Monday, February 20, 2012

the rules we make

our under-evolved PFC is the place in our brain that gives us social control. it also makes up predictions and rules based on past experience. the PFC works with and against our primitive brain, particularly the amygdala, as it's function is fear-full and storing emotional memories. these two parts of the brain, in my understanding, work together to construct some of the important rules we make for ourselves.

these rules can be simple (ha!), e.g.: the coffee at L'Autre Cafe is always delicious.
       how might this rule come to be? you had a lovely trip to paris. the ambiance was unlike your experiences at starbucks. you had a tasty and sugary cup of joe and went on your way.
       now, that memory is special and you created a little rule that will probably never be broken. you will probably never have that rule put to the test. rest assured, it is safely tucked away.

but what if a rule is broken? what if some of our self constructed rules are untrue to the rest of the world. untrue to the laws and theories of math and physics? i suppose it doesn't matter as long as the self constructed rules don't permiss unethical behavior or put others in danger. but what if they do? what happens when the rule i have created for myself fails me? my under-evolved PFC doesn't know what to do with this. i recently had a few of my rules broken, torn down... and i don't particularly enjoy the rules that my brain is trying to make to replace them. unfortunately there has to be a rule in place regarding these things in my life.

i have tried to contextualize my rules by comparing them to other failed rules. i have previously written about a friend who has an addiction, here on my blog. he has fascinating rules regarding his life and the way he lives it. noticeably different rules than when we were young. his rules go directly against the set of rules i have regarding substance abuse, and for the most part life in general. to add: they don't seem to be working for anyone else but him. does it matter? maybe not. however, when you become a parent and make rules that are security rules, they do matter. it is the matter of safety, a biological and emotional desire to keep your offspring and therefore DNA alive and well. one of my recently broken rules explicitly failed my children. i failed my children by having a faulty rule in place and one of them had to endure trauma because of it.

and i feel fucking terrible.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

dasein as a douchcopter

Here is a short list of things that I think would be difficult but not impossible to do:

1. Solving the the Riemann Hypothesis.
2. Talking a socially conservative politician into believing my uterus belongs to me and not god.
3. Finding a solution to the world's starvation problems.
4. Running an Ultramarathon.
5. Getting through the Rig Veda.
6. Winning a wit contest opposing The Oatmeal.
7. Swimming across the English Channel.
8. Becoming fluent in Greenlandic Norse.
9. Playing an instrument as fluidly as Bela Fleck.

Here is an even shorter list of things that would be quite easy to accomplish:

1. Not being an asshole all of the time.

The latter of the two short lists seems a little unreasonable to some, but to me and my relative existence it is completely obtainable state of not-being. Yet for some people it appears they have no other state of being but a douchecopter. I am not really sure if it is an ego problem (given to you buy your parent/s), or if people that are consta-assholes are suffering from some mood disorder, but it is rather unpleasant.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

husserl and heidegger sects

Husserl and Heidegger’s comprehension of phenomenology reminds me of schisms that occur in the great religions. buddhism was born from an elder hindu and accepted a few basic presumptions and rejected other, high modes of abstracted realities in particular. for Husserl, phenomenology is based on intentionality of the conscious. he adopted Descartes' philosophy and i get the feeling that Heidegger outright rejects Descartes in his methodology. Husserl begins his phenomenological journey with the reduction of living world; while also accepting the natural attitude, of which all science is found. he says that by using the epoche you are keep opinion and misperception clear from understanding. Heidegger does not agree. Heidegger’s investigations were not about objects whatsoever, he intended to look at how the conscious encounters objects. Heidegger’s magnum opus is almost the continuation of Husserl’s inquiry into that which is intentional and cogitio. cogitio then becomes Dasein to Heidegger:  clearer distinction into a fundamental constitution of existence.

although, i read Husserl’s adaptation of the natural attitude as non-cartisian. he poses the question: is the life world the same as the natural attitude? the Lebenswelt is the horizon for which all things occur. the horizon is the a priori, fundamental round work for the natural attitude. the natural attitude is grounds for empirical observations, how things present themselves in profiles to the conscious. the collection of observable data is then correlated and sciences are born. the Lebenswelt is the horizon for which all things occur and the natural attitude is an occurring thing within consciousness. it cannot be a part of the natural attitude because it is not an occurrence, rather a framework for understanding all that is in existence.

to Heidegger, formal structure begins with what is being sought to be known. one must already be aware at least of the existence of the information being sought. Heidegger states that every inquiry looks at both the question and the object itself. the object stems from the real world but the question at hand is from the mind. Heidegger talks about this in his preliminary introduction into the investigation of Being and Time. 

Monday, February 13, 2012

a brief compilation of beliefs

the beginning of a hopefully extensive compilation of belief systems briefly compilation explained:

A: "I view god as the sum of all living things, both physical and non physical. No separateness. I think god existed and was perfect and the only way to become more perfect was to understand why it was perfect in the first place, and the only way to do that was to break into smaller non perfect pieces of consciousness that strove to return to their original state of perfect. In that way there is no 'god' just the sum of all conscious experience."

 L (paraphrased): "I believe that JC existed and had these values that I think we should live by [love, understanding, compassion, caring for those less fortunate] When and if I meet my maker, I want to be able to say, 'I lived by these values regardless of JC's status of god or not." Also, "spreading love, understanding and helping people that actually need help is so much more important than misusing energy to "help" gay people."