Dear Los Angeles,
I have a simple vision for LA that I think everyone should love; it involves bicycles. It begins with re-imagining as the bicycle paths along the rivers as bicycle highways. Then rezone the areas at along these highways and at their intersection to create "car-less" bike communities; allow for small shops restaurants and bars that serve the bikers that use the bike highway. Also necessary is the creation of easy on/off access ramps from these bike highways to these economic business zones and other intersecting bike highways.
One of the primary difficulties of creating a bike infrastructure on city streets is that it displaces lanes and parking spaces and people who depend upon cars and use those lanes and parking spaces understandably freak out. The police also freak out because they say it will increase emergency response times which freaks out old people who are worried about falling and not being able to get up, and it freaks out people who are worried about crime in their neighborhoods. All of this is completely and 100% understandable. But this is also why all these same groups should be interested in the idea of developing the bike paths along the river and developing bike communities along those paths because it's what requires the least amount of road displacement, and it also gets bikers off roads that drivers and emergency vehicles use. It's a win win win for all groups involved who move about the city.
It's also a win for the city itself. Yes it's good to get people to bike more rather than drive, but the real benefits comes to a city when people don't own cars. It's not just about filling up spaces in the roads, but it's also about filling the parking spaces. If people don't have cars, those spaces can be used by other cars or other things. By creating communities that support car-less life styles, the city can be more efficient with it's space. And by developing the areas along the bike highways and at their intersections, the city can be more economically productive.
It is also a win for the city because it is the most efficient in economic terms because most of the infrastructure already exists and is already being developed. There has been a significant amount of work to develop and improve and extend the bike paths along the river, but the designers aren't imagining these paths as bike highways. They only seem to think of them as "quality of life" improvements because wouldn't it be nice if people could leave the polluted congested dirt car worlds and bike along a river. The biggest cost would be construction the on/off ramps at the intersections, the bridges. But bridges designed for bikes are very different from bridged designed for cars and very large trucks. The bridges represent more of an opportunity, because it is very easy to design cool looking bridges that don't have to support massive amounts of weight. Bridges designed for bikes can be light, elegant and beautiful, and are easy to build. I suggest Los Angeles look to the Netherlands for inspiration on what is possible.
What's wrong with this idea? What prevents it from happening.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Francis Watts General Theory/Philosophy
I have to differentiate between the micro and macro; the particle and the field; object and context.
On the large scale, I'm pretty troubled by the state of things; politically economically, and philosophically. In the same manner that materials act differently at different scales, systems and organization cannot be scaled up either. And the systems of aggregation of power and control within our society are collapsing under their own weight. There is a vicious cycle occuring. The more things collapse, the more the systems seek power/control, hastening their collapse. Things seem to be speeding up. Frankly, the sooner the collapse, the better we all are. The sooner we can go back to more community based systems.
I just hope people wake up soon enough to prevent the psychopaths that run the military industrial complex from carrying out their plan to start world war 3 - something I think a lot of powerful people are working towards. Its basically the same script from WW1 with some ingredients from WW2 thrown in for good measure.
On the micro, I think of myself as a bit of an anarchist - although if any real anarchist met me, they would probably think of me as a pussy. I'm against institutions of power. I'm even against art museums - because they seek to dictate meaning. Meaning is personal. Also such institutions create an artificial separation of society between those who exist in the world of art, and those that don't.
But the institution I really have a beef with is violence - violence and fear. These are the tools used to control us as a population. Violence produces fear, fear shuts down or impairs our capacity for critical reasoning. We then fall back on emotional reactions which is easily predicted easily controlled.
I've been reading Einstein lately, and here is an appropriate quote from him: "In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties"
The way to fight this violence and fear is through the creation of Joy. The way to fight those that seek to be the arbiters of meaning is through having the ability to create personal meaning in the every day; the little things, as well as the big.
