Hear One, Know Ninethousand Ninehundred Ninety Nine

Damnit.

2008-06-22T03:16:48Z

It seems I will have to employ an editor and a phenomenologist at this point.

[Between Two Parties]

2008-06-22T01:42:43Z

[Between Two Parties]

I went to a party where all the acquaintances I knew gathered. Among them was Prof. Prior and I believed it to be his house. I walked around and greeted many people I knew, and then I came across a couple. The guy was telling me how I could come over to his house later on if I wished. I told him that I would, but I would be embarrassed because I didn't have a change of clothing. He said he didn't mind and told me to stick around anyway.

One girl, Noel, was in the corner and I decided to approach her. We talked about insignificant things, some things about philosophy as well. She looked at the drawing I was holding and said, "You drew a pair of lips?"

"No I did not!"

"Well, I see one."

"Perhaps you are looking at this one," with that, I ostended towards the other drawing on the back of my envelope, one that was heart-shaped, red, and did look like a pair of lips.

She commented on it and she leaned forward at one point, making me wonder if I should kiss her. I refused the temptation and then arose to leave the party.

"I'll be back," I said, "I just have to change clothes."

I leave the party as I said I would do and left to my house. I walked home and was slightly surprised at everythings brief distance. I change into my white long sleeves and notice the print on the t-shirt is a little worn. I put it on and as I do, nightfalls. I get nervous that I'm going to be late for the remainder for the party so I start to run.

While running, I feel that I am in France and passing many French people along the way. I also feel that I am passing many boutiques that are only found in France. I enter an airplane terminal and I see some protesters, asleep on the ground but still have their picket signs still waves in the air. I jump over them, but I see one of them move to try and grab my right ankle. The protester touches me but I manage to get out of his grasp. I utter a loud shrill as he barely grabs me. I notice that another girl is starting to run alongside me. She asks, "Why did you make that noise?"

"Because that guy almost got me!" She understood what I meant right away and continued running with me.

We ran out of the airlines and it was, of course, nightfall. The road diverged in two, one going uphill and the other going downhill. Both routes were downtown areas. I forgot where to go, but decided to break left. The girl also broke left. She told me, "Hey, you look familiar."

"I do?"

"Yeah. About six months ago we saw each other briefly. Maybe it was meant to be for us to see each other again." I concurred that I had seen her once in the past, but didn't want to say anything. She was hinting that we date and I said nothing to promote such a thing.

As we reached a deeper part of downtown along the main street, the went to the other side of the street to enter a stairway. I presumed it was the place where she was going to attend the party. She looked at me as she descended the staircase and at that moment, I had the option to go down to the party with her. I decided not to go and continued on to my original plan.

I return to the party and see Noel, dressed differently this time, "Hey, you look different!"
"Yeah, well... I'm going to see a girlfriend pretty soon, so I'm actually going to go." I wish her a good trip and then wake up.
::

That's the funny thing with intentionality.

2008-06-13T02:53:04Z

You open the sliding door to let out the fly, but instead the fly goes the other direction and the dog goes running out.

Our objective is to "shew the fly out of the fly-bottle," but how feasible is that, really?

It is unfortunate.

2008-06-07T05:54:16Z

Everything that is not ordinary is pseudo.
(x)(~Ox --> Px)

All of philosophy is not ordinary.
(x)(Hx --> ~Ox)

Ergo, all of philosophy is pseudo (by virtue of hypothetical syllogism)
/ (x)(Hx --> Px)

Wittgenstein.

2008-05-31T04:10:32Z

Psuedo Criteria of Early Wittgenstein
-Grammatical perplexities like asking "where is a picture?" or "A mile weighs 10lbs" would be examples of pseudo problems/statements simply because anything that does not have truth functionality is considered nonsense.
-Caution: things that are not the case, such as "Unicorns exist" is a false and MEANINGFUL statement. It has sense, but it false. This sentence is not a pseudo problem nor nonsense.

Psuedo Criteria of Later Wittgenstein
-if it contributes more information than what already exists within the system, it is a pseudo-problem
-the problem of other minds is a pseudo problem
-all philosophical problems are pseudo problems
-if it has no use in the system, it is pseudo (philosophy is grammar, which has use in the network, but is primitive (2) in the language game); it is not necessary, but doesn't necessarily mean it's pseudo
- if it uses words in a way that lacks context, it is considered pseudo
- if philosophy demands completeness of a language that is imperfect but functions 99.9% of the time (133), then it is pseudo problem

I am now having a problem with the distinction of pseudo problems and grammar for later witt. I may have to argue that grammar is a pseudo problem, but I don't want to go there because grammar is somtimes necessary to lay out ground rules which could not have been known otherwise

Relational Realism Eggs and Empiricist Ham.

2008-05-30T07:18:53Z

Criteria of Siberia are cold winter diphtherias summoned by ice spheric materia,
for the closet of the faucet rinses with water velocit' rushing down to splash and cause it.

The crimeney chim-min-ney cracks google yahoo jimmineys until the cricket wishes upon the star to get wooden boy out of morose and pitiful litany,

Automatons are bay to breaker marathons that add in salad those crutons that place in buns those foot longs!

Folds on holds on books that mold only after 1770 do they scold deteriorating bold and yellow library scaffolds!

Tx = x is a Tobasco.

2008-05-30T07:10:18Z

There exists a tobasco such that the tobasco went into the soup,
and when this tobasco went into the soup, the soul was spoileth'd,
heavens, John! Did you put the tobasco in the soup?
If so, then someone will be furious.
Well, no one really put tobasco in the soup,
ergo it follows that no one is furious with John!

Quod erat demonstrandum, mudda pucka!

In the domain of humans, it seems superfluous to declare the existence of people. If I wish to construct a domain of humans, soup, and tobasco, then perhaps the existential import of a tobasco may also be redundant.

Shorthand as obsolete.

2008-05-18T00:03:16Z

I find it to be a societal shortcoming that shorthand has become obsolete. It is the case that we can write quickly in front of the computer, but no normal writer can keep up with a typist under any circumstances. It is this fact that is regarded as unimportant, but that is where I think the tide of things have gone astray. The relationship between thoughts and writing them on paper is something that is understood to a psychological degree, but for the most part it has not been explicitly investigated. And if I err in saying this, then I can at least say that a fundamental ontology for writing has not been created either. For if we conjure up a sentence and write it down, and if we happen to write slow, then the action of writing down the idea occurs while the mind is retaining the idea to be written down. If shorthand were in place, then the problem of retaining an idea simply for the sake of writing it down will be solved and it will be the case that we could think of another idea while writing the idea that came before it. What do we have, then? We have a stronger tie, still not a perfect one but improved nonetheless, between the mind and the writing, something that typing can accomplish somewhat, but something writing hardly ever accomplishes.

