anger leads to the Dark Side. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Love leads to the Dark Side. FEELING leads to the Dark Side. Hell, if Yoda were to have his way, the Universe would be populated by untinking, unfeeling automatons, going blissfully about their business, never a thought or a feeling to distract them from the perfect harmony of the Force. And any student of cultural dynamics could tell you the result: the loss of invention, initiative, art, science, and progress. In a perfectly harmonious society there is no dissent, but there is no progress. There is no innovation. There is no invention, because nothing is needed. No development of idea or ideals. No pain. No hate. No anger. No love. No hopes. No dreams. No aspiration. An entire universe, blissfully ignorant. Thank god that there are dissidents like Qui Gon and Kenobi smiling and nodding at Yoda's understanding of the force, but still doing whatever the hell they think they must, emotional detachment be damned. But as a whole, and as gushed by Yoda, the Jedi preach detachment as they do their best to bring a chaotic univers into line.
Of course, we don't have that problem.
Instead, we have a different problem. The endless strife and competition and ebb and flow of ideas and commerce and information we see on a daily basis is nearly as stagnating as the pervasive silence of a passive universe. Our minds and senses can only grasp so much at any given time. Once we surpass the threshold of information and stimulation that we can wrap our minds around, it all simply becomes white noise, before which we stand in stunned awe, largely incapable of thought or action. What is the difference between a uinverse that is silent, and one so loud that nothing can be herd. I've seen it a lot here in town. Bumpkins coming in from pretty much any place that's not Las Vegas. They see the lights, the glitz, the grandeur, and they stand openmouthed in awe. In all the noise, they can hear nothing. All you need to do is walk the stip, and you'll see them too. Blided by the neon, the beautiful girls, the clink of coins into the dishes of the slot machines, and the cheers from winners in the craps pits. They jump in with both feet. They can't help themselves; they're blinded by it all, and beyond rational thought. They might not even think, even if they were able to, so amazing is it.
No thought. No fear. Just a plunge.
But, much like the universe as a whole, the glitz and glory of Las Vegas are illusion. The reality beneath is that this town is a machine. If you have a vice, it will find it, and give it to you. You will enjoy every second of it, and bask in things of fantasy of delight. Until it comsumes you. Tourists arrive, and go straight into the City's gaping maw, at the Bellagio, the Mirage, Ceasars Palace. Days, weeks, or months later, those same people, having cashed their plane tickets and spent their life savings for one last run at the 21 tables, get shit out onto Industrial avenue, utterly broke. Many of them will beg a way home, others will stay and find jobs. But some don't go home. There is a reason that none of the windows open on the high-rise towers, but the determined will still find a way to be done in, either by their own doing, or by someone else's doing.
And none of them will ever remember how it happened. Where all the money went. How they arrived at the Tables at a little after noon, and still found themselves there noon the next day. Where did the time go. It disappeared into the sensory overload. The flash and the sounds and the girls and the glitz and the free drinks. They sat blissfully in a sea of chaos so pervasive as to overcome them. And they fact that they lost $50,000 was just lost in the white noise.
The universe is like Las Vegas. Wonderful, terrible chaos, offering us the greatest of treasures for the highest of prices. It's just covered by a varyingly thin veneer of glitz and illusion. Hell, the only reason we can face it at all is because, in addition to the relatively thin and gaudy illusion, the Machine itself is so vast and expansive that, by virture of sheer size and complexity, is laregly beyond our perception and understanding. We can venture out into the world, because we don't know (or don't believe) just how dangerous it is.
Which brings us back to the Jedi. The greatest redeeming thing that I can see in the Jedi (other than lightsabers, which are near the top of the all-time bad-assness list) is their ability to perceive the greatness of the Universe, to see the chaos behind the illusion, and still control their responses to the stimulus that must result. Their ability to feel, through the Force, things happening lightyears away, yet still be rational. Their perceptions are vastly beyond and superior to our own, and they must thus know the terrible wonder and danger, yet somehow, they retain the ability to not be dazzled or drowned by the sea of white noise. I admire them for that. But I still detest the mindless, loveless, stagnant utopia they embrace. Yoda's rationality and impartiality come at the cost of his soul. Men are not machines, and are not meant to be.
But it must be comforting for the Jedi, to be able to feel nothing, and be unafraid of and unaffected while at the same time seeing and comprehending the whirling maelstom of things and thoughts surrounding them.
Of course, we mere mortals have a different solution. Rather than sacrificing our humanity to see the Whole, unfeeling, through the Force, we narrow our horizons down to a level that we can encompass. We look at things and thoughts in our immediate vicinity, outside of which the Noise pervades, thankfully concealing - beneath the ever-present illusion - the wonders and horrors we can't or choose not to deal with. We adjust our lives to contain an amount of chaos that we can handle, and remain blissfully ignorant of the rest. And problems really only arise when something from the Noise comes into the spheres in which we live our lives. But within those spheres, we are comfortable; we can live our lives ignorant of the dangers and wonders that all run together in the white noise.
It's a defense mechanism. We can't be impassive, so we become ignorant. We put things out of our mind, and don't worry about them. We trust (or kid ourselves) that the rest of the universe, outside our perceptions, is running along smoothly, just as it always has, without any help or imput from us. Si non confectus, non reficiat. Things work out, if you let them. And the up side is that we retain hope and dreams. We delve the White Noise at the edges of our lives, looking at the fringes of our lives for things and people to improve our existence. We enjoy the wonderful diversity and unpredictability of the utter chaos of our universe, yet keep it confined to a scale that we are comfortable with.
Of course, given that our lives consist of comfort zones of varying degrees of size (and comfort), determined according to our own tastes, we are faced with dilemma of how large (and how comfortable) we choose to make those zones. Since we can't, as the Jedi do, purge our minds of our feelings for the sake of Broader Understanding (nor do I think we should) we must pick and choose how, and how large, to build the lives we live. Naturally, the larger the life, the more maintenance involved in enforcing localized order onto ther universal chaos. The universe is inherently entropic, and requires the imput of energy to bring order from chaos. And people differ in the amount of energy they have to put into world-building. Phobics and neurotics confine themselves to small places, because of the threat and fear of the chaos overwhelming them. Catatonics confine themselves within the space of their own minds, for the same reason. But most of us find a larger space, where we deal with a fairly impressive amount of chaos, while (hopefully) avoiding situations that might pose the possibility of overwhelming us.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about this, but I need a drink first.
I'm talking about the actual Jedi philosophies and teaching of the Jedi Knights; the teaching that Yoda perpetually spouts until you're just dying for somebody to force-lightning him. Talk about an uncompromising totalitarian mindset! Obey your master. Follow the Code. "Empty your mind of questions." "Teach yourself to let go of everything you hold dear." No feeling, except the Force. Sounds a lot like Confucian China in terms of requiring impassive obedience, except that it's much, much worse, since you're not even allowed to get upset about it! Anger leads to the Dark Side. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Love leads to the Dark Side. FEELING leads to the Dark Side. Hell, if Yoda were to have his way, the Universe would be populated by untinking, unfeeling automatons, going blissfully about their business, never a thought or a feeling to distract them from the perfect harmony of the Force. And any student of cultural dynamics could tell you the result: the loss of invention, initiative, art, science, and progress. In a perfectly harmonious society there is no dissent, but there is no progress. There is no innovation. There is no invention, because nothing is needed. No development of idea or ideals. No pain. No hate. No anger. No love. No hopes. No dreams. No aspiration. An entire universe, blissfully ignorant. Thank god that there are dissidents like Qui Gon and Kenobi smiling and nodding at Yoda's understanding of the force, but still doing whatever the hell they think they must, emotional detachment be damned. But as a whole, and as gushed by Yoda, the Jedi preach detachment as they do their best to bring a chaotic univers into line.
Of course, we don't have that problem.
Instead, we have a different problem. The endless strife and competition and ebb and flow of ideas and commerce and information we see on a daily basis is nearly as stagnating as the pervasive silence of a passive universe. Our minds and senses can only grasp so much at any given time. Once we surpass the threshold of information and stimulation that we can wrap our minds around, it all simply becomes white noise, before which we stand in stunned awe, largely incapable of thought or action. What is the difference between a uinverse that is silent, and one so loud that nothing can be herd. I've seen it a lot here in town. Bumpkins coming in from pretty much any place that's not Las Vegas. They see the lights, the glitz, the grandeur, and they stand openmouthed in awe. In all the noise, they can hear nothing. All you need to do is walk the stip, and you'll see them too. Blided by the neon, the beautiful girls, the clink of coins into the dishes of the slot machines, and the cheers from winners in the craps pits. They jump in with both feet. They can't help themselves; they're blinded by it all, and beyond rational thought. They might not even think, even if they were able to, so amazing is it.
No thought. No fear. Just a plunge.
But, much like the universe as a whole, the glitz and glory of Las Vegas are illusion. The reality beneath is that this town is a machine. If you have a vice, it will find it, and give it to you. You will enjoy every second of it, and bask in things of fantasy of delight. Until it comsumes you. Tourists arrive, and go straight into the City's gaping maw, at the Bellagio, the Mirage, Ceasars Palace. Days, weeks, or months later, those same people, having cashed their plane tickets and spent their life savings for one last run at the 21 tables, get shit out onto Industrial avenue, utterly broke. Many of them will beg a way home, others will stay and find jobs. But some don't go home. There is a reason that none of the windows open on the high-rise towers, but the determined will still find a way to be done in, either by their own doing, or by someone else's doing.