So on the micro scale - that of the individual, and that individual being me, the strategy is to disconnect and divest from these larger systems, become independent.
"Paint what you want and die happy" wrote Henry Miller. And another from Einstein; "A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?"
At least thats the theory. Implementation is a work in progress...
some practical things; I currently live in Echo Park, but that changes soon. My bicycle is my primary mode of transportation. I enjoy dive bars in the afternoon. quiet mornings with a coffee, and a book or sketchbook. I tend to stay in on weekends. I don't generally enjoy participating in larger herd-like activities. Being a spectator in life is boring.
I want to become a better cook. I want to start playing the guitar and piano again. I want to start a band. I've started to learn how to sow. I bought a machine recently. I even started to learn how to knit this past weekend. I want to make things out of wood. I want to make things out of metal. I want to make small things and big things. I want to make things with motors. I want to make things that defy gravity.
On the large scale, I'm pretty troubled by the state of things; politically economically, and philosophically. In the same manner that materials act differently at different scales, systems and organization cannot be scaled up either. And the systems of aggregation of power and control within our society are collapsing under their own weight. There is a vicious cycle occuring. The more things collapse, the more the systems seek power/control, hastening their collapse. Things seem to be speeding up. Frankly, the sooner the collapse, the better we all are. The sooner we can go back to more community based systems.
I just hope people wake up soon enough to prevent the psychopaths that run the military industrial complex from carrying out their plan to start world war 3 - something I think a lot of powerful people are working towards. Its basically the same script from WW1 with some ingredients from WW2 thrown in for good measure.
On the micro, I think of myself as a bit of an anarchist - although if any real anarchist met me, they would probably think of me as a pussy. I'm against institutions of power. I'm even against art museums - because they seek to dictate meaning. Meaning is personal. Also such institutions create an artificial separation of society between those who exist in the world of art, and those that don't.
But the institution I really have a beef with is violence - violence and fear. These are the tools used to control us as a population. Violence produces fear, fear shuts down or impairs our capacity for critical reasoning. We then fall back on emotional reactions which is easily predicted easily controlled.
I've been reading Einstein lately, and here is an appropriate quote from him: "In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties"
The way to fight this violence and fear is through the creation of Joy. The way to fight those that seek to be the arbiters of meaning is through having the ability to create personal meaning in the every day; the little things, as well as the big.
So on the micro scale - that of the individual, and that individual being me, the strategy is to disconnect and divest from these larger systems, become independent.
"Paint what you want and die happy" wrote Henry Miller. And another from Einstein; "A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?"
At least thats the theory. Implementation is a work in progress...
some practical things; I currently live in Echo Park, but that changes soon. My bicycle is my primary mode of transportation. I enjoy dive bars in the afternoon. quiet mornings with a coffee, and a book or sketchbook. I tend to stay in on weekends. I don't generally enjoy participating in larger herd-like activities. Being a spectator in life is boring.
I want to become a better cook. I want to start playing the guitar and piano again. I want to start a band. I've started to learn how to sow. I bought a machine recently. I even started to learn how to knit this past weekend. I want to make things out of wood. I want to make things out of metal. I want to make small things and big things. I want to make things with motors. I want to make things that defy gravity.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
NEWEST THOUGHTS on gravity
Its all very simple. What we first must understand is that there is very little difference between religion and science. both provide narratives that explain observation, how the world works.
Today physicts think that there is this stuff called "Dark matter." The reason they beleive such a thing exists is becuase Observation does not match with Theory. That theory, being Einstein's. So rather than saying, Einstein is wrong, physicists have invented this new idea - "Dark Matter"
I too beleive that Dark Matter exist. But lets delve further. Physicists explain that "dark matter" is this invisible stuff that fills the universe. while they cannot see it, they know its there because it has a gravitational effect on things that they can see. But lets do a quick thought experiment. Lets say it does exist, but instead of being only in certain areas, lets say there is an even distribution. Would we be able to "see" it? No. becuase the gravitational pull would be equal from all directions.