The next point I would argue is that if kinesthetic learning is more prevalent in writing than is typing, then perhaps the mind-writing connexion will prove to be superior in learning while not having to sacrifice the speed of a typist's.

Silent Playground.

2008-04-28T06:01:10Z

It is only I who sees the shadows of thether-ball poles being cast against four-squares,
and only swinging monkeybars are ones to creak out of the entire painted metal jungle,
these are the utterances of a mute play-thing of a child's gay and happy fling,
those three feet tall soon-to-be-women-and-men run and stomp against somewhat damp and diversified bark,
and yet at the still of the night, the opposite time of day in which they play,
I stand here in the absence of life and vibrant youth.

But of course, the youthlessness in which I stand may appear at first glance melancholy,
but that is not so,
for where I stand where children once were is a place I once stood,
and for what I expect to be absent is in fact absent because no future state will ever stumble over past states,
and for what I once was, was, and what I am now, is,
and that need not be melancholy at all, for I am still the self, perpetuating forward like every note found in musical measure,
and without the recognition of all the notes, no melody can be ascertained.

When I find myself in this metallic dirge of creaks and shadows,
I take a stand and bring myself up with the strength I endowed myself,
and with some modified exertion, I become closer to the clouds that ripple against the sky,
like some bedding ruffled by a dog, or a well-made bed destroyed by the sprawling of an exhausted child,
I see the sky seeing me see the sky and I see the sky seeing me see the sky.

The stillness, too, is what directs my attention to nothingness,
the lobes do catch what other things cannot,
yet lobes do not catch balls, they catch sounds,
and for all those that are captured in this non-silky web, well,
it is the sound of the unfamiliar,
because a criterion of a windy city is namely the adjective prior to "city,"
and yet the playground is still.

For once, then, I desired the wind to resume its whistle against the trees,
so my mind's clarity would return with an extra push of gust,
and sure enough, with enough intrinsic cajoling on my part,
it came back.

HW4-part 1

2008-04-27T00:11:43Z

CHAPTER 4: MOLECULES AND COMPOUNDS
(4) Metals and nonmetals generally combine to form ionic compounds. Molecular compounds are formed by combination of atoms of nonmetals. Since nonmetals tend to form negative ions, it is not possible to achieve an electrically neutral compound by combination of just negative ions; the bonding in molecular compounds is covalent, involving the sharing of electrons.

(5) The transfer of valence electrons from a metal atom to a nonmetal atom results in formation of ionic bonds. The bonding is a result of the strong electrostatic attraction between a positively charged ion (metal) and a negatively charged ion (nonmetal). A crystalline lattice of positive and negative ions results. The sharing of valence electrons between two nonmetals forms covalent bonds. Covalent compounds are composed of clusters of two or more atoms bonded together to form molecules.

(6) A molecule is a collection of two or more atoms of the same or different elements held together by covalent bonds. There are many common examples of molecules such as water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2) and methane (CH4).

(8) A systematic name of a compound is one obtained by applying a set of rules established for naming compounds, which usually enables one to determine the formula of the substance from the name. A common name is one that has some other origin, often historic. A simple example is H2O: the common name is water, whereas the systematic name would be dihydrogen oxide. In this particular case, the systematic name is never used, demonstrating that even scientists are susceptible to the sentiments of tradition.

(9) Ionic compounds contain positive ions (usually a metal) and negative ions (nonmetals or polyatomic ions). The positive ion is named first and is the element name presented unchanged. The negative ion is named second. If it is a monatomic element, the element name ending is changed to –ide. Sodium chloride is a good example. The numbers of ions in the formula are NOT stated in the formula name.

(10) A polyatomic ion is a group of atoms bonded together as in a molecule but having a net positive or negative charge. Negatively charge polyatomic ions are very common in chemistry and include sulfate (SO42-), nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO43-) and carbonate (CO32-). Only a couple of positively charged polyatomic ions have major roles in chemistry and these are ammonium (NH4+) and hydronium (H3O+).

(11) Considering binary molecular compounds, the less electronegative element is named first, without change; the more electronegative element is named second, and the ending is changed to –ide. It is also necessary to include the number of atoms in the molecule in the formula name. The only exception here is that if the first element has only one atom, the prefix mono is not used.

(17) CaF2 contains one Ca atom and two F atoms CH2Cl2 contains one C atom, two H atoms and two Cl atoms MgSO4 contains one Mg atom, one S atom and four O atoms Sr(NO3)2 contains one Sr atom, two N atoms and six O atoms (18) Na2O contains two Na atoms and one O atom CF2Cl2 contains one C atom, two F atoms and two Cl atoms K2CO3 contains two K atoms, one C atom and three O atoms Mg(HCO3)2 contains one Mg atom, two H atoms, two C atoms and six O atoms (19) KCl is ionic CO2 is molecular N2O is molecular NaNO3 is ionic (20) CO is molecular ZnBr2 is ionic CH4 is molecular NaF is ionic

This is what I call 'fantastication.'

2008-04-25T05:39:10Z

I see something deteriorating,
yet I do not speak what it is,
for you think you are fine,
but I think not,
and what is the case for you,
is not the case for me,
therefore we have different realities.

And if strings were to cry out and detest their finite length,
then so too will I detest my finitudes that grant me the power of value,
for finitude is the bread that rises from unleavened mortality,
and only through change does finitude become infinitude,
because strings rebel about their length just as I about my mortality,
and death surely gives us value,
but to value because it will end is not really value;
to value because you think it is important is true value,
because if I know that a person will live for only 10 more years,
my awareness of it shant make those 10 left years more important,
because urgency is the worst thing that can change our behavior;
changing our behavior ourselves before urgency does is the greatest thing we can do for ourselves.

We play the language game. A Wittgenstein Recap (Later).

2008-04-25T05:31:00Z

If I follow the language game, then as long as you understand what I have said, then that implies meaning.

How do I learn something ostensively when I have no language. Why not have a capacity to learn language instead? Why not be Locke's tabula rasa-- a receptacle where we can learn anything we please? Since learning ostensively makes sense in an already established language, it can make sense in a world without language. Given we are human, then some language will manifest. There is never a chicken or problem because the answer is always the egg that hatched that was no longer the previous animal that it had been a part of.