And none of them will ever remember how it happened. Where all the money went. How they arrived at the Tables at a little after noon, and still found themselves there noon the next day. Where did the time go. It disappeared into the sensory overload. The flash and the sounds and the girls and the glitz and the free drinks. They sat blissfully in a sea of chaos so pervasive as to overcome them. And they fact that they lost $50,000 was just lost in the white noise.
The universe is like Las Vegas. Wonderful, terrible chaos, offering us the greatest of treasures for the highest of prices. It's just covered by a varyingly thin veneer of glitz and illusion. Hell, the only reason we can face it at all is because, in addition to the relatively thin and gaudy illusion, the Machine itself is so vast and expansive that, by virture of sheer size and complexity, is laregly beyond our perception and understanding. We can venture out into the world, because we don't know (or don't believe) just how dangerous it is.
Which brings us back to the Jedi. The greatest redeeming thing that I can see in the Jedi (other than lightsabers, which are near the top of the all-time bad-assness list) is their ability to perceive the greatness of the Universe, to see the chaos behind the illusion, and still control their responses to the stimulus that must result. Their ability to feel, through the Force, things happening lightyears away, yet still be rational. Their perceptions are vastly beyond and superior to our own, and they must thus know the terrible wonder and danger, yet somehow, they retain the ability to not be dazzled or drowned by the sea of white noise. I admire them for that. But I still detest the mindless, loveless, stagnant utopia they embrace. Yoda's rationality and impartiality come at the cost of his soul. Men are not machines, and are not meant to be.
But it must be comforting for the Jedi, to be able to feel nothing, and be unafraid of and unaffected while at the same time seeing and comprehending the whirling maelstom of things and thoughts surrounding them.
Of course, we mere mortals have a different solution. Rather than sacrificing our humanity to see the Whole, unfeeling, through the Force, we narrow our horizons down to a level that we can encompass. We look at things and thoughts in our immediate vicinity, outside of which the Noise pervades, thankfully concealing - beneath the ever-present illusion - the wonders and horrors we can't or choose not to deal with. We adjust our lives to contain an amount of chaos that we can handle, and remain blissfully ignorant of the rest. And problems really only arise when something from the Noise comes into the spheres in which we live our lives. But within those spheres, we are comfortable; we can live our lives ignorant of the dangers and wonders that all run together in the white noise.
It's a defense mechanism. We can't be impassive, so we become ignorant. We put things out of our mind, and don't worry about them. We trust (or kid ourselves) that the rest of the universe, outside our perceptions, is running along smoothly, just as it always has, without any help or imput from us. Si non confectus, non reficiat. Things work out, if you let them. And the up side is that we retain hope and dreams. We delve the White Noise at the edges of our lives, looking at the fringes of our lives for things and people to improve our existence. We enjoy the wonderful diversity and unpredictability of the utter chaos of our universe, yet keep it confined to a scale that we are comfortable with.
Of course, given that our lives consist of comfort zones of varying degrees of size (and comfort), determined according to our own tastes, we are faced with dilemma of how large (and how comfortable) we choose to make those zones. Since we can't, as the Jedi do, purge our minds of our feelings for the sake of Broader Understanding (nor do I think we should) we must pick and choose how, and how large, to build the lives we live. Naturally, the larger the life, the more maintenance involved in enforcing localized order onto ther universal chaos. The universe is inherently entropic, and requires the imput of energy to bring order from chaos. And people differ in the amount of energy they have to put into world-building. Phobics and neurotics confine themselves to small places, because of the threat and fear of the chaos overwhelming them. Catatonics confine themselves within the space of their own minds, for the same reason. But most of us find a larger space, where we deal with a fairly impressive amount of chaos, while (hopefully) avoiding situations that might pose the possibility of overwhelming us.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about this, but I need a drink first.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
All you have to do...
I'm not a believer in most relationships, for the same reason that I'm not a believer in most religions; anytime your happiness is dependant on the actions, opinions, or approval of someone other than you, you're just asking for grief. The simple fact of the matter is that relationships and religions are formed of people, and that people - by and large - suck.
With regard to religion, even if you are part of Marx's masses taking the opium, you must have noticed that religions these days are simply tools used to control people. Which is reasonable; it works better then pretty much any other means of control, something the was discovery pretty early. History seems to indicate that the actual teachings of Jesus were corrupted into 'Thou Shalt Nots' within just a few years of his death. The teaching themselves, as expressed in the Gospel of St. Thomas from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are actually very Zen-like in their expressions of life. 'The kingdom of heaven you are looking for is already here.' 'Split a piece if wood, and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me.' Above all the lessons were live simply, be honest, and don't do what you hate. There is no discussion of sin, or fire or brimstone, and naturally the Catholic Church utterly denounces the writings as heretic. Can't have the sheep thinking thoughts about how the ultimate goal is to stop being a sheep. And if people lived simply and honestly, how would they afford tithing?
The only modern(ish) religion that seems to have things even remotely right are the Zen Buddhists. I don't believe in those teachings either, since I don't think wisdom and enlightenment necessarily require abandonment of worldly concerns. Why the hell is the world here, if not for us to enjoy it? But the Zen monks are all about personal empowerment, and have the right idea about philosophy: their position is that you do not learn wisdom, you find it. There's an old saying about holy hermits: the only wisdom you will find on a mountaintop is the wisdom that you carry there with you.
What does this tell you?
Stimulus for enlightenment is all around us, and free for the taking. Check out Richard Bach's Illusions (the book which saved my life, and concurrently did much of the damage that turned me into the person - for lack of a better word - that I am today). Don Shimoda, who quit his job as a mechanic to be a messiah, then decided that the job wasn't really for him, has this trick where he can use any written material to find the answer to any question. It works, too. The trick - as Don says - is usually as simple as asking the question the right way. Wisdom is everywhere; the trick is learning to see how the world reflects the wisdom you already have. It's not something Out There that you let in, its something within that you LET OUT.
Thus, it's no real surprise how rare it is. People these days typically learn self-empowerment from Tony Robbins seminars, and WANT to be led through their lives by rules and commandments from third-parties, because doing so is a hell of a lot easier than thinking for themselves. As in the Allegory of the Cave (or the Matrix), the vast majority of people are not ready to be unplugged, and will rebel violently against even the concept of non-conformity. They will never fly, because they can't let go of the ground. So why should we expect them to have enough confidence in themselves, their abilities, and their thoughts to give them credence over the rote teachings of the officially Ordained?
I think this is a direct parallel to modern educational systems, which are geared towards memorization of facts, and teaching kids WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think. Parents take note: the greatest lesson you will ever teach your child is HOW TO LEARN. Don't teach them facts, or figures, or formulas. Instead, teach them that if they are interested in a subject, they are fully capable of learning about it. It is NOT beyond their ability, and how-tos are readily available at the library or on the internet. Do not teach them! Just show them how to learn about things they find engaging. They will do the rest, and will grow in their own time into something exponentially more vast than whatever facts and figures you might drill into their heads by rote.
But I digress. A bit; the confidence gained through a person who knows they can do anything is a huge step towards letting wisdom out, so a non-standard (and non-religious) upbringing will help in all sorts of areas of life.
The bottom line is that wisdom is everywhere. Which turns me to relationships. I was recently watching late-night TV on one of the five channels I get, and I heard Dr. John Dorien describing relationships. His position is that they all suck. They are never smooth, they are never easy, and are typically a lot of work. Even when you're in a good relationship, it's not a cake walk, its just a relationship where you care enough about the person that you face the fights and arguments and problems head on, because you refuse to let the relationship go. Where WHO you want becomes more important that WHAT you want. The summation line was one of the wisest things I have ever heard: if you want to make things work, all you have to do is WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Most relationships are not based on that sort of mutual dedication. In fact, I think most relationships are based on co-dependency. Where people end up togther because they are unwilling or unable to deal with being alone, and then fall into a rut where they've been with someone for so long, and they really don't want to disturb their comfortable status quo. So they stay together. Relationships based on symbiosis and convenience, rather than on love. How often do we linger in unpleasant situations, from inertia?
I'm not sure there's a point to all this; I just find it interesting.
With regard to religion, even if you are part of Marx's masses taking the opium, you must have noticed that religions these days are simply tools used to control people. Which is reasonable; it works better then pretty much any other means of control, something the was discovery pretty early. History seems to indicate that the actual teachings of Jesus were corrupted into 'Thou Shalt Nots' within just a few years of his death. The teaching themselves, as expressed in the Gospel of St. Thomas from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are actually very Zen-like in their expressions of life. 'The kingdom of heaven you are looking for is already here.' 'Split a piece if wood, and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me.' Above all the lessons were live simply, be honest, and don't do what you hate. There is no discussion of sin, or fire or brimstone, and naturally the Catholic Church utterly denounces the writings as heretic. Can't have the sheep thinking thoughts about how the ultimate goal is to stop being a sheep. And if people lived simply and honestly, how would they afford tithing?
The only modern(ish) religion that seems to have things even remotely right are the Zen Buddhists. I don't believe in those teachings either, since I don't think wisdom and enlightenment necessarily require abandonment of worldly concerns. Why the hell is the world here, if not for us to enjoy it? But the Zen monks are all about personal empowerment, and have the right idea about philosophy: their position is that you do not learn wisdom, you find it. There's an old saying about holy hermits: the only wisdom you will find on a mountaintop is the wisdom that you carry there with you.
What does this tell you?
Stimulus for enlightenment is all around us, and free for the taking. Check out Richard Bach's Illusions (the book which saved my life, and concurrently did much of the damage that turned me into the person - for lack of a better word - that I am today). Don Shimoda, who quit his job as a mechanic to be a messiah, then decided that the job wasn't really for him, has this trick where he can use any written material to find the answer to any question. It works, too. The trick - as Don says - is usually as simple as asking the question the right way. Wisdom is everywhere; the trick is learning to see how the world reflects the wisdom you already have. It's not something Out There that you let in, its something within that you LET OUT.