So what is the more logical conclusion, that dark matter exists ONLY where we can detect it? or is it EVERYWHERE, and it exerts a gravitational pull on objects when its distribution becomes non-uniform.
The idea that there is this "stuff" that fills the universe is not a new one. Maxwell, as part of his unification of electricity, magnetism, and light proposed an idea that there was this stuff called "eather" that filled the universe. His logic was simple. Energy needs a medium through wich to propogate.
But this idea was tossed aside for 3 big reasons. One, it didn't work with Newtons theory of the universe. If the planets rotating around the sun were moving through eather, it would produce drag, and the planets would slowly decrease momentum until they fell into the sun.
Two, it didn't work with observation. An experiment performed measuring the speed of light in different directions did not show any difference. Its called the michealson-Morely experiment. The idea behind the experiment was that the light moving along the path of the earth's velocity, and the light moving perpendicular would result in a difference in speed. they actually FOUND a difference, but it was not anything near what theory predicted. This confused scientists for 20 years.
Then came Einstein. He provided a narrative that did not require this stuff called eather. Space was empty.
But what if Dark matter is Eather? It seems if it is matter, we should start with the assumption that it behaves as matter does. So would it also not rotate? just as the planets? Einstein theory asks us to image that the underlying fabric of the universe is space/time. we visualize this by imagining a surface that is elastic like a trampoline. The larger the mass of an object, the more depression it makes. The sun is like a big bowling ball sitting on this surface. the earth is rolling around it, continually "falling" towards the sun. But its only a way of "visualizing" the idea, its not ACTUALLY how it works. because if it was, the planets would be rolling. And they are not. they rotate.
but If dark matter exists, and its EVERYWHERE. and it acts like matter, could the analogy of a whirlpool be better? after all, this would also explain the ROTATION of the planets. But this still doesn't totally explain things. Why does matter rotate around the sun?
Physicists beleive that there is a protective energy sheild that surrounds our solar system and protects it. This sheild is called the heliosphere. But What if we think of the heliosphere not as a protective sheild, but as a container...a container of dark matter.
If we take a bucket of water and rotate it, the rotation creates a whirlpool. If the heliosphere containing dark matter is rotating like the bucket, this would explain the whirlpool effect.
Of course, if the dark matter is spinning because of the container its counterintuitive that the center would be moving at the the greatest speed, and this is true. but a couple things are happening, but a little harder to explain. the outer dark matter is moving faster becuase it is being dragged by the container. and as it gets closer to the center, it actually slows down. BUT the density is increasing. the individual particles are being pressed together, and like an ice skater that brings his/her arms in, it they begin to spin faster. momentum in space is transfered to angular momentum. Its like using a mixer when baking, the batter gets sucked into the spinning blades.
this system also explains dark energy, or what we perceive to be the force causing the outer galaxies in our universe to speed up. We can't see it, but angular momentum is being transfered to momentum in space.
I think the better way to understand dark matter is to call it atmosphere. After all, NASA now talks about Space weather in regards to the sun's activity. they talk about solar wind. If this is the case, then we can start talking about BERNOILLI.
After all Einstein talked about Pressure as well. He discovered that E=mc^2, and understood that energy contributes to gravity. If the velocity of the dark matter is whirling faster the closer to the center, According to bernoulli, this creates a lower pressure, causing things to "fall" towards the lower pressure.
Whirlpools look like galaxies look like hurricains. This doesn't just happen. But these are all physical representations of the same underlying system that we cannot see. the magnetic field of a magnet looks like the magnetic field of the earth. what if the heliosphere "looks the same?" what if our galaxy has a field that looks the same. what if the universe has a field that "looks the same." what if an atom's energy field looks the same.
more to come...I'm in a public library (computer down for repairs), and my time is up...