We give names to objects. Communally we share these words with people. I say slab, the assistant gets me the slab. That is a language. Languages can never be private, because once they have meaning, they can be inferred. If you have one of your cereal boxtop decoders, you do not have a cryptic private language. You have a public language; a language that can be shared, can be decoded, and therefore has meaning.

SoC Renewal.

2008-04-25T05:19:46Z

Pragmatism is the schism that brings together the things of which we hold most dear, for there are certain abilities we wish to derive from reality and sometimes we think it not real, but it in fact is fact. Is sofa a sofa? Perhaps the thing in which we sit is something we have all, upon consensus of learning engish, have designated it as that name but its existence does not seem to be verifiable. And our sense data? They can very. And if you do not call that sufficient proof, then you are not a pragmatist.

Guilt comes and goes like storms and sunny days and often while you bring an umbrella, the light will shine down upon and make you sweat against your overpreparedness and your blue raincoat, for these are the things that pass and weave and leave. If guilt were a thing that were constant like a fire being moved by wind, perniciously eating all that stood in front of it, then perhaps we would not be here, for the guilt would engulf us and life would be worthless like the currency in Zimbabwe. Inflation comes to choose who could have not chosen otherwise to exist, and that is a problem.

If vice were to be excluded from all behavior, then perhaps what would be left is a life with meaning. Finding vice though is like putting buffer on a car. The surface becomes pasty and white, taking any shine away from the natural glow of the paint. If you apply force to it with a towel, the roughness and whiteness begin to go away and what you have left is a glistening, new awakened self. Perhaps the experience of going through vice is good, but never the vice itself. Curses; bullocks. If only I had a way to go through the experience of doing something vicious while not being vicious, then perhaps I would benefit most from that.

And that is where meditation comes in. If I wish to imagine that which never occurred, then why not lucidly conjure it up with my mind? I can reinact everything, be vicious without the vice, then move on as a better self. If I create my reality, then what makes it less equivocal than our already somewhat predictable reality? Predictable is something I say in that we have a schedule and I know people exist and already live differently than me and live dangerously or spontaneously, and they become better selves from that too. But perhaps their intentionality is not to be found. They trudge on but I wonder about their intentionality.

To kill a mockingbird... tequila mockingbird.

2008-04-21T06:10:37Z

In the preparation of my 179 year lifespan, I wish to reestablish my beliefs, one of which I must admit to myself that causal determinism is true and exists. For if I were not to exercise today, I would have to exercise tomorrow. Of if I did not put gas in my tank tonight, I would have to do it anyway tomorrow. I would have to put gas in my car tomorrow because it was not done today. If I put the gas in the tank tonight, then I wouldn't have to put gas tomorrow. Small causal scheme, but it matters.

It matters deeply when we are not simply looking at what to do today vs what to do tomorrow. Rather, it becomes important when one is trying to accomplish something within a span of a year. For instance, if I wanted to be able to run 20 miles effortlessly within a year, then I could not possibly do it without daily or regular practice. Incremental progress produces a final product. Without that incremental progress, there is no such thing as improvement. If we rank improvement as something we accomplish within days, perhaps we are spoiling ourselves. But if we can look back to a year's worth of consistent work, we could pat ourselves on the back and call that true progress.

As long as I believe strongly in causal determinism, then it would not be in my best interest to slack off from tasks that require diligent, daily practice. A meal eaten today will feed my body the next day. Showing this evening means no shower the following morning. Extrapolation: learning a new word daily means learning 365 words per year (assuming memorization takes place).

[Hate Among Orphans] and [Of All Possible Worlds]

2008-04-20T12:15:12Z

Sleeping Time: 11:00pm
Waking Time 4:00am
Sleep Efficiency: 100%
Sleep Debt: -170hrs

Dream [Hate Among Orphans]
I was at what I thought was an abandoned house. I had no place to stay so I was camping (literally squatting there) until I could find a new job and new place. My cellphone rang; it was Warren who called. He said he wanted to catch up so I told him to come over (he knew where I was without me having to tell him...). I notice that there are slices of pizza nicely set out on the table on paper plates. I pick one up and start eating it. I drink some water while I'm eating. By now Warren has arrived and I tell him to have some of this pizza I found. When he does, I go off to another room. When I open the room, I see a room filled with children. They're very attentive and look right me as I entered. They're not talking with each other; they're very behaved. I soon realized that I had stumbled upon an orphanage.

The children had a sense of fight in their eyes; I had mentioned earlier that they were unusually focused and all that focusedness was aimed towards me. One boy grabs my arm. I notice that his grip is ridiculously strong, much stronger than mine. Our bodily contact puts me in tune with his feelings and I can feel the sense of defensiveness and hate searing from his body. From this feeling alone, I justify that I can fight back, even though they are orphans and I'm a 21 year old boy. I take the boy monkey gripping my arm and throw him across the room. A girl goes up to me and before she gets a chance to do anything, I twist her arm until I hear it break. Another boy tries to trip/kick me but I grab his leg. I twist the leg and I hear the crack and the boy shrieks out in pain, but then I twist slightly more and then I realize that that second twist had make the break a clean one. The boy shrieks out even louder and I start to feel guilty having twisted his leg excessively.

While all this is going on, a man enters the room rather casually. He's a bald man, a little overweight but I tell he looks very strong. He sees that some of the orphans are hurt and then he looks straight me. Since he just entered the room, I happened to be at the opposite side of the room, as depicted here by simple diagram:

[bald man][orphans][me]

Since the children were between us and since we were at opposite ends of the room, I had time to think of my next move. I had inferred firstly that this main was training these children for a purpose unknown to me. I realized they were highly decent and obedient children but they also had a very strong will to fight me. In the midst of my thoughts, the bald man speaks, "What the hell are you doing here?"

"I came here to find a place to stay."

"You came here to find a place but you hurt my children instead?"

"It was their fault. I was merely defending myself." After saying this, the all the children gave me dirty looks, especially those whose limbs I had broken.

After I said this, the man began to outrightly formulate a punishment of sorts for me to coercively accept once I was detained by him and the children. While he was telling me what he was going to do to me, he starts walking closed to me. He began walking where the children are and they make a clearing for him (there are about 30 children). As he gets closer, Warren, probably wondering where I am all this time, opens the door and comes in. He quickly realizes what situation I'm in. The bald man talks to Warren, then taunts me, "What are you doing to do? Run?" Warren starts flickering the lights, which doesn't make the room dark but makes it different shades of blue. I find a blanket to hide under and when the room became dark enough, I slowly walked through the sea of children to get to the door. The same child that started it all gripped my arm again and held on tight. None of the children talked; they were all just staring. I had to pry his hand off. I made my way to the door but as I turned the knob, the bald man knew exactly where I was and we were nearly feet from each other.