Thus, it's no real surprise how rare it is. People these days typically learn self-empowerment from Tony Robbins seminars, and WANT to be led through their lives by rules and commandments from third-parties, because doing so is a hell of a lot easier than thinking for themselves. As in the Allegory of the Cave (or the Matrix), the vast majority of people are not ready to be unplugged, and will rebel violently against even the concept of non-conformity. They will never fly, because they can't let go of the ground. So why should we expect them to have enough confidence in themselves, their abilities, and their thoughts to give them credence over the rote teachings of the officially Ordained?
I think this is a direct parallel to modern educational systems, which are geared towards memorization of facts, and teaching kids WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think. Parents take note: the greatest lesson you will ever teach your child is HOW TO LEARN. Don't teach them facts, or figures, or formulas. Instead, teach them that if they are interested in a subject, they are fully capable of learning about it. It is NOT beyond their ability, and how-tos are readily available at the library or on the internet. Do not teach them! Just show them how to learn about things they find engaging. They will do the rest, and will grow in their own time into something exponentially more vast than whatever facts and figures you might drill into their heads by rote.
But I digress. A bit; the confidence gained through a person who knows they can do anything is a huge step towards letting wisdom out, so a non-standard (and non-religious) upbringing will help in all sorts of areas of life.
The bottom line is that wisdom is everywhere. Which turns me to relationships. I was recently watching late-night TV on one of the five channels I get, and I heard Dr. John Dorien describing relationships. His position is that they all suck. They are never smooth, they are never easy, and are typically a lot of work. Even when you're in a good relationship, it's not a cake walk, its just a relationship where you care enough about the person that you face the fights and arguments and problems head on, because you refuse to let the relationship go. Where WHO you want becomes more important that WHAT you want. The summation line was one of the wisest things I have ever heard: if you want to make things work, all you have to do is WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Most relationships are not based on that sort of mutual dedication. In fact, I think most relationships are based on co-dependency. Where people end up togther because they are unwilling or unable to deal with being alone, and then fall into a rut where they've been with someone for so long, and they really don't want to disturb their comfortable status quo. So they stay together. Relationships based on symbiosis and convenience, rather than on love. How often do we linger in unpleasant situations, from inertia?
I'm not sure there's a point to all this; I just find it interesting.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Nature vs. Nurture
I realize that, contrary to all common sense, people do get bored of football, so I'll shift my monologue - at least temporarily - to another subject, brought to my attention by a recent TV documentary about psychological analysis of career crinimals. This got me to thinking about whether criminals (or other, less persecuted/prosecuted societal malcontents, including but not limited to performance artists, taxi drivers, lawyers, end democrats) arise as a result problems with themselves, or as a result of the society in which they move. And I refer to career malcontents, here. Not to the antics that all of us occasionally get up to, ranging from my own acts of breaking and entering and associated vandalism, to other people's desires to strip completely naked in the front seats of Cadillac SUVs. (I'll talk about those kinds of behavior later.) Those things are not where I'm going with this. Instead, I'm referring to people who either cannot function as upstanding individuals, or who simply choose not to. Where do they come from?
For the most part, I believe that the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate amounts to so much intellectual masturbation, in that it serves no purpose except the for the loving handling of choice ideas and concepts, devoid of any positive results or forward progress. For the most part, we are who we are, and while greater understanding of our origins is certainly fun to theorize on, we remain who we are. If we have children, we should do the best we can, strive to be better parents than we had, and accept that our children are going to become who they are, perhaps because of what we do, and perhaps in spite of what we do. Nature vs. Nurture is analysis without application; just as Freud could observe the behavior of a subject and proclaim from on-high how the behavior reflected the subject’s thoughts, a modern student of this subject can attribute modern social dysfunction to problems with the subject’s birth, upbringing, or both. But just as Freud was limited in his ability to project a subject’s behavior or divine their thoughts from their actions, modern disciples cannot reliably predict a person’s future or character by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing.
This is not to say that I consider the subject unworthy of consideration. Indeed, I am a firm proponent of masturbation of all varieties. Unending entertainment, victimless in the rare circumstances where it is a crime, and much more sanitary and risk-free than actual intercourse: masturbation is a quality pastime. And sometimes grows into more, as it may with Nature vs. Nurture. Just as social Darwinism drove the advancement of medical science to adapt manual masturbation into techniques of artificial insemination, the same Darwinistic process might eventually parlay this particular form of intellectual masturbation into some means to raise better kids. In the meantime, and even in the absence of direct applications for the research, intellectuals will continue to fondle and play with the subject matter, for no other reason than because it’s fun to do so.
All that having been said, things do look somewhat promising.
From the “Nurture” perspective, the issue is related to ingrained (learned) behavioral patterns, and the effect of external stimulus on the early development of the human mind and psyche. Even besides clear examples of learned behavior, there is a demonstrable statistical correlation between development of analytical intelligence and exposure to classical music at early ages. Likewise, children who receive positive reinforcement and who are continually told that they are intelligent and capable of solving problems show statistically higher levels of intelligence and problem solving ability than children who do not receive such encouragement. John Douglas, an expert on habitual violent behavior in humans if ever there was one, observes that virtually all violent serial criminals come from abusive or severely dysfunctional backgrounds. Is there more to this than these scientifically demonstrable examples of programmed-in-childhood levels of self-esteem among children who are encouraged, and a child’s learned reliance on behavioral models (abusive or otherwise)? Even if there is no more to this theory than what studies already indicate, how large a quotient of our adult lives is forged on that anvil? How much of one’s total adult intelligence is based on what one believes one can accomplish, based on mom’s encouragement? How much of one’s adult behavior is based on early-life observations of dad managing household affairs?
Rationally, the answer is quite a bit, particularly in the negative aspects. As above, John Douglas is a believer in the “Nurture” camp, at least insofar as it applies to the violent personalities he has spent his life hunting. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has completed an excellent study of the history and psychology of killing, likewise gives great weight to the vast majority of killers’ need to be programmed to be able to take human life. Douglas and Grossman, scholars who focus on the darker nature of homo sapiens, generally agree that killers – in almost all cases – are made, rather than born. On the flip side from the dark half, no statistical analysis seems necessary to support the point that good families with successful heads tend to raise good kids with successful lives. By the by, if you’re a fan of written fiction, Michael Crighton’s Lost World explores the issue of the importance of learned behavior (Nurture) just as the predecessor novel explored genetic manipulation (Nature). Good read; you’ll like it.
Parents take note: poor upbringings can produce shaky or even dangerous adults. Quality parenting tends to produce positive results in kids. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Isn’t nice when theoretical science supports obvious factual realities? But let’s stroke this idea a bit longer, just to see what happens.
If intelligence, personality, and interpersonal behavior are based on learned factors, is it possible to reprogram individuals who have reached adulthood? The obvious application for such techniques – aside from, for example, the already highly-effective means used by the USMC to turn upstanding, well-adjusted members of the American youth into killers – is the possibility of turning programmed killers and other social malcontents into productive, or at least harmless members of society. Can a career violent criminal be turned into a home-body accountant through some form of reprogramming? The answer is: probably not, as the programming in question exists on levels that we are only beginning to understand.
If the issue involved only something as simple as human memories, we’d be home free. Memory itself does not pose a terribly great challenge, as human memory is amazingly flexible and remarkably subject to modification. Brainwashing as a technique is centuries old, and if you tell someone something often enough, they will ultimately believe it’s true, and conform their lives to such programmed memory. Memory modification is a fairly simple (albeit time and effort-intensive) feat, which can be performed even without the benefit of modern techniques such as – for example – direct electrochemical manipulation of the brain with exotic medications. In fact, one of the problems that the psychological community has to grapple with is that of therapist-implanted memories. Patients, vulnerable, trusting, and eager to please (read: susceptible to suggestion), are treated by well-meaning therapists who are so confident of what they will find, that they unintentionally brainwash the patient into giving the answers and relating “memories” which support the therapists’ in-hand expectations and diagnosis. So be careful about what it is that you really remember, especially if you’ve discussed those memories with any sort of therapist.
But the human Nurture issue encompasses far more than memory. It is highly notable that brain conditions which affect memory do not generally affect behavior. Patients suffering from severe dissociative disorders, including those rarest of bright-plumage birds, true multiple personality patients, relate entire histories and memory sets (of unknown origin) – including childhood recollections – between the disparate personalities. However, such divergent memories manifest as only token variances in behavior between personalities. While there will typically be a dominant and subservient personality, behavioral variances are seldom terribly drastic, notwithstanding differences in the memories of each personality.
Additionally, and perhaps more tellingly, traumatic amnesiacs with little or no recall of any factual memories nonetheless retain behavioral patterns, and also retain such abilities as reading, writing, setting up a chess board, or knowing how long they can run flat-out at a given altitude before their hands start shaking. Behavioral patterns (and functional skills) exist in the human brain independent of memories that can be medically or traumatically altered. Thus, we are back at the original Nature vs. Nurture question: are those underlying patterns and skills a result of neural patterns intrinsic in the human brain (Nature), or are they just a different and/or deeper level of learned behavior. What’s the next step? At this point, psychology is still grasping for semantic definitions for behavioral underpinnings, much less delving the actual realties.