Today physicts think that there is this stuff called "Dark matter." The reason they beleive such a thing exists is becuase Observation does not match with Theory. That theory, being Einstein's. So rather than saying, Einstein is wrong, physicists have invented this new idea - "Dark Matter"
I too beleive that Dark Matter exist. But lets delve further. Physicists explain that "dark matter" is this invisible stuff that fills the universe. while they cannot see it, they know its there because it has a gravitational effect on things that they can see. But lets do a quick thought experiment. Lets say it does exist, but instead of being only in certain areas, lets say there is an even distribution. Would we be able to "see" it? No. becuase the gravitational pull would be equal from all directions.
So what is the more logical conclusion, that dark matter exists ONLY where we can detect it? or is it EVERYWHERE, and it exerts a gravitational pull on objects when its distribution becomes non-uniform.
The idea that there is this "stuff" that fills the universe is not a new one. Maxwell, as part of his unification of electricity, magnetism, and light proposed an idea that there was this stuff called "eather" that filled the universe. His logic was simple. Energy needs a medium through wich to propogate.
But this idea was tossed aside for 3 big reasons. One, it didn't work with Newtons theory of the universe. If the planets rotating around the sun were moving through eather, it would produce drag, and the planets would slowly decrease momentum until they fell into the sun.
Two, it didn't work with observation. An experiment performed measuring the speed of light in different directions did not show any difference. Its called the michealson-Morely experiment. The idea behind the experiment was that the light moving along the path of the earth's velocity, and the light moving perpendicular would result in a difference in speed. they actually FOUND a difference, but it was not anything near what theory predicted. This confused scientists for 20 years.
Then came Einstein. He provided a narrative that did not require this stuff called eather. Space was empty.
But what if Dark matter is Eather? It seems if it is matter, we should start with the assumption that it behaves as matter does. So would it also not rotate? just as the planets? Einstein theory asks us to image that the underlying fabric of the universe is space/time. we visualize this by imagining a surface that is elastic like a trampoline. The larger the mass of an object, the more depression it makes. The sun is like a big bowling ball sitting on this surface. the earth is rolling around it, continually "falling" towards the sun. But its only a way of "visualizing" the idea, its not ACTUALLY how it works. because if it was, the planets would be rolling. And they are not. they rotate.
but If dark matter exists, and its EVERYWHERE. and it acts like matter, could the analogy of a whirlpool be better? after all, this would also explain the ROTATION of the planets. But this still doesn't totally explain things. Why does matter rotate around the sun?
Physicists beleive that there is a protective energy sheild that surrounds our solar system and protects it. This sheild is called the heliosphere. But What if we think of the heliosphere not as a protective sheild, but as a container...a container of dark matter.
If we take a bucket of water and rotate it, the rotation creates a whirlpool. If the heliosphere containing dark matter is rotating like the bucket, this would explain the whirlpool effect.
Of course, if the dark matter is spinning because of the container its counterintuitive that the center would be moving at the the greatest speed, and this is true. but a couple things are happening, but a little harder to explain. the outer dark matter is moving faster becuase it is being dragged by the container. and as it gets closer to the center, it actually slows down. BUT the density is increasing. the individual particles are being pressed together, and like an ice skater that brings his/her arms in, it they begin to spin faster. momentum in space is transfered to angular momentum. Its like using a mixer when baking, the batter gets sucked into the spinning blades.
this system also explains dark energy, or what we perceive to be the force causing the outer galaxies in our universe to speed up. We can't see it, but angular momentum is being transfered to momentum in space.
I think the better way to understand dark matter is to call it atmosphere. After all, NASA now talks about Space weather in regards to the sun's activity. they talk about solar wind. If this is the case, then we can start talking about BERNOILLI.
After all Einstein talked about Pressure as well. He discovered that E=mc^2, and understood that energy contributes to gravity. If the velocity of the dark matter is whirling faster the closer to the center, According to bernoulli, this creates a lower pressure, causing things to "fall" towards the lower pressure.