I had left the room where the bald man and children were and began walking briskly toward some exit with Warren. The table with the pizza was within sight. The bald man opens the door I just came out of and comes up to me. He says, "Why did you hurt them?"
"I was only trying to defend myself. You're taking care of so many of them."
"They have nowhere else to go."
We continue to talk and eventually we realizes that I should pay him back in some way for what was done. The offer sounded reasonable, but I refused on grounds that he would probably break some of my bones to offset what I had done.

A classmate from my Heidegger class comes in and I'm very surprised to see him. I greet him and introduce him as best I can in this awkward situation. David, the classmate, talks to the bald man. We all sit down on the nearby sofa. David starts by asking the bald man some questions,
"Do you know anything about Heidegger?"
"Yeah, sure."
"Do you know everything about him?"
"Well, no."
(Rhetorically) "So you wish to not know anything about him, yet you wish to take good care of this children?"
"Well, of course. Isn't the latter a better choice?"
"It is, but in the process of doing that you end up not doing other things."
"..."
"[incessant but seemingly logical propositions]"

A few statements later, we all become buddies and so were mainly talking more about each other's lives. The bald man forgives me when I apologize about breaking some of the children's limbs. Everything ends rather neatly and we all return to the pizza on the table. We realize that the pizza wasn't ordered by the bald man and neither was it ordered by us. We don't give it a second thought and offer the bald man some pizza.
::

Dream [Of All Possible Worlds]
I was in another house, but Mama Ela was there. She didn't have bad knees, was 30 pounds lighter, and was moving around effortlessly. Her maid, Sally, was still with her but she was no longer dependent on her. Our house, I noticed, was slightly bigger. I also noticed that my dad had lost hist left leg, and his right leg had a prosthetic. When I noticed this, I was shocked because no one told me what had happened. He told me, "I have to talk to you later about risk management." I wanted to reply, "I know how to risk manage already from Finance," but I didn't say it because it would have been rude. We were all cleaning up the dishes after a meal and I noticed a cell phone in the sink. I took it out and put it on the kitchen counter. It was wet and made the counter wet as well.
::

Observation #1

2008-04-17T02:07:02Z

Allow me to observe that the first bite into a radish is much louder than its consequent bites.

If you wanted a dirty Modus Tollens, you should have asked.

2008-04-15T07:51:34Z

Compressing time hurts what ought to be an hour becomes two hours, and what becomes 24 hour day a 48 day. Surely, by these figures it can be said time is expanding, but this is not the case. The truth is that by slicing time into half and inserting more between the splitted halves, it follows that you increase its size by 33.3333333%. For if one were to take 2 seconds and slice it down the middle to get two 1 second pieces, I would then slowly insert an extra second between the two one second flaps, essentially resulting in a 33% increase in time. If I continue placing a slice in for every partition as represented by the limit x approaching infinity, I will end up with two seconds turning to three, three seconds turning into five, five into nine, ad infinitum. It does more than double, surely. But right now, the most I can possibly control is time compression of the most basic degree. 2x is enough to cheat life. Hacking any more than this would result in me having to endure some kind of self-contained eternity, a fate I may desire if I were to rationalize it more, but currently has no purpose or necessity in my life.

Wisteria is blooming.

2008-04-14T07:33:25Z

Hoo hoo. I had a dream that the devil was laughing at me, and when I woke up, I could still hear it laughing. I correlated the faint laugh with the humming of my laptop and when I turned my body, the laughing disappeared. But when I oriented myself in the position I was previously, the laughing returned. It was enough to raise my heart level enough, but I think my general pragmatism has greatly reduced any chance of me being fearful to what could be phenomena that can rationalized by science.

Speaking of the latter, watching the Royal Institution's that was hosted by Richard Dawkins in 1991 and seeing him present documentaries now is certainly a treat. He has gotten wrinkly, a grave side-effect to the mauling hands of time. But I suppose 15 years will do that to you (the recent documentary I watched was called the Enemies of Reason, done in 2006). His beliefs remain and his documentary personality seems fair and civil, though I have yet to hear the live debates taped of him going from university from university. Though he could be sign as a gadfly to superstition, he does have a set of beliefs of his own--namely that of science. His rejection of what could be summarized as all of metaphysics isn't really a new thing, but I think it has managed to reach mainstream culture a little more thoroughly than others in the past. But when I see him going from place to place, telling people that what they believe is wrong, it can be very insulting especially if people believe in these things metaphorically rather than literally. He ends up citing numerous examples where people believe things contrary to science and are justified in believing so based on religion or superstition and I agree with him that that is not good. What I do not agree with is that he may cross the line in trying to disprove things that can neither be proved nor disproved, namely the existence of God. He is more than welcome to use science as his poetry to romantically outline the world into his lecture notes, but biting more than he can chew, more than science or any thing can chew, like God, is left for outer-worldly investigation and not this-worldly investigation.

The Wisteria in the backyard is blooming and I must have spent hours reading outside due to the great weather. Mom was lounged in the black reclining chair while I was sitting in the round table. I nearly stayed in my pajamas the entire day, either cooking, napping, or reading. I took pictures outside of Ozzie and mom. The peach tree I planted bloomed flowers and is getting bigger, but it will still be years before any fruit will come of it. The apple tree is full of flowers. The day was very pleasant and I expect more pleasant days to come. Curse the sunburn, though.

Also, I had no idea that running 4 miles at a fast pace would be so draining. Doing that and playing tennis he next morning put my legs out of commission for the rest of the weekend. I spent today walking gingerly, with all my muscles sore from the waist down. By tomorrow I should be in good shape to continue the cross-training, but it is evident that long distance running has reestablished itself as unfamiliar to me.

[Where Fish can Kill]

2008-04-11T15:09:20Z

Sleeping Time: 12:30AM
Waking Time: 7:45AM
Sleep Debt: -174hrs
Sleep Efficiency: 100%

Dream [Where Fish can Kill]
I was at SCU and it was passing period. The staircase was full of people, so I decided to levitate towards the higher floors. Professor Prior looked at me and said, "I saw that coming..." implying I was some kind of demon that he would expect to levitate. I go to the supermarket and I notice that many things are on sale. I see Lindsay there and we look for foods to pick out. We noted it was some kind of "Ribbon Sale." If there was a red and white ribbon over the price tag, it was on sale. I was in the candy section and I noticed some of the prices were still very high. I became increasingly disinterested in them. I continue levitating inside the supermarket but I devise a new way of levitating: I wave my hand from under me and I realize now that I can temporarily use the spot where I just waved my hand as a stepping place for myself. I can do this an unlimited number of times until I reach very high altitudes.