But just as man discovered plastics through practical experimentation long before he understood nuances of hydrocarbon chemistry, the science of hands-on behavioral modification is stumbling forward (largely in the dark) through practical experimentation, mostly without the guiding light of clear understanding of the involved neurological and psychological factors. Realistically, it’s unlikely that we will be reprogramming serial killers anytime soon: the entire field of “criminal rehabilitation” presumes that the criminal personalities in question had some point in their history (to which they can be restored or “rehabilitated”) where they were capable of functioning as normal, well-adjusted human beings. Unfortunately, this is generally wishful thinking. Most criminals and malcontents lack prior, pre-criminal-career skills to fall back on, which creates problems in “restoring” them to a point in their past where they were well-adjusted individuals. As we lack the ability and/or inclination to reduce adults back to an early childhood mental state – assuming of course, that they’ve actually progressed beyond that intellectual state – and build them entirely new, well adjusted personalities, we’re still just wanking so far as “rehabilitating” habitual criminals is concerned.
But there has been progress, and we have the pharmaceutical industry to thank: results are being gained through trial and error, much as a blindfolded man running around a race-track will discover hurdles and obstacles as he falls over them. But as the process has been underway for a while, some behavior-altering medications are getting past the point of being an overused trend (“take your soma and be happy”); the attached body of science and chemistry has reached the critical mass necessary for reliable real-world application. Ask anyone who has suffered from ADD about their levels of functionality with and without their medication, and you’ll become a believer. While it is probably true that if Tom Sawyer were alive today, he would be diagnosed as a chronic problem child, medicated, and probably institutionalized, the science of behavioral adjustment appears to be moving in the right direction, by which I mean that the treatments are resulting in people who are better, healthier, and happier, and not just resulting in people (kids) who are easier (for parents) to control. Which is not to say that we have no need for treatments which render problem people (including kids) easier to control, but that’s neither here nor there. But while the medication can be a huge help, is it changing their nature, or is it making them easier to nuture?
I might have mentioned that the whole debate really has no end in sight.
But the next time that you’re getting your head shrunk, consider not just your answers, but where in your past those answers come from. I realize that this is an easy comment to make for one with a memory like mine, but still: the only point of Nature vs. Nurture worth taking seriously is considering not just the WHAT of who your are, but also the WHYs that formed the What. Also ask yourself if you’re telling your therapist the truth, of if you’re regurgitating responses and information that your therapist has programmed into you over the course of your treatment. While one of the functions of a therapist is, undoubtedly, the alteration of ingrained behavioral patterns (be they nurtured or natural) into “healthier” patterns, what should the limits of such reprogramming be, and are you the one who is setting the parameters? Just something to keep in mind.
You’re welcome.
For the most part, I believe that the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate amounts to so much intellectual masturbation, in that it serves no purpose except the for the loving handling of choice ideas and concepts, devoid of any positive results or forward progress. For the most part, we are who we are, and while greater understanding of our origins is certainly fun to theorize on, we remain who we are. If we have children, we should do the best we can, strive to be better parents than we had, and accept that our children are going to become who they are, perhaps because of what we do, and perhaps in spite of what we do. Nature vs. Nurture is analysis without application; just as Freud could observe the behavior of a subject and proclaim from on-high how the behavior reflected the subject’s thoughts, a modern student of this subject can attribute modern social dysfunction to problems with the subject’s birth, upbringing, or both. But just as Freud was limited in his ability to project a subject’s behavior or divine their thoughts from their actions, modern disciples cannot reliably predict a person’s future or character by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing.
This is not to say that I consider the subject unworthy of consideration. Indeed, I am a firm proponent of masturbation of all varieties. Unending entertainment, victimless in the rare circumstances where it is a crime, and much more sanitary and risk-free than actual intercourse: masturbation is a quality pastime. And sometimes grows into more, as it may with Nature vs. Nurture. Just as social Darwinism drove the advancement of medical science to adapt manual masturbation into techniques of artificial insemination, the same Darwinistic process might eventually parlay this particular form of intellectual masturbation into some means to raise better kids. In the meantime, and even in the absence of direct applications for the research, intellectuals will continue to fondle and play with the subject matter, for no other reason than because it’s fun to do so.
All that having been said, things do look somewhat promising.
From the “Nurture” perspective, the issue is related to ingrained (learned) behavioral patterns, and the effect of external stimulus on the early development of the human mind and psyche. Even besides clear examples of learned behavior, there is a demonstrable statistical correlation between development of analytical intelligence and exposure to classical music at early ages. Likewise, children who receive positive reinforcement and who are continually told that they are intelligent and capable of solving problems show statistically higher levels of intelligence and problem solving ability than children who do not receive such encouragement. John Douglas, an expert on habitual violent behavior in humans if ever there was one, observes that virtually all violent serial criminals come from abusive or severely dysfunctional backgrounds. Is there more to this than these scientifically demonstrable examples of programmed-in-childhood levels of self-esteem among children who are encouraged, and a child’s learned reliance on behavioral models (abusive or otherwise)? Even if there is no more to this theory than what studies already indicate, how large a quotient of our adult lives is forged on that anvil? How much of one’s total adult intelligence is based on what one believes one can accomplish, based on mom’s encouragement? How much of one’s adult behavior is based on early-life observations of dad managing household affairs?
Rationally, the answer is quite a bit, particularly in the negative aspects. As above, John Douglas is a believer in the “Nurture” camp, at least insofar as it applies to the violent personalities he has spent his life hunting. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has completed an excellent study of the history and psychology of killing, likewise gives great weight to the vast majority of killers’ need to be programmed to be able to take human life. Douglas and Grossman, scholars who focus on the darker nature of homo sapiens, generally agree that killers – in almost all cases – are made, rather than born. On the flip side from the dark half, no statistical analysis seems necessary to support the point that good families with successful heads tend to raise good kids with successful lives. By the by, if you’re a fan of written fiction, Michael Crighton’s Lost World explores the issue of the importance of learned behavior (Nurture) just as the predecessor novel explored genetic manipulation (Nature). Good read; you’ll like it.
Parents take note: poor upbringings can produce shaky or even dangerous adults. Quality parenting tends to produce positive results in kids. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Isn’t nice when theoretical science supports obvious factual realities? But let’s stroke this idea a bit longer, just to see what happens.
If intelligence, personality, and interpersonal behavior are based on learned factors, is it possible to reprogram individuals who have reached adulthood? The obvious application for such techniques – aside from, for example, the already highly-effective means used by the USMC to turn upstanding, well-adjusted members of the American youth into killers – is the possibility of turning programmed killers and other social malcontents into productive, or at least harmless members of society. Can a career violent criminal be turned into a home-body accountant through some form of reprogramming? The answer is: probably not, as the programming in question exists on levels that we are only beginning to understand.
If the issue involved only something as simple as human memories, we’d be home free. Memory itself does not pose a terribly great challenge, as human memory is amazingly flexible and remarkably subject to modification. Brainwashing as a technique is centuries old, and if you tell someone something often enough, they will ultimately believe it’s true, and conform their lives to such programmed memory. Memory modification is a fairly simple (albeit time and effort-intensive) feat, which can be performed even without the benefit of modern techniques such as – for example – direct electrochemical manipulation of the brain with exotic medications. In fact, one of the problems that the psychological community has to grapple with is that of therapist-implanted memories. Patients, vulnerable, trusting, and eager to please (read: susceptible to suggestion), are treated by well-meaning therapists who are so confident of what they will find, that they unintentionally brainwash the patient into giving the answers and relating “memories” which support the therapists’ in-hand expectations and diagnosis. So be careful about what it is that you really remember, especially if you’ve discussed those memories with any sort of therapist.
But the human Nurture issue encompasses far more than memory. It is highly notable that brain conditions which affect memory do not generally affect behavior. Patients suffering from severe dissociative disorders, including those rarest of bright-plumage birds, true multiple personality patients, relate entire histories and memory sets (of unknown origin) – including childhood recollections – between the disparate personalities. However, such divergent memories manifest as only token variances in behavior between personalities. While there will typically be a dominant and subservient personality, behavioral variances are seldom terribly drastic, notwithstanding differences in the memories of each personality.
Additionally, and perhaps more tellingly, traumatic amnesiacs with little or no recall of any factual memories nonetheless retain behavioral patterns, and also retain such abilities as reading, writing, setting up a chess board, or knowing how long they can run flat-out at a given altitude before their hands start shaking. Behavioral patterns (and functional skills) exist in the human brain independent of memories that can be medically or traumatically altered. Thus, we are back at the original Nature vs. Nurture question: are those underlying patterns and skills a result of neural patterns intrinsic in the human brain (Nature), or are they just a different and/or deeper level of learned behavior. What’s the next step? At this point, psychology is still grasping for semantic definitions for behavioral underpinnings, much less delving the actual realties.
But just as man discovered plastics through practical experimentation long before he understood nuances of hydrocarbon chemistry, the science of hands-on behavioral modification is stumbling forward (largely in the dark) through practical experimentation, mostly without the guiding light of clear understanding of the involved neurological and psychological factors. Realistically, it’s unlikely that we will be reprogramming serial killers anytime soon: the entire field of “criminal rehabilitation” presumes that the criminal personalities in question had some point in their history (to which they can be restored or “rehabilitated”) where they were capable of functioning as normal, well-adjusted human beings. Unfortunately, this is generally wishful thinking. Most criminals and malcontents lack prior, pre-criminal-career skills to fall back on, which creates problems in “restoring” them to a point in their past where they were well-adjusted individuals. As we lack the ability and/or inclination to reduce adults back to an early childhood mental state – assuming of course, that they’ve actually progressed beyond that intellectual state – and build them entirely new, well adjusted personalities, we’re still just wanking so far as “rehabilitating” habitual criminals is concerned.