Whirlpools look like galaxies look like hurricains. This doesn't just happen. But these are all physical representations of the same underlying system that we cannot see. the magnetic field of a magnet looks like the magnetic field of the earth. what if the heliosphere "looks the same?" what if our galaxy has a field that looks the same. what if the universe has a field that "looks the same." what if an atom's energy field looks the same.
more to come...I'm in a public library (computer down for repairs), and my time is up...
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Open Letter to Albert Einstein
Uhm... excuse me Albert...professor Einstein, may I speak with you? I have the utmost respect for you as the artist and scienctist that you were, but I must now respectfully inform you that you were wrong. Your standard model does indeed predict the physical world around us, but so did ptolemy's system of planetary rotation.
If you will, sir, I would like to present an alternative model. one that is simpler to explain, and actually, quite like the old one. If I may I would like to begin with your ideas on the fabric of space/time. Its wrong. According to you, it is the gravitational forces that curve the fabric of space/time. and objects are rolling along a surface, suspended between the gravitational forces and centripital forces.
We beleive this curvature of space/time to be true because we can see its effect on light from distant stars as it passes very large objects. An effect called gravitational lensing bends the lights, creationg distorition. hmm...okay makes sense.
But Albert, have you ever heard of this stuff called "dark matter?" Physisict tioday tell us there is this stuff that neither emits, or reflects light. We know it exists because of its gravitational effects on objects. Specficially - it's effect shows up in the bullet cluster, which is 2 galaxies colliding, or rather 2 galaxies collided. And when these two galaxies collided the large objects passed by/through with little resistent, while the gasses all got mixed up in the middle. But it turns out densities of gravity do not match up with your theories. Your theory states that the distribution of gravitational forces should be centered in the center of these two colleded galaxies. But it shows up on the edges, where the larger objects are. So the assumption is that there is this additional matter that we cannot see that is responsible for the additional gravitational effects. But we think we know it accumulates around large objects, and is everywhere in the universe...in fact 80% of the matter is made up of this stuff.
But what is dark matter? Atmosphere. or in your day it was referred to as aether. Now hear me out. Its the physisit who say there is this stuff, not me. Its the physist who say that we cannot see it, and that we only know of its existence through its gravitation effects. But what if there is an atmosphere of this stuff that is evenly distributed throughout the universe? if that were the case, we would not be able to see its gravitational effects. Of course it is matter, or lets just assume that for the time being - so it too is attracted to large objects. As a result, what we see as the gravitational effects of dark matter, is the variation of atmospheric density.
See where I am going with this? So if it is the case that the atmosphere has a higher density, you don't need some new crazy idea of curvature of space/time. Its simply the same effect of early morning sun-light passing through a glass of water sitting on your kitchen table. Variations in density effect how light moves. Whats thought of as this crazy idea of gravitation lensing isn't.
I know right? well there is more. Can we talk about time? because you kind of are wrong about that too. On some level, I'm sure time as some crazy shit going on. but really, what we are talking about is our perception of time. If we take a ruler and stretch it, that doesn't mean we've distorted space. and just because a clock goes slower, doesn't mean we have distorted time.
I would like to begin with a discussion on angular momentum. Take a bicycle wheel and spin it while holding it with both hands (on both sides) sitting on a swivel chair. Holding it parallele to the ground will produce a rotation of you on the chair in the opposite direction of the spinning wheel. flip the wheel 180 degress (referse the rotation) and your rotation reverses.
I'm not sure how physisicts explain this phenomenon. If you ask me its pretty strange behavior. And if you probe beyond the basic explanation of the transfer of angular mometum from the wheel to you, physisict will look down their noses and say that it has to do with stuff in quantum mechanics that you are too fucking stupid to understand.