Scene transition. I entered a room where a group of people were standing to watch a movie on large screen. The screen was partitioned into two parts: the top part, which contained the movie, and the bottom part, which contained extraneous information about the movie. I hit the "full screen" button on the console of this large screen and it accidentally stretched the picture out too much. In the crowd I see my parents who are watching, but don't seem to mind the picture is stretched.

I believe what we're watching becomes the next active scene in my dream. I had an adventure with Angelique. She requested that with my help, we kill the monster that was worth $20,000. The game was basically some kind of virtual MMORPG that allowed you to choose from Zelda characters. I was wearing a purple bandanna, had an axe, arrows, bombs, etc. Angelique tagged along to help kill the monster, but I knew that I really didn't need her help. We reach one part in the dungeon where there's a beach. Several monsters come out and I kill them all. I get a heart piece after killing all of them. While I was swimming and killing all the monsters, a stairway opens up. I ignore it since I realize that we're in the wrong place. It seems we went west instead of northeast. As I consulted my map (a very cartoony and well-drawn one), the island we had to go was, in fact, in the Northeast in a secluded island. Angelique complained that killing these useless monsters set us back by a whole lot, resulting in her demanding a higher split of the reward money. I agreed since I got the heart piece. More monsters popped out and I just took out a series of arrows and killed them all, almost professionally or cheatingly.

As we were about to leave the beach area, two other players come in and try to kill us. We all collectively leave the area (the screen Zeldaishly scrolls to the right to the next area) and those people are still trying to kill us. We abstain from fighting back, but I unconsciously realize that I'm charging my weapon. My axe, glowing and absorbing the energy around it, releases when I release my "button" (though I am physically in the game, I felt my thumb release from a button that signified my attack button... so a bit of a blur between the player-playing duality) and I accidentally deal a heavy blow to a woman that was trying to kill us.

I summon a magic carpet and start riding it, trying to grab Angelique so she could get on. My purple bandanna falls off the enemies get hold of it. They utter something vengeful with the camera panning closer to the woman tightly gripping my bandanna. Angelique went elsewhere while I was trying to find her with my magic carpet.
::

If you're restrained by a straight-jacket, are you auto-hugging?

2008-04-10T04:07:14Z

I embrace insanity solely for it's beneficial purposes. For if I wish to assume that all my finals are tomorrow, would that not produce a false internal feeling of urgency, thus promoting me to do all my work? This system is the creation of false belief, one that I find all too powerful and highly understudied as well as underestimated. Some people call this the placebo effect.

Knowing that something doesn't work but you intend to correlate it to something completely different requires ignorance. But even with this ignorance, the fact that if a nurse tells you that he has a pain killer in his needle, and you believe him, then he injects you, even though the contents of the needle may be saline solution, the pain killers in your body will be released, and relief will be felt. It is through false belief that we achieve such feats, controlling what normally cannot be controlled.

And so I say that perhaps I wish to induce a placebo effect onto myself, one that will catapult my willpower into the willpower of a philosophical giant. I desire this only because we are unable to control our bodies to a certain extent and there are times when the limitations of mindset and the physical body become increasingly apparent to me. For instance, all of us were once impressionable children and for whatever things impressed us, they also limited us in a certain way. If someone tells us that the world works a certain way, we may apply that framework either consciously or unconsciously. If the latter is applied, we may not even know that the way we structure the knowledge we acquire is being constructed in the context of what impressed us.

If there are limitations of the physical body, it will manifest itself greatly in the form of fatigue. Fatigue may be due to many things like overuse of the body or improper eating or lack of sleeping. It is therefore in our best interest to build a tolerance to fatigue. Now, it is clear that all persons have naturally built a tolerance for fatigue, simply due to the fact that people eat, sleep, and exercise regularly. But what is worth improving the most is the marginal advantage of destroying fatigue.

Imagine the following: If we were to construct a model that would minimize one's fatigue by an equation dictating exactly what to do, eat, number of hours to sleep at night, types of exercises to do at certain times, perhaps fatigue can be shaken off. It will be shaken off, warded off, but not completely. For if we were to work for five hours on x, and followed all the rules to avoid fatigue, then fatigue would not occur during the third hour but instead, occur during the fourth hour. We have essentially postponed the onset of fatigue by one whole hour. Now, imagine what can be done in that hour. It would be an extra hour of clear thought, used for any endeavor imaginable. And if that does not seem like much, I believe that it is. If you do something within that hour, it can be guaranteed that that time spent on talking to someone else, doing work, or building a story will involve fewer errors and greater chances of understanding at first glance.

Inducing insanity can ward off fatigue. Insanity can also compel. It can compel by becoming a very strong causal antecedent. For example, if I induced insanity and told myself that my house was on fire, I may reach a record high level of running speed in leaving my house. Now, take this context of fleeing a burning building and apply to it to a track-runner. What would carry over? The speed of the person fleeing the burning house would be carried over. The urgency would, too. The adrenaline would pump. Fear would increase. Clumsiness may increase (even though one is in a state hyper-awareness due to a burning house). All these apply to taking a context that's not supposed to be there and applying it to another context. That is what I call "Inducing Constructive Insanity."

If I wanted to tell myself that finals were next week, and if I somehow made myself ignorant of the truth that it wasn't the case, then I would induce constructive insanity and reap the benefits of the placebo effect. I would do all my work and all my reading, though sloppily, I would imagine. I would lose a great amount of sleep, study as hard as possible, all within the context that finals are near approaching. Due to my somehow destruction of knowledge (the piece of information telling me that finals week really isn't soon), I will do all this and complete everything, all within a time frame that normally, would be spread out through 8 weeks.

If I were successful in doing this, the following will occur: After doing all my work, I will suddenly "wake up" from my ignorance and return to normal. The process of "waking up" is when I will cross a certain point in temporal space. For example, when I induced constructive insanity and told myself that my first final will occur on Monday 14 April 2008 at 9:10am, then I will "wake up" at precisely 9:11am, or the time at which something was supposed to occur but, in fact, did not end up occurring. This event, which I thought was to occur, never occurred, thus triggering and restoring my rationality and filling and overwriting ignorance with truth. I will realize that no finals will take place and that I will return to normal.

