Based on what I just typed,

If everything you do must have a greater purpose than the act itself, at what point do you achieve the highest purpose? When do you contact the godhead?

If you don't raise your hand simply to shield your eyes, and a higher purpose is a given, then where does the thought train stop? Assume that everything that follows is an attempt to answer this question but also carries the question "yes but for what purpose?":

  - Raise your arm
  - Cover your eyes
  - Block out the sun
  - Prevent pain
  - Pain is unpleasant
  - Unpleasantness detracts from quality of life
  - Maximizing quality of life is the goal of all humans

I suspect that this is the intellectual equivalent of a kid splashing around in a kiddie pool while others swim laps in the deep end. How high can these questions go and shouldn't every question arrive at the same point? The godhead?

One thing I definitely learned from Buddhist teaching is that supplemental to my belief that you shouldn't make happiness contingent on the future, you also shouldn't make it contingent on the past. In other words, don't hang onto hurt or sorrow and turn it into a baby that you cherish and nurture. The past is a journal of things you've learned, if you refuse to learn from experience then you're less than a child.

I disagree that whatever you do you should do for its own sake, and seek perfection in everything that you do.

Surely you don't kick a can around on the street for its own sake, there must be some greater purpose even if it's only to enjoy the sound. We wouldn't undertake anything at all if it was only for its own benefit. You don't shield your eyes from the sun so that your eyes will be shielded from the sun. You do it because the sun hurts your eyes and shielding them stops the pain. Everything we do must have a purpose above the act itself. Perfection in everything we do is similar, it is desirable only insomuchas it furthers a purpose. Any action that does not further a purpose is a wasted action.

If I raise my hand it's not for the purpose of raising my hand, it's to stop a blow before it reaches me. If I chop wood it's not for the purpose of chopping wood, it's to build a fire.

Sometimes people's lives are ruled by what they want or what they desire. A bigger house, a new car, a promotion, better health, a wife, a husband, a baby -- we think that these are the key to happiness. But I think that any attempt to make happiness contingent on future rewards is doomed to failure because the future is precisely that -- the future. It never arrives. You'll never possess what you desire because the moment you possess it, it ceases to be a desire. I'm not trying to be clever or sound like a fortune cookie here, the fact of the matter is that desires are by their nature rooted in the future and thus can never be achieved. If you think that you cannot be happy until you achieve something then you can never be happy. Happiness can only come from an appreciation for what you already have.

Sorry, that subject line is dramatic but it's also circular and contradictory. However the point is that if I believe the preceding post then what I'm really saying is that *all* belief systems are false. After all, if all belief systems are merely an attempt to summarize reality then they are by definition approximations. And if they are only approximations then they cannot be true in the full sense. Hence no belief system is true.

This makes me really wonder what the heck nihilism is. For years I've sort of considered myself a nihilist because I don't believe in good or evil, right or wrong. But if that's the case doesn't it stand to reason than a nihilist doesn't believe in true or false? If a nihilist doesn't believe in truth as an absolute, then how on earth can they believe that truth isn't an absolute? Belief is by its very nature binary.

As I was driving to work this morning I started to think that belief systems, be they religious, philosophical, or psychological, are simply ways to create an abstraction of reality. To summarize reality in such a way as to reduce redundancy. To teach by reducing the level of experience, knowledge, and understanding required to achieve wisdom. Really any kind of belief system is nothing more than intellectual short-hand.

Lossless compression is "I touched a stove and it was hot. I touched another one and it was hot too. I touched 100 others and they were all hot." Lossy compression is "stoves are hot". This is a belief system, and you take it on faith that you shouldn't touch stoves because they are hot. So any type of belief system requires faith because it requires trust in patterns and trust in the experience of others. If you're religious this might sting a bit, but trust and faith are the same thing.

For example, how do you know that lightning kills? Have you been struck by lightning? Presumably not. But enough people have told you that lightning kills that you believe it, without any first-hand experience to that effect. This is faith.

However people can be hit by lightning and live, so this is where lossy compression fails us. We've accepted that life follows patterns and that the pattern proves that certain things are predictable. But the downside is that when we receive information that contradicts the patterns we've observed / our belief system / our faith, we're apt to ignore it as invalid rather than take it at face value.

This being the case, it means that I don't believe metaphysics. If all belief systems or attempts to categorize knowledge are nothing more than lossy compression algorithms then they are only an approximation. If they are only an approximation then any attempt to categorize knowledge and label it as "truth" is false.

Oh shit, that's metaphysics...

I don't know about you but I'm as excited as hell by what's happening in the world today. I'm positively giddy. Liquid water has been found on Mars. Methane has been detected and there's at least a decent chance its origin is biological. It's completely possible that in our lifetime there will arise scientific proof of life on other planets. I'm amazed that the whole world isn't waiting with bated breath.