I agree - it is the transfer of angular moment, but how? Its internal, but how? well, the spinning wheel causes the atoms and/or any subatomic particles to spin - its a chain reaction throught the amrs, and finally works its way throught the whole, resulting the whole (you spinning). I can explain this in better detail, but for now the important idea to take from this is this idea of spinning. Everything spins. and whether its spinning clockwise or counterclockise is only relative to your position.
ughh...I tire. this is a rough draft. But the point I am trying to slowly lead to has to do with the indea of Force, and the difference between internal forces and external forces. We move through space because of a transfer of angular momentum of subatomic particles. Our subatomic particles are rotating, and the faster we move, the slower they rotate...until they don't rotate anymore....this is the speed of light. Our most accurate calculations of time are made through the use of an atomic clock. that clock is based on the rotation of the atom, which simply is transfering its interior angular momentum to the movment of the whole. and if we are moving with the clock our interior angular momentum slows down. and becuase our cognative perception is based on the rate at which these things spin, we don't notice if the clock speeds up or slows down, becuast it also adjust our perception.
Its not smart, its creative and I know you understand the difference between those two.
If you will, sir, I would like to present an alternative model. one that is simpler to explain, and actually, quite like the old one. If I may I would like to begin with your ideas on the fabric of space/time. Its wrong. According to you, it is the gravitational forces that curve the fabric of space/time. and objects are rolling along a surface, suspended between the gravitational forces and centripital forces.
We beleive this curvature of space/time to be true because we can see its effect on light from distant stars as it passes very large objects. An effect called gravitational lensing bends the lights, creationg distorition. hmm...okay makes sense.
But Albert, have you ever heard of this stuff called "dark matter?" Physisict tioday tell us there is this stuff that neither emits, or reflects light. We know it exists because of its gravitational effects on objects. Specficially - it's effect shows up in the bullet cluster, which is 2 galaxies colliding, or rather 2 galaxies collided. And when these two galaxies collided the large objects passed by/through with little resistent, while the gasses all got mixed up in the middle. But it turns out densities of gravity do not match up with your theories. Your theory states that the distribution of gravitational forces should be centered in the center of these two colleded galaxies. But it shows up on the edges, where the larger objects are. So the assumption is that there is this additional matter that we cannot see that is responsible for the additional gravitational effects. But we think we know it accumulates around large objects, and is everywhere in the universe...in fact 80% of the matter is made up of this stuff.
But what is dark matter? Atmosphere. or in your day it was referred to as aether. Now hear me out. Its the physisit who say there is this stuff, not me. Its the physist who say that we cannot see it, and that we only know of its existence through its gravitation effects. But what if there is an atmosphere of this stuff that is evenly distributed throughout the universe? if that were the case, we would not be able to see its gravitational effects. Of course it is matter, or lets just assume that for the time being - so it too is attracted to large objects. As a result, what we see as the gravitational effects of dark matter, is the variation of atmospheric density.
See where I am going with this? So if it is the case that the atmosphere has a higher density, you don't need some new crazy idea of curvature of space/time. Its simply the same effect of early morning sun-light passing through a glass of water sitting on your kitchen table. Variations in density effect how light moves. Whats thought of as this crazy idea of gravitation lensing isn't.
I know right? well there is more. Can we talk about time? because you kind of are wrong about that too. On some level, I'm sure time as some crazy shit going on. but really, what we are talking about is our perception of time. If we take a ruler and stretch it, that doesn't mean we've distorted space. and just because a clock goes slower, doesn't mean we have distorted time.
I would like to begin with a discussion on angular momentum. Take a bicycle wheel and spin it while holding it with both hands (on both sides) sitting on a swivel chair. Holding it parallele to the ground will produce a rotation of you on the chair in the opposite direction of the spinning wheel. flip the wheel 180 degress (referse the rotation) and your rotation reverses.
I'm not sure how physisicts explain this phenomenon. If you ask me its pretty strange behavior. And if you probe beyond the basic explanation of the transfer of angular mometum from the wheel to you, physisict will look down their noses and say that it has to do with stuff in quantum mechanics that you are too fucking stupid to understand.