When I do return to normal, however, I retain all the knowledge I obtained throughout that 2 week flurry before the alleged "finals week" and I also have all my homework done for all of my classes in a mediocre quality, I will concede, but nonetheless the necessity to do all of my work was there and done under the premise that finals were coming. As long as it felt real, I did my work as if it were real. Doing work in this context at least shows that I tried hard in completing the material in the best possible way while trying to avoid the decrease in the quality of my work (to ensure that I get the highest possible grades).

This is only an example in the context of school, but just imagine its real-life implications (stock market, stand-up comedy, dating if I dare say, writing, or anything that has a timeframe but can be feasibly truncated into a smaller one). We should all shout "Hurrah!" for the ho hum principle of urgency and its constituents, but let it not be downplayed simply because it is a date marked on a calendar. I say it is more than that and can be made more cardinal in our lives if used/manipulated properly.

Time is of the essence.

2008-04-07T06:56:07Z

Time of the essence, especially when people end up inventing the things you were intending to do! +1 to the common expression of 10/90 divides of "10% planning, 90% implementation," given that planning is exceptional. A poor plan implemented will still be poor.

God's Eye, only I think God would appreciate each day and what everyone did aside from me, just some mortal voyeur. Damn, I wish to be appointed a demigod and siphon life from itself, prying into its nature instead of being in awe of it. A scientist is best suited for this, I concede.

I projected myself from the past and into the present by writing all my priorities in the next 10 weeks into my little black book. It seems that I will endure an unrelenting quarter filled will readings of what I would like to consider to be most unfamiliar territory. For on one hand, I see the culmination of all the business I have learned into my capstone course, and on the other, I have two meddlesome philosophers that decided to turn all of Western philosophy on its back like some poor, helpless, yet wise turtle. Now that the damn green thing is on its shell, I find that there are only so many ways to rock back and forth to restore its previous state and such a feat will require ingenuity. Yet as of now I see a future self that will be dominated by new ideas and welcomed into unfamiliar territory, all of which may either frighten me, unlock me, or at the very least reveal more of my ignorance. I tread forward only knowing what my priorities are, and will expect to succeed knowing that I can trust the general course of time and its properties; that time does not only heal for those who mourn, but incrementally endows upon its users knowledge in a certain, warm, and fuzzy phenomenological apprehension that which we are akin. For what is to be apprehended comes as it appears, and there is no need for it to all suddenly, instantaneously be revealed. For what I perceive know is only the front of the table by virtue of where I am oriented, but I can only extrapolate that the other side of the table, the side that I am unable to see due to my orientation, is in fact there. It is therefore up to me to stand up, reorient myself, and a posteriori investigate the other side of the table that I assume to be there. And sure enough, it is. Just as I can apprehend the table by looking at it, completing what looks to me like some minor yet troubling impossibilities can still be accomplished given that one day, and everyday for 10 weeks, that I do what is necessary in order to apprehend both halves of this table called Philosophy and Finance.

Ideas never escape me, only my dreams, but even dreams are worth retaining, for they will one day become the ideas that will never escape me.

[Father Dean]

2008-04-01T16:02:31Z

Sleeping Time: 1:30am
Waking Time: 7:45am
Sleep Debt: -167hrs

Dream [Father Dean]

I always have that dream where I'm a priest of a church, but throughout the service I do strange things, feed the congregation with food, choose people out of the audience, and get ready for magic tricks in the background. The people love me, but they know what I'm doing is illegal. The church, a small one in a remote village, is a place where the entire town comes to gather. I know everyone by first and last name, and even though the attendance is high, the pews are not as nearly as full as I wish them to be.
::

The Road to Default.

2008-03-29T07:19:39Z

Show a man a loophole, and he will spend the rest of his honest life trying to figure out how that loophole was done.

Teach a man a loophole, and never again will he be able to live an honest life.

Vicarious Free Will is the best I can do in this crazy causal chain of ours.

2008-03-20T05:31:06Z

Perhaps then, Dennett is right to say that by luck we act by the principles that we already have. And if we have any addictions but have the genetic makeup to fight such an addiction, then it follows that the power to fight the addiction was already there, in us, to combat the addiction.

And perhaps it was already in us to control the environment in a manner that was superior to how others controlled the environment.

I am a rather decent tennis player. Having been trained in tennis for over a decade, many shots are second nature to me. Even though I may not play for months, I return to the court, with the second nature knowledge left imprinted in my muscles and in my brain. Perhaps it was already in my power, like Dennett and Edwards would assert, that tennis would be second nature to me. It was already in my power to retain this muscle memory for months upon months without forgetting. I was lucky to be able to have this natural control over tennis.

Now let us investigate one tennis move that many may find difficiult: the "down-the-line" shot. This shot involves taking a ball, at whatever velocity, angle, what have you, and directing it completely forward, at a speed that matches or exceeds the speed at which you hit it. If such a move is successful, then your opponent will be unable to reach it, and if spectators happen to be watching, they will cheer and be amazed at your ability to control the ball with such ease. You increased the likelihood of scoring a point which, in turn, decreased your opponent's likelihood in scoring a point.

Now, isn't it the case that controlling the ball with such ease means that through practice, one was able to shape the environment to his/her favor in order to produce desirable outcomes? I feel this is the case when one can accumulate both vice and virtue in order to have that second nature property in aciton. Sure, perhaps it was in us to train a certain skill enough to call it second nature, but I believe that when we train ourselves to perform an action that is second nature IN the environment, that claim is also saying the following: that by our actions, we have controlled nature, and therefore it was already in us to have free will.

Is controlling nature to a point that increases the likelihood of a desirable outcome considered free will? I would say yes, but it is a free will that is relative to how other people control nature and how you control nature. If a being had the power to control all of nature and its probabilities, one would consider that being superior than everyone else. If this supreme being could control or predict anything to a 100% success rate, we would say that he/she has great power. This great power is what I could like to call free will, for those who can control and predict a deterministic world AND is a part of the deterministic world means that it was already in that special person to HAVE free will AND be compatible with hard determinism. Perhaps this free will is only evident in the environment and how we perceive that someone has more free will than another simply because he controls the environment better than somebody else. This free will doesn't seem real; it seems to be more vicariously generated than absolute AND endowed by nature.