But there has been progress, and we have the pharmaceutical industry to thank: results are being gained through trial and error, much as a blindfolded man running around a race-track will discover hurdles and obstacles as he falls over them. But as the process has been underway for a while, some behavior-altering medications are getting past the point of being an overused trend (“take your soma and be happy”); the attached body of science and chemistry has reached the critical mass necessary for reliable real-world application. Ask anyone who has suffered from ADD about their levels of functionality with and without their medication, and you’ll become a believer. While it is probably true that if Tom Sawyer were alive today, he would be diagnosed as a chronic problem child, medicated, and probably institutionalized, the science of behavioral adjustment appears to be moving in the right direction, by which I mean that the treatments are resulting in people who are better, healthier, and happier, and not just resulting in people (kids) who are easier (for parents) to control. Which is not to say that we have no need for treatments which render problem people (including kids) easier to control, but that’s neither here nor there. But while the medication can be a huge help, is it changing their nature, or is it making them easier to nuture?
I might have mentioned that the whole debate really has no end in sight.
But the next time that you’re getting your head shrunk, consider not just your answers, but where in your past those answers come from. I realize that this is an easy comment to make for one with a memory like mine, but still: the only point of Nature vs. Nurture worth taking seriously is considering not just the WHAT of who your are, but also the WHYs that formed the What. Also ask yourself if you’re telling your therapist the truth, of if you’re regurgitating responses and information that your therapist has programmed into you over the course of your treatment. While one of the functions of a therapist is, undoubtedly, the alteration of ingrained behavioral patterns (be they nurtured or natural) into “healthier” patterns, what should the limits of such reprogramming be, and are you the one who is setting the parameters? Just something to keep in mind.
You’re welcome.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Told You So
Let me preface by saying that I am not a New England fan. Nor really a fan of any other team. During the off-season, I follow San Francisco (hoping they do something get better), Dallas (hoping they do something to get worse), and SD, PIT, and NE to further my education as to how to do things right. During the season itself, I have no interest in even watching (much less cheering for) the 49ers, because - more than anything else - I'm a fan of good football, and you don't generally see much of it during 'Niners games.
I admit that I am cheering for NE this season, for two reasons. First, if ever there was a bunch of arrogant pretentous fucks who deserve to get knocked off their pedestal, it's the '72 Dolphins. The Dolphins won 12 regular season games, and their opponents' combined records was 70-108-4; they spend the season whipping on losing teams. The Pats this season went 16-0 against teams that were 94-89, including wins against SIX playoff teams. They won more games against better opponents, in the age of parity. Please Jesus, let the Pats win in all, so we never need to hear another word from the '72 Dolphins. Second, I'm cheering for the Pats because I'm a fan of good football, and right now, the Patriots are playing the best football that anyone has ever seen.
Moving along: I let the title of this post stand for itself, and only add as afterthoughts that NE's "weak" running game gained more yards against JAX's "excellent" run defense that JAX's "excellent" run against NE's "weak" defense. NE also led in time of possession. Bottom line: NE would have won that game even if the two teams had the same number of possessions, and was helped by winning the turnover battle.
On the other games, my heart is doing a little dance that the Cowboys lost, but I fell asleep during the game, so I'm not qualified to comment on how the game actually went.
In SD at IND, anyone going back to the old saw about Peyton being unable to win the big game needs to watch the game tape, because he wasn't the reason they lost. They lost because their highly rated defense couldn't shut down SD, even with Gates hurt and Tomlinson on the sidelines. The problem with the offense wasn't Manning, it was the receivers. Yes, balls were tipped and defelected a few times, but even so, they were still ctachable. The IND receivers (especially sans Marvin Harrison) looked soft: they are so used to the ball hitting them in the chest that they're not very good at fighting to make a big catch, which they needed to do in a hard-fought game. And they're so used to all the blame falling on Manning (justifiably or not) that they didn't come through for him when he needed them to.
The SEA at GB game was a snooze-fest after the first quarter, and hammers home the point that - as good as they are at home - SEA is not a threat to the elite teams in the league. GB spotted them 14 fucking points! The SEA defense, especially their astronomically hyped LB corps, should be embarrassed for the way things turned out. Also, Shaun Alexander will be cut in the off-season, and rightly so.
Turning to the upcoming games: last weak, I would have said that SD is a tougher opponent for NE than JAX: better overall defense that's mcuh less predictable (lots of blitz packages in SD's 3-4 set than in JAX's plain-vanilla 4-3), a more explosive ground game, and - most importantly - SD generates a lot of turnovers.
But there are recent developments: Gates, Rivers, and Tomlinson are all injured. While all of them are expected to play, none will be at 100%. Per my last post, winning games is simple: you either need to outscore the other team on an equal number of possessions, or else you need to find some way to get more possessions. Even with LT, PR, and AG intact, San Diego is not going to outscore New England given equal possessions. Banged-up, it will be even less close. But SD leads the league this season in having more possessions than its opponents: they led the league in turnover ratio, at +24. (NE is third, at +16.)
Here's how I see it shaking out: San Diego will be able to get some pressure on Brady, which is something not a lot of teams have been able to do. But it won't matter. Lots of people compare Brady to Montanna, for various reasons. I agree, and the biggest parallel I see is their demeanor. Joe never got tight, he never got tense. No matter if he got hit, sacked, or knocked down, he went right back out and ran the next play utterly unfazed. It was just simply impossible to rattle him. Brady is the same way. SD might knock him down, but they won't be able to get to him, and he will continue to do what he's done all season, and score touchdowns instead of field goals.
On the other side of the ball, SD will score points as well. Their offensive line is excellent, and will be able to create room for LT (or Turner) to run. But it won't matter. The NE defense will continue to do what it has all season: bend but not break. They will stop a few drives in the red zone, force SD to settle for field-goals instead of touchdowns, and that will be it.
The only things that might change the outcome are if SD can significantly win the turnover battle (+2 or +3) or else get some "free" points on special teams (a punt or kick-return for a TD). I don't think either is very likely against NE in NE.
As for the NFC championship, I wouldn't bet either way. Both teams can play in bad weather with their running games. Both teams have up-and-down QBs. Both teams are solid in their front-7 defensively. These are two pretty well-matched teams. So, barring either team getting two or three turnovers, my gut tells me this game is going to be decided by who melts down. I don't think it's going to be Brett Farve; he's been good all season, and has enough talent around him that he hasn't had to force it this season the way he had to the last few seasons. He's enjoying himself and looking good. So the melt-down will either be Eli Manning, or the GB secondary. Eli can be flustered pretty easily, and does some dumb things with the ball that lead to turnovers, both fumbles and INTs. But if Eli can get a few seconds in the pocket, the GB corners and safeties are not going to be able to keep up with big, fast receivers (see: Burress, Plaxico), and will take penalties, just like they have all season (see: Harris, Al). They will simply grab on to the receiver, and get flagged for it. The result will be a couple interference or illegal contact penalties that revive Giants drives, or else put them in scoring position.
To protect the secondary, the GB defense will need to put pressure on Manning to get him to throw early in the pattern, before Burress and Toomer can get downfield. Getting that pressure will be tough to do and still play solid against the Giants' running game, but will be a bit easier since they won't need to worry about Shockey in the flat. All in all, if the Pack can get to Eli and shake him up, they will win. If it were me, I call some big blitzes early, to try to get into Eli's head, even if it means giving up some yards and/or scores. Some Green Dog assignments, or blitzes from the corners or secondary (Harris and Bigby are good tacklers who'd love a run at Eli). Might get burned early, but I'd rather play from behind against a battered Eli than with a lead against a comfortable Eli.
On the flip side, if I were running things for the Giants, I spend the week polishing plays to keep the Pack defense honest. Some max-protect schemes, since if Eli can stay upright for long enough to throw downfield, it probably won't matter if Plax catches it or not, since a flag will fly. I also dust off the screen-pass and end-around sections of play-book, to take advantage of a possibly over-agressive rush from the Pack LBs. Slow down the rush, keep Eli calm, and take what they give you.
Should be fun to watch either way.
I admit that I am cheering for NE this season, for two reasons. First, if ever there was a bunch of arrogant pretentous fucks who deserve to get knocked off their pedestal, it's the '72 Dolphins. The Dolphins won 12 regular season games, and their opponents' combined records was 70-108-4; they spend the season whipping on losing teams. The Pats this season went 16-0 against teams that were 94-89, including wins against SIX playoff teams. They won more games against better opponents, in the age of parity. Please Jesus, let the Pats win in all, so we never need to hear another word from the '72 Dolphins. Second, I'm cheering for the Pats because I'm a fan of good football, and right now, the Patriots are playing the best football that anyone has ever seen.
Moving along: I let the title of this post stand for itself, and only add as afterthoughts that NE's "weak" running game gained more yards against JAX's "excellent" run defense that JAX's "excellent" run against NE's "weak" defense. NE also led in time of possession. Bottom line: NE would have won that game even if the two teams had the same number of possessions, and was helped by winning the turnover battle.
On the other games, my heart is doing a little dance that the Cowboys lost, but I fell asleep during the game, so I'm not qualified to comment on how the game actually went.
In SD at IND, anyone going back to the old saw about Peyton being unable to win the big game needs to watch the game tape, because he wasn't the reason they lost. They lost because their highly rated defense couldn't shut down SD, even with Gates hurt and Tomlinson on the sidelines. The problem with the offense wasn't Manning, it was the receivers. Yes, balls were tipped and defelected a few times, but even so, they were still ctachable. The IND receivers (especially sans Marvin Harrison) looked soft: they are so used to the ball hitting them in the chest that they're not very good at fighting to make a big catch, which they needed to do in a hard-fought game. And they're so used to all the blame falling on Manning (justifiably or not) that they didn't come through for him when he needed them to.