I agree - it is the transfer of angular moment, but how? Its internal, but how? well, the spinning wheel causes the atoms and/or any subatomic particles to spin - its a chain reaction throught the amrs, and finally works its way throught the whole, resulting the whole (you spinning). I can explain this in better detail, but for now the important idea to take from this is this idea of spinning. Everything spins. and whether its spinning clockwise or counterclockise is only relative to your position.
ughh...I tire. this is a rough draft. But the point I am trying to slowly lead to has to do with the indea of Force, and the difference between internal forces and external forces. We move through space because of a transfer of angular momentum of subatomic particles. Our subatomic particles are rotating, and the faster we move, the slower they rotate...until they don't rotate anymore....this is the speed of light. Our most accurate calculations of time are made through the use of an atomic clock. that clock is based on the rotation of the atom, which simply is transfering its interior angular momentum to the movment of the whole. and if we are moving with the clock our interior angular momentum slows down. and becuase our cognative perception is based on the rate at which these things spin, we don't notice if the clock speeds up or slows down, becuast it also adjust our perception.
Its not smart, its creative and I know you understand the difference between those two.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM - or - GROUND CONTROL, ITS MAJOR TOM. THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG
One of the big problems is the speed at which society moves. For many, they have adapted. But there method of adaptment as been to eliminate the questioning portion of the process. They can merely act on instinct - stimulus/response.
Another problem is the media, and how it operates. In terms of news, it is only natural that because the speed of society is moving quickly, the speed of news would move quickly. Even if it wanted to, it would not have the resources to keep up. Of course that is not its intention. Those awake can see that the media simply acts as Public Relations for corporations. The Film industry is the same way.
Our education system is horrific. It is not about critical thinking, its not about creativity. Its about conditionig. Its about control. Its never so much about any specific ideology, but that it is because it is a specific ideology. It doesn't matter which one. But the opposing ideology is always swept under the rug. The result is simply conditioning to accept authority, a top down view of the world. And slowly over time on a generational scale we are loosing our ability to think critically, we are loosing our creativity, we are loosing our humanity.
Fear is a major driving force behind both the increased speed and shutting down of critical and creative thinking. Our human senses work through registering of change. Its not that we become acclimated, but that we are no longer registering change. This is true with objects that dissapear in your periferal vision if you stare at something. this is true with atmospheric temperature, this is true with smells, and even touch. Every sense. So we do not sense the Fear that permeates every aspect of our lives. but it is a subtle consistent force. Every time an event happens the fear level in the society shoots up. over reacting? probably. in most cases. But when the the event passes, the level of fear never drops to pre event level. And let us not forget the medias constant drum-beat of all things that can/will kill us. This atmosphere of fear permeates our daily lives like a thick layer of molassis that covers our experiences and emotions. the cracks are beginning to show. the cracks have been showing for quites some time now. Ironically this is the reason we are told not to pay attention to the cracks. Slowly...very slowly the world has been going insane.
Another problem is the media, and how it operates. In terms of news, it is only natural that because the speed of society is moving quickly, the speed of news would move quickly. Even if it wanted to, it would not have the resources to keep up. Of course that is not its intention. Those awake can see that the media simply acts as Public Relations for corporations. The Film industry is the same way.
Our education system is horrific. It is not about critical thinking, its not about creativity. Its about conditionig. Its about control. Its never so much about any specific ideology, but that it is because it is a specific ideology. It doesn't matter which one. But the opposing ideology is always swept under the rug. The result is simply conditioning to accept authority, a top down view of the world. And slowly over time on a generational scale we are loosing our ability to think critically, we are loosing our creativity, we are loosing our humanity.