A logical proof to gather my mind:
(0) Only some vices/virtues/skills can be appropriated. Some virtues, like happiness or katestematic pleasures, cannot be appropriated because they are involuntary (Augustine + Epicurus)
(1) Unappropriated actions exist, controlled by passive emotion. (Spinoza)
(2) Rational beings, through operant conditioning, have experienced the depressing reinforcers of being ignorant and unfulfilled by experiencing unappropriated actions (1) (Skinner)
(3) Because of (2), All persons try to appropriate actions. (Spinoza)
(a) Because of genetic predispositions, all attempts at appropriating actions are, at best, partial ideas, not adequate causes. (Dennett + Spinoza)
(4) Appropriation of an action is necessary to learn a skill/virtue/vice.
(5) We already have it in us, by our genes and our genes allowing us to appropriate (4) to a certain degree (a), to gain second nature in a skill. (Edwards + Spinoza)
(6) Performing a second nature action in the environment increases the likelihood of a desirable outcome. (Dennett)
(i) When (6) occurs, by mathematical probability, the likelihood of a desirable outcome happening for another person decreases [fuck?]
(7) Increasing the likelihood of a desirable outcome in the environment (6) was done by something that we already have in us, by virtue of our genes (1)
(8) All persons, in some varying degree, go through (0), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
(9) The environment, then, is comprised of unappropriated actions (1), appropriated actions (3), and the power of one's second nature skills increasing the likelihood of a desirable outcome in the environment (6).
(10) The more appropriations one has (4), the greater one's chance of increasing the likelihood of a desirable outcome occurring (7)
(11) All persons who do (1),(3), and (6) are contributing to the environment (9).
(12) By virtue of (11), it follows all persons who successfully appropriate (3a) which results in increasing the likelihood of a desirable outcome (6) have direct access to modify the environment (9).
(13) Direct access to modify the environment (12) means direct access to change the likelihood of desirable outcomes for another person (6i)
(14) Through modification of the environment (12), one accumulates free will by siphoning others' likelihood of a desirable outcome occurring by increasing the likelihood of their own desirable outcome (6).
(15) It was already in a person's power (5) to do accumulate free will by siphoning others' probability in increasing the likelihood of producing a desirable outcome (14)
(16) Therefore, we already have it in us (5) to have free will (14), even if we cannot fully appropriate actions (3a) nor all actions, since some actions were not meant to be appropriated or unappropriated (0).

I call this notion "Vicarious Free Will" because in the model of hard determinism, it appears everything was determined to be so, but in the environment, where appropriated acts fight with other appropriated acts to gain more influence on the environment, it is the one who affects the environment most that comes up on top. Those who impress the environment the most will be rewarded by environment to have events happen in their favor moreso than others. The environment GRANTS free will to the one who meaningfully modified nature to his/her favor.

Practicing my shibboleth among the sophists.

2008-03-02T07:38:24Z

In a stage of inverse decadence, I see the opinion I hold of one man to be rising exponentially the more I read him. This newfound penchant of mine is not a leap of faith, but a rather instinctual temerity that guides me to favor his writings. He made, in my mind, passage from pessimist, existentialist, and now, to interpreter of aesthetics. For it holds that I see someone in multiple contexts; some of these contexts are terribly out of his/her control, for the contexts I dare to create are, for the most part, superficialities or reductionist approaches to his/her person. Who, but the ironists that pave streets with not asphalt but with satire, and those who use irony instead of mortar between the bricks surely create villages of utmost sturdiness and foundation unmatched. I too, desire the hoariness displayed by the hunchbacked coots, tenured with hands behind their backs and pondering and expressing because their job allows any misguided opinion to take place.

And it would be rather saccharine to discover what one should do in his/her life at a precocious age, for what we will know that suits us best will be done happily because it was found earlier. Finding one's niche in life early will prove that the rest of his/her life is at the disposal of that niche and perhaps knowing it so early can give us passage to other relevant and necessary intelligensia. For the rife we face in life are those nine to fivers, all those things that are advocated by those who are already doing them, justifiably or unjustifiably so, and we sometimes do not know if the job has convinced them before their own misery in life. It will be cardinal to beguile those who advise you to choose to work that you are better than the rife jobs that will eventually make us reach more ideal and happy jobs. For only alienists will testify in the end, when we are all retired and even more reflective in life than we already are, and they will be ones determining who was insane and who was logical. Those alienists are our daemons. Let it be a socratic daemon than an evil one, for the evil ones have no place but to urge us to desire surrogates to our spiritual appetency.

It is cardinal that the fools who persuade us and define us to be who we are supposed to be are the ones who wish to self-justify their existence. I say this cynically because not one character wishes to give advice contrary to his/her life. And if this is not the case, advice will be given with the advisory that what was done was done only out of great misfortune and stupidity and that it never be repeated again. Though it is unfortunate that only the commonplace misapprehensions be admitted to a group, for it is normative to carry with you the tablets that once broke your back upon your journey into less paved paths. For the most abominable thing one can do is to admit that he/she is not carrying the tablets upon his/her back, only to find that an entire stack has accumulated behind the person. The fool does not even now that his/her latissimus dorsi has increased by 250% and that any blow to the head performed by that individual might as well be a train coming at you at 100mph.

The biggest histrionic puppet show one can do on stage is that of socks. For socks are the harmless, most docile creatures that do nothing more than talk and bite. They are ones that dominate the heart of spring chickens with their falsettos and patterned rings. But do not gull the children of the future, for they will be ones that will give future advisories to their children, ad infinitum. I strongly suggest you relegate; that all those people who advice you, though wise and seasoned as they are, could be defining you and therefore limiting you. As cliché as can be, it may be true.

I feel, sometimes, that it would be the case that we would be all incredibly intransigent had we not learned about certain things. For if we wanted to be a master of gore, one would not tell us to wince when we see a body getting crushed against a car, or an animal getting run over, for children sometimes do not know how to act in situations like that. Of course, some will argue biologically and say that those who wince are hard-wired and already know how to wince since birth, for nurture is not as strong as the phenomena. But I say that to be limited may also mean to be cured of any future shaping of self-concept taking place after a certain period of time. This would imply preserving the intransigent nature of the self. I do not say: dismiss reason and all its relevant premises, but, avoid all things that strive to limit or "concretize" the self.