The SEA at GB game was a snooze-fest after the first quarter, and hammers home the point that - as good as they are at home - SEA is not a threat to the elite teams in the league. GB spotted them 14 fucking points! The SEA defense, especially their astronomically hyped LB corps, should be embarrassed for the way things turned out. Also, Shaun Alexander will be cut in the off-season, and rightly so.
Turning to the upcoming games: last weak, I would have said that SD is a tougher opponent for NE than JAX: better overall defense that's mcuh less predictable (lots of blitz packages in SD's 3-4 set than in JAX's plain-vanilla 4-3), a more explosive ground game, and - most importantly - SD generates a lot of turnovers.
But there are recent developments: Gates, Rivers, and Tomlinson are all injured. While all of them are expected to play, none will be at 100%. Per my last post, winning games is simple: you either need to outscore the other team on an equal number of possessions, or else you need to find some way to get more possessions. Even with LT, PR, and AG intact, San Diego is not going to outscore New England given equal possessions. Banged-up, it will be even less close. But SD leads the league this season in having more possessions than its opponents: they led the league in turnover ratio, at +24. (NE is third, at +16.)
Here's how I see it shaking out: San Diego will be able to get some pressure on Brady, which is something not a lot of teams have been able to do. But it won't matter. Lots of people compare Brady to Montanna, for various reasons. I agree, and the biggest parallel I see is their demeanor. Joe never got tight, he never got tense. No matter if he got hit, sacked, or knocked down, he went right back out and ran the next play utterly unfazed. It was just simply impossible to rattle him. Brady is the same way. SD might knock him down, but they won't be able to get to him, and he will continue to do what he's done all season, and score touchdowns instead of field goals.
On the other side of the ball, SD will score points as well. Their offensive line is excellent, and will be able to create room for LT (or Turner) to run. But it won't matter. The NE defense will continue to do what it has all season: bend but not break. They will stop a few drives in the red zone, force SD to settle for field-goals instead of touchdowns, and that will be it.
The only things that might change the outcome are if SD can significantly win the turnover battle (+2 or +3) or else get some "free" points on special teams (a punt or kick-return for a TD). I don't think either is very likely against NE in NE.
As for the NFC championship, I wouldn't bet either way. Both teams can play in bad weather with their running games. Both teams have up-and-down QBs. Both teams are solid in their front-7 defensively. These are two pretty well-matched teams. So, barring either team getting two or three turnovers, my gut tells me this game is going to be decided by who melts down. I don't think it's going to be Brett Farve; he's been good all season, and has enough talent around him that he hasn't had to force it this season the way he had to the last few seasons. He's enjoying himself and looking good. So the melt-down will either be Eli Manning, or the GB secondary. Eli can be flustered pretty easily, and does some dumb things with the ball that lead to turnovers, both fumbles and INTs. But if Eli can get a few seconds in the pocket, the GB corners and safeties are not going to be able to keep up with big, fast receivers (see: Burress, Plaxico), and will take penalties, just like they have all season (see: Harris, Al). They will simply grab on to the receiver, and get flagged for it. The result will be a couple interference or illegal contact penalties that revive Giants drives, or else put them in scoring position.
To protect the secondary, the GB defense will need to put pressure on Manning to get him to throw early in the pattern, before Burress and Toomer can get downfield. Getting that pressure will be tough to do and still play solid against the Giants' running game, but will be a bit easier since they won't need to worry about Shockey in the flat. All in all, if the Pack can get to Eli and shake him up, they will win. If it were me, I call some big blitzes early, to try to get into Eli's head, even if it means giving up some yards and/or scores. Some Green Dog assignments, or blitzes from the corners or secondary (Harris and Bigby are good tacklers who'd love a run at Eli). Might get burned early, but I'd rather play from behind against a battered Eli than with a lead against a comfortable Eli.
On the flip side, if I were running things for the Giants, I spend the week polishing plays to keep the Pack defense honest. Some max-protect schemes, since if Eli can stay upright for long enough to throw downfield, it probably won't matter if Plax catches it or not, since a flag will fly. I also dust off the screen-pass and end-around sections of play-book, to take advantage of a possibly over-agressive rush from the Pack LBs. Slow down the rush, keep Eli calm, and take what they give you.
Should be fun to watch either way.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Divisional/Delusional Playoffs
I continue to be amazed at the human mind's ability to delude itself with wishful thinking, notwithstanding overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.
This week's example is - once again - a NE Patriots reference. Notable professional commentators are arguing in the public forum that, not only CAN Jacksonville win, but that Jacksonville WILL win. ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?columnist=green_jeremy&id=3187786 ) I admit that the former is possible. But to make the latter assertion is fucking crazy: nothing short of divine intervention by the football gods or else catestrophic meltdown by NE will result in a JAX win this week. Lets do some debunking, just for kicks.
First of all, the points that NE is overhyped:
People point out that NE might not be as good as its 16-0 record. "They played in the AFC east, and had an easy schedule." Bullshit. First of all, in addition to playing in the AFC East (which is soft), NE got wins at DAL, at IND, at NYG, and also wins against SD, PIT, and WAS. NE's perfect season included wins against SIX PLAYOFF TEAMS! Besides which, anyone who remembers the beatings that NE was handing out (notably in DAL and against PIT) should know better than to suggest that this team is somehow not as good as the numbers indicate.
People point out that the NE run defense is suspect, and not as good as the numbers indicate. Although 4th statistically, this number is inflated, since NE spent a lot of time with leads, and other teams were forced to throw. Response: So? I agree that if NE has a weakness, it's run defense, but don't see how this means anything is going to be different this weekend. The Patriots are going to score points, and JAX is going to have to score some as well. There's no doubt at all about the NE offense, and JAX is going to have to keep up, which means they're going to have the same problem everyone else does, which means they're going to have to throw the ball. The NE run defense will do exactly what it has all season: hold other teams down just enough for the NE offense to get a lead. At which point JAX will have to start throwing, same as everyone else has.
People point out that this NE team, with its pass-happy offense, is not built for January cold-weather games. This will be a game in NE in January. I find it amazing that people use the fact that NE has a playoff game IN NEW ENGLAND as a point against the Patriots. Belichick is 14-2 in playoff home games. Brady is 6-0. You think the NE defense is going to be flat in front of a home crowd? Don't split hairs to find reasons why a home playoff game somehow works against NE. You're smoking crack.
Now lets look at the arguments that JAX is under-rated.
People point out that JAX has a great running game and will be able to control the clock against NE. This is true, but "contolling the clock" is always a relative issue. No matter how good JAX's possession game, the NE offense IS going to get on the field: the dynamics of the game indicate that both teams are probably going to have about the same number of possessions (both these teams are pretty good about turnovers; that should be a wash). The NE offense is going to get possessions and score points. Raise your hand if you think that JAX can score more points than NE given an equal number of possessions. That's what I thought. JAX might be able to keep in from being a blowout by limiting the number of possessions each team has, but that is the best results you can hope for from the "ball-control" theory. Turnovers aside, you cannot limit the number of the other team's possession except by limiting the number of your own possessions!
People point out that JAX has a great run defense, and will force NE to throw the ball. NE has been throwing the ball all season, whether they were "forced" to or not. The goal of forcing the QB to throw is based on the ideas that every incompletion is a lost play with no gain, and you might force a QB mistake that results in an interception. Brady is completing 69% of his passes. He's averaged 11.7 yards per completion, and 8.3 yards per attempt. Don't bet on NE drives stalling because Brady can't connect. As for mistakes, his touchdown to INT ration is over 5 to 1, and he's thrown just over one interception for every two games. Don't count on forcing him into turning the ball over. Weather might make it tough on Tom. But he's 12-2 in the playoffs for his career, and 84-1 carrer when the Pats have a lead in the forth. If you're plan to win depends on Tom Brady making mistakes that give you the game, you've got some re-thinking to do.
None of running the ball, controlling the clock, or forcing the pass did JAX much good against IND; they got beat by 22 points in IND in week 7. (Two weeks later, NE beat IND in IND.) IND beat JAX again in JAX in week 13. How exactly are things supposed to be better when JAX is facing the league's best offense (NE) instead of the fifth best offense (IND)?
Here are the simple facts of the game. New England is winning by an average margin of almost 20 points. They kicked the hell out of a PIT team that was better than JAX on defense, and almost as good running the ball. They are playing at home, and coming off a season in which they set single-season records for points, touchdowns, TD passes, and TD receptions. JAX is 0-7 this season when an opponent has a lead of 7 or greater.
There is a reason they play the games, and I might be the one who's wrong (it happens) but the way I see it, and barring divine intervetion, the Pats win this one handily.
This week's example is - once again - a NE Patriots reference. Notable professional commentators are arguing in the public forum that, not only CAN Jacksonville win, but that Jacksonville WILL win. ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?columnist=green_jeremy&id=3187786 ) I admit that the former is possible. But to make the latter assertion is fucking crazy: nothing short of divine intervention by the football gods or else catestrophic meltdown by NE will result in a JAX win this week. Lets do some debunking, just for kicks.
First of all, the points that NE is overhyped:
People point out that NE might not be as good as its 16-0 record. "They played in the AFC east, and had an easy schedule." Bullshit. First of all, in addition to playing in the AFC East (which is soft), NE got wins at DAL, at IND, at NYG, and also wins against SD, PIT, and WAS. NE's perfect season included wins against SIX PLAYOFF TEAMS! Besides which, anyone who remembers the beatings that NE was handing out (notably in DAL and against PIT) should know better than to suggest that this team is somehow not as good as the numbers indicate.