Fear is a major driving force behind both the increased speed and shutting down of critical and creative thinking. Our human senses work through registering of change. Its not that we become acclimated, but that we are no longer registering change. This is true with objects that dissapear in your periferal vision if you stare at something. this is true with atmospheric temperature, this is true with smells, and even touch. Every sense. So we do not sense the Fear that permeates every aspect of our lives. but it is a subtle consistent force. Every time an event happens the fear level in the society shoots up. over reacting? probably. in most cases. But when the the event passes, the level of fear never drops to pre event level. And let us not forget the medias constant drum-beat of all things that can/will kill us. This atmosphere of fear permeates our daily lives like a thick layer of molassis that covers our experiences and emotions. the cracks are beginning to show. the cracks have been showing for quites some time now. Ironically this is the reason we are told not to pay attention to the cracks. Slowly...very slowly the world has been going insane.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
John Maynard
I go back and forth thinking about Economic Theory and other things. My major in college WAS Economics. And now that I write, I ponder the difference between "Economics" and "Economic Theory"
We were not taught "theories" we were taught facts...Economics. Curious. And when I think back to what we were taught, I recall we began with Keyens, then moved to neo-blablabla - and basically told this is what is believed to be true now. And not other possible realities were mentioned. The resulting effect was to produce a lack of critical thought. memorization and regurgitation.
But I have been going back as of late, and for obvious reasons. and analyzing that which I was asked to memorize and regurgitate. It may be needless to say, but I have become critical of the theories with which we used to "oversee" our economy. We all understand that trade is good...or maybe we don't - I do not wish to exclude anyone. It is the law of comparative advantage that explains it. If you (the reader)and I (the writer) both manufacture rubber balls, and breed cocks - we can both enjoy the amount of cock and balls we produce. However, if you are better at making balls (on a cost per unit basis), and I am better breeding cocks, it is the law of comparative advantage that suggests that if we both focus on our individual expertise, the result is more cock and balls for all.
I have come to understand this to be naive for several reasons - first of all, it assumes equanimity and magnanimity. In reality, our reliance of these things is not equal, if cocks are more important to you than balls are to me, this creates an unequal relationship. And while on the static page, written in black and white might still seem okay, it misses an understanding that over time this relationship of trading cock for balls is predicated on the relationship between you and I. And that relationship, no matter how strong at any particular moment in time, invariable changes over time - and when there is an unequal dependence on cock and balls between us, it is unrealistic to expect that exploitation will not occur as a result.
So in reality what is going on when we talk about this "law of comparative advantage" it is not "more for everyone" - it is simply an exchange - you are taking on added risk, in exchange for a lower price and more product. It may, in fact, be a zero sum game.
And this is not a case against trade, this is about specialization. It is risk. And risk itself is not bad either - in fact it is good, but only to a point. Risk is not meant to be avoided, it is meant to be accepted. Free markets are chaotic, free markets have risk. But risk is not mitigated by shoving it off to someone else. that encourages more risky behavior - although even to call it risky behavior is a gross mis-categorization. "Risk-less" behavior, is more like it, because the risk is not born by the perpetrator. It is for this reason, I question the very nature of INSURANCE - it encourages this "risk-less" behavior. If NO ONE had health insurance - if it did not exist at all, people would be more careful. they would take a more active role in their health. they would eat better, exercise more - not live under power lines, not accept fluoride in the water. (It is after all, a poising) and monsanto would not be getting away with what they are getting away with.
Of course if we had true free markets that were not regulated, companies the size of monsanto could not exist. It is the cheap supply of money that corporations get from our system of banking that allow them to grow so large. without that, companies of such scale would exist in much the same way as those newer elements on the periodic table - we bombarded this molecule with protons, and for a split second it became something else, but it was so unstable, it broke apart. Central banking encourages this "risk-less" behavior as well.
whatever, I think I've digressed. Risk is great, but it cannot be passed on. It can be mitigated, but the method of mitigation is that of awareness and preparedness. And you cannot enslave entire populations in order to reduce the risk of higher wages. you cannot force entire populations to be consumers of anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)