Imagine a bulwark if you will. For all things that preserve the grains of sand on the beach are things that retain "beachhood"; that is to say that a beach is preserved as best as possible, granted crashing curls and flaps of waves come down to claim such glittering prizes. Well, you know perfectly well that a beach can still be called a beach in the event that a child puts some of its sand in his pocket and runs along to the monotony of suburbia. No definitive amount of sand is necessary to call a beach, a beach. Of course, it will get to the point where rocks begin to dominate the finer, grainier "rocks" and pretty soon we find ourselves sunbathing among jagged boulders. Well, then, we don't have a beach.

"Beachhood" is something I would like to relate to personhood. It is cardinal that we all have our own bulwark. For we are all (well fine.. some) are born as a fecund island. The island is ensouled by washing up on shore. The island grows and trees bear fruit. One day, the waves come along and take away some of the sand. We do not mind, because as far as we are concerned, we are still a beach and bearing fruit, carefree and putting along. Let carillons sound when the next several thousand waves come to claim the sand, and this is where islands begin to differ from other islands.

One island, quite aware that the waves will come once again to claim more sand, will build a bulwark for its own practical protection. Knowing that the waves gave it life, it respects the wave but also fears it. We shall call the waves "phenomena." Depending on how big this bulwark is depends on the skepticism of the island, for the island wishes to remain a beach and even more fundamentally, a beached island. So the bulwark is created with just enough protection so that the waves are taken in respectfully, but only some conceding sand escapes. But the sand that wishes to remain a part of the beach is not taken by the waves and it settles a little further to the sediment, unchanging and being a part of the beach.

The we have the other island. This island sees waves but sees it as a benign force. It needs no such bulwark for protection because it trusts the waves. The waves crash in and claim the sand every day. Thousands of years later, the beach has become something other than a beach and the island seems different than before. Of course, it is not to say that the island has become empty, for the waves of phenomena will always replace that which it took, for all causes have anterior causes that date back even to the beginning of the island's existence when plate tectonics fed the island life. Also, remember that the ensoulment of the island took place viz a vis the waves, and nothing else truly gave it life but the waves. The waves is the island's mother. It is not only the mother, but also the sum totality of experience coming down on the island. After taking so much sand, the island still exists, but can we call it a beach anymore? Something is missing.

Either case demands a detachment from ardent argumentation and an abrogation in bias. With that in mind, I believe that some kind of bulwark be created for the sake of the island and for the beach. For there is such a thing as a healthy bulwark with a healthy size and healthy proportion. No beach would be complete without it. A bulwark is cardinal to the preservation of the beach. I say this because waves take things away not equally or proportionally, but systematically and randomly. If an island prized itself with its golden white peninsula, the wave will not amble around the protrusion in order to salvage the aesthetics of the island; it will consume anything randomly when it has the chance. That is why the principles of waves are so phenomenal and we can only guess by use of Pythagorean probability that it will be crashing down on a specific date. It is not absurd to advocate precaution. And if it is, perhaps we should destroy emergency rations for earthquakes for those living along the ring of fire, or cancel fire insurance in increasingly dry desert areas. An island was ensouled and if the island finds itself good, then it will wish to preserve itself.

The waves are not teleological. They are short-tempered and ephemeral, hardly a thing that cares. It will decide, in its algorithmic accord, that some islands are better than others by virtue of it sparing some and destroying others. An island has no say in the matter. But a bulwark can guide and focus a wave's uncontrollability and fend it off for quite some time and this is what I like so much about this protection. When sand is lost, a beach will eventually be lost. Categorically, it can be said that a beach is no longer a beach when it has no sand, but a beach may not be a beach also when too little sand is apparent. Then, if the island is good and the beach is good, then both should be preserved. The island wishes to remain intransigent. Whatever the waves take away from the island, fine. It will be the case that perfect preservation will never happen, no matter how strong the bulwark. What I can say is that, for whatever the waves do take away, the island will remain intransigent but will gain reason. It will gain reason whenever a wave takes away from its "unreasonableness."

With this, the island becomes more reasonable and the once unaffected beach is slowly being shaped into a distinguished and intellectual frieze. So amazing in its shape and conviction, it may almost prove theodicy by declaring itself an unmoved mover that is being move constantly, but can retain itself indefinitely.

For waves represent extension,time, and phenomena while the island represents the self. We are fettered by the causal chain, but thanks to Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception, we note that we are bound by it, but once we're done shackling ourselves with its palladium-colored hinges, we no longer feel its presence on it. Just as we drive with our car, we focus on the road and sometimes forget that our shirt is touching our skin, our back is touching the seat of the car, our right foot is touching the pedal, our right hand is touching the steering wheel, and all of this occurs so simultaneously. But now, I speak of frivolities.

An island feels waves and its beach is determined by these waves. How, then, can the sand preserve itself? Bulwarks! But if... the waves are phenomena, the island is the self, the beach is the will, and the sand represents important internal causes that make up the will, what in the hell does the bulwark represent?

The bulwark is the filtration system which reduces phenomena to smaller, more digestible phenomena. It cannot choose specifically what kind of phenomena will be let in, but it can at least block the great majority of it. With most of the phenomena blocked, the will is preserved, and the self is maintained. This is basically the definition of being intransigent. Of course, we are causally determined to think, as we have interior dispositions affecting our current ones. We are causally determined physically because we would have anterior causes causing us to be where we are now. And epiphenominalism will never reign since the mind can affect the body and externalities with emotions and suggestions that can actually cause other things. I do see that a filtration system is needed somehow to become an unmoved mover, or at least a partial unmoved mover, but unfortunately I must make this unfortunate distinction that being an unmoved mover is one of the most categorical concepts of philosophy and no degrees can be bestowed upon it unless logic is proposed to support it. I need to know what the bulwark really is.

I stand now, a bewildered island.

First Theory:((Destroying one's conception of time or destroying the memory may be synonymous to the creation of a bulwark because to avoid being affected by phenomena, one must not be a receiver of phenomena. Of course, it is the case that a bulwark will only minimize phenomena, not destroy it completely. Destroying the memory will mean that the island will have no recollection of itself, but at the same time will preserve the beach. If such a block is in place, but blocked initially by the awareness of the island, then once it is in place, the consciousness of the island slips away to a timeless void, free from crashing waves what point is being a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest unmoved mover?))
Objection: Those who do not possess intentionality are still affected by outside phenomena. Just because one island does not have the conception of time doesn't mean that all of time will just stop when one consciousness is lost. This is evident in the case where one person dies and time continues on as if nothing happened. The causal chain is not a human construct like time, and therfore operates independently of any human conscious. Even if all persons were to die the very next day, time would no longer exist but causality would continue to exist...... right (question for Parent)*****************?