People point out that the NE run defense is suspect, and not as good as the numbers indicate. Although 4th statistically, this number is inflated, since NE spent a lot of time with leads, and other teams were forced to throw. Response: So? I agree that if NE has a weakness, it's run defense, but don't see how this means anything is going to be different this weekend. The Patriots are going to score points, and JAX is going to have to score some as well. There's no doubt at all about the NE offense, and JAX is going to have to keep up, which means they're going to have the same problem everyone else does, which means they're going to have to throw the ball. The NE run defense will do exactly what it has all season: hold other teams down just enough for the NE offense to get a lead. At which point JAX will have to start throwing, same as everyone else has.
People point out that this NE team, with its pass-happy offense, is not built for January cold-weather games. This will be a game in NE in January. I find it amazing that people use the fact that NE has a playoff game IN NEW ENGLAND as a point against the Patriots. Belichick is 14-2 in playoff home games. Brady is 6-0. You think the NE defense is going to be flat in front of a home crowd? Don't split hairs to find reasons why a home playoff game somehow works against NE. You're smoking crack.
Now lets look at the arguments that JAX is under-rated.
People point out that JAX has a great running game and will be able to control the clock against NE. This is true, but "contolling the clock" is always a relative issue. No matter how good JAX's possession game, the NE offense IS going to get on the field: the dynamics of the game indicate that both teams are probably going to have about the same number of possessions (both these teams are pretty good about turnovers; that should be a wash). The NE offense is going to get possessions and score points. Raise your hand if you think that JAX can score more points than NE given an equal number of possessions. That's what I thought. JAX might be able to keep in from being a blowout by limiting the number of possessions each team has, but that is the best results you can hope for from the "ball-control" theory. Turnovers aside, you cannot limit the number of the other team's possession except by limiting the number of your own possessions!
People point out that JAX has a great run defense, and will force NE to throw the ball. NE has been throwing the ball all season, whether they were "forced" to or not. The goal of forcing the QB to throw is based on the ideas that every incompletion is a lost play with no gain, and you might force a QB mistake that results in an interception. Brady is completing 69% of his passes. He's averaged 11.7 yards per completion, and 8.3 yards per attempt. Don't bet on NE drives stalling because Brady can't connect. As for mistakes, his touchdown to INT ration is over 5 to 1, and he's thrown just over one interception for every two games. Don't count on forcing him into turning the ball over. Weather might make it tough on Tom. But he's 12-2 in the playoffs for his career, and 84-1 carrer when the Pats have a lead in the forth. If you're plan to win depends on Tom Brady making mistakes that give you the game, you've got some re-thinking to do.
None of running the ball, controlling the clock, or forcing the pass did JAX much good against IND; they got beat by 22 points in IND in week 7. (Two weeks later, NE beat IND in IND.) IND beat JAX again in JAX in week 13. How exactly are things supposed to be better when JAX is facing the league's best offense (NE) instead of the fifth best offense (IND)?
Here are the simple facts of the game. New England is winning by an average margin of almost 20 points. They kicked the hell out of a PIT team that was better than JAX on defense, and almost as good running the ball. They are playing at home, and coming off a season in which they set single-season records for points, touchdowns, TD passes, and TD receptions. JAX is 0-7 this season when an opponent has a lead of 7 or greater.
There is a reason they play the games, and I might be the one who's wrong (it happens) but the way I see it, and barring divine intervetion, the Pats win this one handily.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Crystallized Bullshit
My good friend DOTJ, who is probably the only person on the planet who reads this blog, inquires: what - other than nuclear conspiracy and anti-terrorism theory - is filed in the "MISC. INFO." part of my brain. Sorry, girl; no easy answer to that.
Except possibly to state that I have no such file in my head, because I don't believe there's any such thing as "miscellaneous information." Information doesn't exists in categories, we just assign them to categories because doing so is a way to compartmentalize data into blocks that we can deal with, and that we can use to tell ourselves that we are "experts" in certain "subjects." In short, it's a way for us to delude ourselves that we have a clue, never mind the fact that our lives are too short and our minds too narrow for us to have more than the delusion. Once again, we like the pretty pictures the Puppet Masters are showing on the cave wall, and - much like people who devote any time to "reality" TV - we think we know enough about the subject to say that we know something about something.
Information is does not exist in compartmentalized structures, but in crystalline structures, where every bit of information relates directly to a large number of adjoining concepts, and indirectly to every other bit of information. If you can simply take a step back and look at the broader structure of knowledge (or just watch a show like Discovery Channel's "Connections 2") you find that knowledge, math, history, philosophy, and politics are all the same thing, developing simultaneously (not parallel) over time. Just bear in mind a remarkably few general principles, and a whole lot of things become fairly simple.
This, actually, is the primary way by which I seem much smarter than I really am: my mind (as a result of slightly unusual neurotransmitter chemistry) naturally spots the crystalline structure of ideas. In high school, for example, I was studying calculus and physics at the same time, which made both classes easier. I slept through a great many physics lessons, but the math was so similar between the two that they were essentially the same subject. Physics was just a review lesson of calculus, except with ephemeral mathematical variables being replaced by "solid" values like the gravitational constant of the universe. But all the same thing. I got the same lessons as everyone else, I just learned them in different ways: somewhere along the line, I gained enough information about enough subjects to obtain the critical mass necessary for them all to stop being separate subjects.
So, with regard to my last few posts. I learned about the Rhyolite program from a book called "Deep Black" that my dad had on his bookshelf. My dad himself was an electrical engineer involved in the space program, so he also taught me the basis of optical and electromagnetic physics from a practical (as compared to mathematical) perspective. I can't tell you the math about propagation and transmission of radio waves, but I have a passing knowledge of the hardware and implications of propagation and transmission. When I learned about things like long-baseline interferometry and synthetic apertures, that knowledge fit into my mind's crystalline structure at a point adjacent to my knowledge of radio telescopy (the commonly known use for aperture synthesis and interferometry), which was only one step removed from my knowledge of radio telescope use by the NRO as a political/military tool (as ex amplified in the Rhyolite program).
So, late one post-9/11 night when I was suffering from insomnia and wondering if there was any need to be afraid of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, I started wondering if there were any possible way that a well-funded nation might be able to keep track of the location of nuclear weapons from orbit.
First step, consider what you want to track. What is it about them that makes them distinct from other things on earth and thus, differentiable (track able) from everything else. Realization that nuclear weapons, because they're necessarily made of radioactive components, necessarily emit radiation consistent with ongoing radioactive decay. Gamma rays and x-rays, which are just certain precisely defined parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Next step: consider whether the United States has the capability of monitoring bands of the electromagnetic spectrum on a global scale. Realization that the United States has had that capability since the 70's as exemplified by the Rhyoliteprogram. Next step, consider whether that technology could be used to listen for gamma and x-rays. Realization that, at least in theory: yes. Might take some different hardware to listen for x- and gamma-waves instead of the radio- and microwaves used for communication, but with smarter people than me at the helm of any such theoretical project, no reason why not. NASA launched an orbital gamma-ray telescope in 1991. The NRO (which refers to the National Reconnaissance Office, it such a thing officially existed, and - if it did exist - would have funding orders of magnitude greater than NASA) could theoretically launch some similar satellites looking downward to earth instead of outward to the Van Allen belt. The NRO was looking at the earth through optical telescopes (the Keyhole Program, again from "Deep Black") a hell of a long time before NASA was looking at the heavens through the Hubble Program. Draw your own conclusions about other parts of the electro-optical spectrum.
Next step, consider whether the hardware would make it work, given the fairly low radioactive emissions of even a nuclear critical mass. Can you build sensitive enough gear to hear the transmissions from orbital distances? Realization that, in theory, that's pretty simple. Based on aperture synthesis and long-baseline interferometry, all you need is an atomic clock on board each of several listening satellites, and a system (probably laser-based) to know the precise - and I do mean precise - location of each listening satellite in relation to each other satellite, and in relation to any point on the earth. If you can manage that, the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites offsets the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites and the transmitters, thanks to aperture synthesis. All you need is some massively powerful computers (which we've got) to crunch the numbers, and you can set up a system of satellites that can function like a single electromagnetic antenna with a diameter TEN TIMES GREATER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANET EARTH (which is only about 6,400 km). With the same information and some different (amazingly complex but very doable computer calculations) you can use different parts of that same satellite system to synthesize several antennas of smaller size (say 30,000 miles in diameter) in different orbital locations, with which you could triangulate to location of electromagnetic transmitters (nukes) on the surface of the earth.
Next, consider whether it would be accurate enough to be practical. Realization that it should be pretty good. Radio astronomers use the VLA to listen to radio waves from other solar systems, and the VLA can only synthesize an antenna about 22 miles in diameter, at a resolution of 0.05 arc-seconds. Even at that resolution, two or three such antennas in geostationary orbit (about 22,240 miles from earth) would be able to locate a transmitter on earth to within a few hundred yards. VLA-scale resolution is good enough to send in some Special Forces guys on an errand to fetch it or destroy any nukes located, and our theoretical array would be much more accurate than the VLA, since our theoretical synthetic aperture could be over 48,000 miles in diameter.
Next, consider whether it would be worth building. Realize that the system would theoretically reveal the location of every nuclear weapon on the planet. Yeah, that's the sort of capability that the United States would pay billions (or hundreds of billions) to get. Besides, the same array could also be used replace older birds (like Rhyolite) in the traditional tasks of listening in on radio transmissions, which is a nice fringe benefit.