This is huge! This is bigger than man walking on the moon. It's bigger than the internal combustion engine or splitting the atom. Just think, life might exist on other planets in our solar system! Surely if two neighbouring planets both have life, there's bound to be life in other solar systems. There's a very real possibility that in a few short years the universe as we know it will be completely and irrevocably changed. I find the mere possibility thrilling...

Hey I totally neglected some important places:

  - Zurich, Switzerland
  - Dublin, Ireland
  - Edinborough, Scotland
  - Las Vegas, Boston, Atlantic City, Atlanta, Baton Rouge
  - Hong Kong (again)

I'm sure others will come to mind but that's a start.

I think this summer I'd like to take a few weekend trips to see some destinations close enough to reach by driving. Definitely upstate New York, perhaps Pennsylvania, maybe even Ohio? Some candidate destinations:

Buffalo
Albany
Rochester
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Quebec City
Cincinatti

More long-term plans include a trip to Miami, maybe spending 2 days in the city proper. Then a day on a swamp boat tour of the Everglades and perhaps an additional 2 days to explore the keys. At some point I'd also like to hit Chicago, perhaps the Twin Cities, and definitely Louisiana. And Newfoundland and the maritimes at some point.

Even longer-term, larger trips include:

  - the pyramids at Cancun
  - Lima, Peru
  - Buenos Aires, Argentina
  - Santiago, Chile
  - Cuba
  - St. Martin
  - Madagascar
  - Iceland
  - Spain, Portugal
  - Belgium, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Poland, Prague, France, Italy, Germany, Bucharest, Vienna, Stockholm, Helsinki
  - Istanbul, Baghdad, Cairo
  - Vietnam, Bangkok, Shanghai
  - Mumbai, Delhi
  - Australia, New Zealand
  - Tokyo, Japan
  - Fiji
  - Vladivostok

That a long enough list? Ahh to be rich and sell all my possessions (except my 'puter, of course!) and travel the world. It doesn't hurt to wish...

For some reason people missed the importance of a recent article about a supercomputer made from Playstation 2 consoles. This isn't simply a geek toy, it's a dirty secret that people will want to keep hidden. Remember that game consoles have fairly powerful processors, but individually they are pretty unimpressive. But also remember that all console hardware is sold for a loss -- the real money is in the games. So while one Playstation 2 is a mere toy, one-hundred of them are nothing short of a supercomputer and Sony is paying for part of every single processor you buy. While the power may not be there it's not a bad way to get a huge deal on off-the-shelf components...

Title: Stupid White Men
Author: Michael Moore
Genre: Political satire
Difficulty: Light read
Published 2002
Rating: Liked it

Sometimes this book reads like a nostalic grandfather's memories of things "back in my day..." Michael jumps all over the map complaining about the 2000 presidential election, the education system, racial equity, women's rights, and more. The only glue to hold things together is the supposition that the world is ruled by stupid white men. (I'm with ya so far...)

While the book isn't as focused as it probably should be and reads like a liberal wish-list, Michael makes some very good points and has the decency to provide references. (Who reads references, though. Maybe he invented them all.) Throw in a smattering of humour and altogether it's a fun way to spend some time and while it won't arm you to win any political debates, it sure beats the boob tube.

Title: Atlas Shrugged
Author: Ayn Rand
Genre: Fiction
Difficulty: Hefty
Published 1953-ish
Rating: Liked it

Atlas Shrugged follows Dagny Taggart, the beautiful, successful, industrial mind behind the Taggart Transcontinental railroad. However Dagny has noticed a disturbing trend of late: the great minds and men of action of the world are slowly vanishing into thin air, never to be heard from again. They are being seized by John Galt, the man who has vowed to stop the motor of the world: it's minds. Dagny vows to fight to keep what is hers as she watches the world around her rapidly recede and decay. Who is the Destroyer?

Atlas Shrugged can be preachy at the best of times and nothing short of a political manifesto at the worst of them, so don't bother reading it if you don't want to hear someone recite their personal philosophy. While Rand's suppositions may have holes in them, she develops an interesting theory that offers food for thought. Can a man consume more than he produces? (Hint: according to her, no.) She also backs this up with a talent for fiction, so even if you don't subscribe to the views, the writing still offers some decent scenery to enjoy along the way.

Title: Idoru
Author: William Gibson
Genre: Science fiction
Difficulty: Light read
Published 1996
Rating: Liked it

Idoru follows the crash course of three characters in post-earthquake Japan, in a world where the lines between the physical and digital worlds are becoming increasingly blurred. Laney is a "jacker", a searcher for information. Chia is a 14-year-old member of the fan club of the music idol Rez, who has been rumoured to have recently become engaged to a virtual-reality AI. Rei Toei is the idoru, a virtual media star who exists in cyberspace and can only project an image of herself into the physical.

As with all Gibson novels the pace is fast and the language is succinct, almost Spartan. The book tries to cross the bridges between the digital world and the physical; in virtual reality all physical beings are nothing but a digital projection, and for digital beings in a physical world, the same. What happens when they collide?