"It's Been Awhile" - Britney Spears

Today, while listening to Miley Cyrus's "The Climb" today, I wondered whether she wrote her own songs. It then occurred to me: it is more artistic that she didn't. When a songwriter syndicates his creations to the world, it makes more of an entity out of them. Pits of genius, only connected in history to their creator, floating abstractly about, waiting for someone to make them real.

I composed a poem to express the above thoughts:

Emotions

Bubbled up

exploding, popping

Everywhere

a commotion oozes out

it runs free

through the night

motley of energy

pulsing

through the fields,

color

Everywhere

on the grass,

on the stars,

on the sky itself,

meets a coduit

to self-expression

whatever,

whatever

it hits

and is let loose

estranged from

its creator

explosions and

explosions

then, color

on everyone

Endless Time/Sorrow/Happiness/Ambition/Hatred/ EMOTION

During our time on this earth (followed by, assuringly, nothing more), life can be separated into several fifteen year periods. In a fifteen-year period, you can move somewhere, become part of the place, feel the need to move, and then, cathartically, move.

It occurred to me that the lifespan of the average dog is a similar period of time.

Like dogs, these periods are accumulated throughout life, accompanying you for an episode of the journey. They provide you with both comfort and pain, but in the end, we remember them fondly and express sorrow at their ends.

This association of time and death in the idea of a cherished pet's passing causes us to pause and consider it in the context of the temporal aspect of our lives—how long, really, do we live?

There are so few furry friends that we become close with during our lifetimes, whose lives seem to end so quickly, that the reply to the question is more solemn that one could hope. In other words, “I have had only three dogs in my life, yet my life is half over!” Implicitly, I only have three more dog lives to go. Due to human tendency to abstract even extended experiences to a single idea, this time seems much shorter than it actually was. Further, humans rarely have a good comparison to make between their time and the actual experience it takes to elapse, as time is usually used to compare time—“midlife-crisis,” “hump day,” etc.

Given these tendencies that encourage the above “dog anxiety” (as I felt before writing this post. ha. i try to present my feelings as though everyone feels that way to make myself feel less lonely. ha.), humans would hope that some way could be devised to live forever. It then occurred to me, however, that only scarcity creates value, at least in things that can be quantified. If humans could live endlessly, would they live any differently? I contemplated this. If humans made feasible the longingly unfeasible, would they make any use of the gift? They would not need to. As shown by excessive television consumption, people already treat their lives as though they have no end. On the occasions this cognitive dissonance dissipates, the church welcomes them with open arms, contingent on their open wallets and easily manipulated minds.

Although, by the same mechanics described in making time seem short, humans naturally fall into the lie of everlasting life, on both counts. There should be greater emphasis in our society, perhaps even in the educational system, on making use of life, precisely because it does not extend continually into the after-life and heaven. Making people aware, but not to the point of worry, about this truest fact of life, would result in a much more stimulating culture and richer society. After all, life is short—especially in dog years.

XOXOXOX,

Well, girl, just look at you.

Digital Dichotomization

The digital world is beautifully dichotomized. 1 or 0 or (better yet?) 0 or 1—it reflects reality in the most perfect abstraction. Something either is or is not. Moreover, some things either are or are not. This is still evident in binary, as different dichotomizations can result in overall different effects. 01 is different from 10, as 00 is different from 11. They are both just the result of different process dichotomizations. These series of dichotomizations reflects in reality the different paths of cause and effect leading to different results. For example, I was not born on September 23, 1991 (instead of being born on that day) and was not born African-American (instead of being born African-American). This leads to the result of a non-African American that was not born on September 23, 1991. Beautifully simplistic.

The image that galvanized the above pondering can be found here.

Everything in a modern GUI can be highlighted to one different color: the icons, the text, the backgrounds—everything. This further shows the validity and beauty of cascading abstractions and the universality of logical principals, as something so far from the pure code of binary, but still composed of it, holds its lowest common denominator’s properties.

The invention of the personal computer, the GUI specifically, presents other opportunities of philosophical inquiry and experiment.

For example, in subjective experience, one is not, paradoxically, consciously aware of what they are focusing on. However, with the interceding of computer, one must be aware of what there are focusing on in order to use a computer—in typical computing language, you must “select” it. This enables you do things with it. “I am going to bring this icon into operability by 'selecting' it.” Research on this property will bring knowledge that is more informed on extension of consciousness, human consciousness, focus of consciousness, and philosophy of computer science. This information all comes from the unique experience of the intersection of human consciousness and agency with an interceding console. One reality acting at the bidding of another.

¿?¿Mathematics?¿?

While I detest numbers (their wicked games, however, attract my abstractionist self), I seem to find myself in near-constant contemplation of their being. Each time a number finds itself significantly wedged into my experience, compulsively, my mind tries to induce it into a vacant spot in my conceptualization of reality. Alas, the compulsion exists to this very second. While there are a number of resources that have led me to the possibilities, no answer has revealed itself. It causes great irritation, to not understand something that I have understood to be so base to the fabric of reality. For, if I don't understand an abstraction so base to my reality, how can I be sure of the validity of lesser abstractions? Of course, everything I know can fit together and be "logical" under the current framework, but it is that framework which gives mathematics its sense. Indeed, some speculate (‘till death with a pen) that math and logic are the same thing. Can the identity property and its implications explain all of mathematics? I think that, if our current conceptualization logic is correct, then the answer should be yes. If I am so inspired, I will further speculate on this. If this is not corroborated upon, than an idea has struck all of my current ponderings into the realm of pseudo-philosophy and new age non-sense

WITH A NEW, CITRUS SCENT,

Superstylinmoviestars