I admit that this is all purely theoretical, and unsupported by any hard facts. But it's all supported by the underlying science, and can be thought up in the space of just a few minutes by an insomniac non-engineer law student with only passing knowledge of physics, astronomy, or nuclear chemistry. Suffice to say that much smarter people than I with much better knowledge of the available (but classified) technologies have been working night and day for decades on the same dilemma of tracking nukes, and have probably come up with answers to the problem much more clever than mine. That line of thinking, married to the overwhelming need for the United States to keep aware of threats, leads me to assert with absolute confidence that the United States military is aware of the exact location of every nuclear weapon on the face of the planet at every moment of every day. Barring some need to sink the Maine, no terrorist will ever succeed in exploding a nuclear weapon within the bounds of the United States. Hell, they haven't even managed success with SAMs against airliners; they got a long way to go before they're gonna bring the Big Fire.
This is how my mind works. Hold the problem in your mind, and keep an open mind about possible solutions. Almost always, your knowledge of the basic parameters of the problem will crystallize with other information in your mind, and lead you to a solution. Like, for example, the fact the nuclear weapons are made of fissile materials means that - theoretically at least - they can be tracked from afar using currently available technologies.
Which leads me back to my original point: there is no such thing as "miscellaneous information." Nor any other type of information the lies neatly encapsulated within the clear bounds of a subject heading. There's just information, which relates directly or indirectly to every other bit of information. So next time you're faced with some sort of technical or intellectual problem, try this: instead of narrowing your mind to focus on a possible solution, try opening up your mind to all possible solutions, and see what happens. Great thoughts generally won't fit through a narrow mind. And big problems generally require pretty impressive solutions.
Give it a try. It works for me.
The only problem is when you want to try and Turn It Off. Like, for example, when you haven't slept for 30 hours because of the endless chain thoughts bouncing around inside your head. From a peace of mind perspective, ignorance really is bliss. But that discussion for another time...
Except possibly to state that I have no such file in my head, because I don't believe there's any such thing as "miscellaneous information." Information doesn't exists in categories, we just assign them to categories because doing so is a way to compartmentalize data into blocks that we can deal with, and that we can use to tell ourselves that we are "experts" in certain "subjects." In short, it's a way for us to delude ourselves that we have a clue, never mind the fact that our lives are too short and our minds too narrow for us to have more than the delusion. Once again, we like the pretty pictures the Puppet Masters are showing on the cave wall, and - much like people who devote any time to "reality" TV - we think we know enough about the subject to say that we know something about something.
Information is does not exist in compartmentalized structures, but in crystalline structures, where every bit of information relates directly to a large number of adjoining concepts, and indirectly to every other bit of information. If you can simply take a step back and look at the broader structure of knowledge (or just watch a show like Discovery Channel's "Connections 2") you find that knowledge, math, history, philosophy, and politics are all the same thing, developing simultaneously (not parallel) over time. Just bear in mind a remarkably few general principles, and a whole lot of things become fairly simple.
This, actually, is the primary way by which I seem much smarter than I really am: my mind (as a result of slightly unusual neurotransmitter chemistry) naturally spots the crystalline structure of ideas. In high school, for example, I was studying calculus and physics at the same time, which made both classes easier. I slept through a great many physics lessons, but the math was so similar between the two that they were essentially the same subject. Physics was just a review lesson of calculus, except with ephemeral mathematical variables being replaced by "solid" values like the gravitational constant of the universe. But all the same thing. I got the same lessons as everyone else, I just learned them in different ways: somewhere along the line, I gained enough information about enough subjects to obtain the critical mass necessary for them all to stop being separate subjects.
So, with regard to my last few posts. I learned about the Rhyolite program from a book called "Deep Black" that my dad had on his bookshelf. My dad himself was an electrical engineer involved in the space program, so he also taught me the basis of optical and electromagnetic physics from a practical (as compared to mathematical) perspective. I can't tell you the math about propagation and transmission of radio waves, but I have a passing knowledge of the hardware and implications of propagation and transmission. When I learned about things like long-baseline interferometry and synthetic apertures, that knowledge fit into my mind's crystalline structure at a point adjacent to my knowledge of radio telescopy (the commonly known use for aperture synthesis and interferometry), which was only one step removed from my knowledge of radio telescope use by the NRO as a political/military tool (as ex amplified in the Rhyolite program).
So, late one post-9/11 night when I was suffering from insomnia and wondering if there was any need to be afraid of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, I started wondering if there were any possible way that a well-funded nation might be able to keep track of the location of nuclear weapons from orbit.
First step, consider what you want to track. What is it about them that makes them distinct from other things on earth and thus, differentiable (track able) from everything else. Realization that nuclear weapons, because they're necessarily made of radioactive components, necessarily emit radiation consistent with ongoing radioactive decay. Gamma rays and x-rays, which are just certain precisely defined parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Next step: consider whether the United States has the capability of monitoring bands of the electromagnetic spectrum on a global scale. Realization that the United States has had that capability since the 70's as exemplified by the Rhyoliteprogram. Next step, consider whether that technology could be used to listen for gamma and x-rays. Realization that, at least in theory: yes. Might take some different hardware to listen for x- and gamma-waves instead of the radio- and microwaves used for communication, but with smarter people than me at the helm of any such theoretical project, no reason why not. NASA launched an orbital gamma-ray telescope in 1991. The NRO (which refers to the National Reconnaissance Office, it such a thing officially existed, and - if it did exist - would have funding orders of magnitude greater than NASA) could theoretically launch some similar satellites looking downward to earth instead of outward to the Van Allen belt. The NRO was looking at the earth through optical telescopes (the Keyhole Program, again from "Deep Black") a hell of a long time before NASA was looking at the heavens through the Hubble Program. Draw your own conclusions about other parts of the electro-optical spectrum.
Next step, consider whether the hardware would make it work, given the fairly low radioactive emissions of even a nuclear critical mass. Can you build sensitive enough gear to hear the transmissions from orbital distances? Realization that, in theory, that's pretty simple. Based on aperture synthesis and long-baseline interferometry, all you need is an atomic clock on board each of several listening satellites, and a system (probably laser-based) to know the precise - and I do mean precise - location of each listening satellite in relation to each other satellite, and in relation to any point on the earth. If you can manage that, the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites offsets the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites and the transmitters, thanks to aperture synthesis. All you need is some massively powerful computers (which we've got) to crunch the numbers, and you can set up a system of satellites that can function like a single electromagnetic antenna with a diameter TEN TIMES GREATER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANET EARTH (which is only about 6,400 km). With the same information and some different (amazingly complex but very doable computer calculations) you can use different parts of that same satellite system to synthesize several antennas of smaller size (say 30,000 miles in diameter) in different orbital locations, with which you could triangulate to location of electromagnetic transmitters (nukes) on the surface of the earth.
Next, consider whether it would be accurate enough to be practical. Realization that it should be pretty good. Radio astronomers use the VLA to listen to radio waves from other solar systems, and the VLA can only synthesize an antenna about 22 miles in diameter, at a resolution of 0.05 arc-seconds. Even at that resolution, two or three such antennas in geostationary orbit (about 22,240 miles from earth) would be able to locate a transmitter on earth to within a few hundred yards. VLA-scale resolution is good enough to send in some Special Forces guys on an errand to fetch it or destroy any nukes located, and our theoretical array would be much more accurate than the VLA, since our theoretical synthetic aperture could be over 48,000 miles in diameter.
Next, consider whether it would be worth building. Realize that the system would theoretically reveal the location of every nuclear weapon on the planet. Yeah, that's the sort of capability that the United States would pay billions (or hundreds of billions) to get. Besides, the same array could also be used replace older birds (like Rhyolite) in the traditional tasks of listening in on radio transmissions, which is a nice fringe benefit.
I admit that this is all purely theoretical, and unsupported by any hard facts. But it's all supported by the underlying science, and can be thought up in the space of just a few minutes by an insomniac non-engineer law student with only passing knowledge of physics, astronomy, or nuclear chemistry. Suffice to say that much smarter people than I with much better knowledge of the available (but classified) technologies have been working night and day for decades on the same dilemma of tracking nukes, and have probably come up with answers to the problem much more clever than mine. That line of thinking, married to the overwhelming need for the United States to keep aware of threats, leads me to assert with absolute confidence that the United States military is aware of the exact location of every nuclear weapon on the face of the planet at every moment of every day. Barring some need to sink the Maine, no terrorist will ever succeed in exploding a nuclear weapon within the bounds of the United States. Hell, they haven't even managed success with SAMs against airliners; they got a long way to go before they're gonna bring the Big Fire.
This is how my mind works. Hold the problem in your mind, and keep an open mind about possible solutions. Almost always, your knowledge of the basic parameters of the problem will crystallize with other information in your mind, and lead you to a solution. Like, for example, the fact the nuclear weapons are made of fissile materials means that - theoretically at least - they can be tracked from afar using currently available technologies.
Which leads me back to my original point: there is no such thing as "miscellaneous information." Nor any other type of information the lies neatly encapsulated within the clear bounds of a subject heading. There's just information, which relates directly or indirectly to every other bit of information. So next time you're faced with some sort of technical or intellectual problem, try this: instead of narrowing your mind to focus on a possible solution, try opening up your mind to all possible solutions, and see what happens. Great thoughts generally won't fit through a narrow mind. And big problems generally require pretty impressive solutions.
Give it a try. It works for me.
The only problem is when you want to try and Turn It Off. Like, for example, when you haven't slept for 30 hours because of the endless chain thoughts bouncing around inside your head. From a peace of mind perspective, ignorance really is bliss. But that discussion for another time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)