a thousand rainy days

Oh David Hilbert, what would we ever have done without you.
I'm glad I read about him. He has his head on straight. Plus, now I know the Latin word for willful ignorance a.k.a. religious mysticism a.k.a. "we do not know and we will never know." Well I should be fair. It isn't religious mysticism's take on the "we shall never know"-itude of religious concepts that is entirely wrong. What is wrong is to take that-itude and apply it to concepts concerning the actual world - which was Hilbert's point - nothing about the physical world is unknowable. And now there is a Latin word for it. Nice.

Oh, Victor Hugo. At least I have you.
*sob*

Have you ever have one of those days, where you feel like you're on the verge of a total drug bust?
EDIT: false alarm. My keen sense of drug-busting was mistaken this time.

What is up with Swan Lake being HOURS long!?!? Best four bucks I ever spent. Actually wait..

It's a ballet! Four bucks for just the music, I didn't even get to SEE Swan Lake!

AAAAAAWWWWWWW SH@*@*T.

The northernmost roads in Quebec, along the Hudson Bay, are home to the seven or eight largest settlements of the Cree people. They have gravelly roads going north a distance of about 30 hours' travel (from here.) There is ONE town a bit further north than the roads, but it's inaccessible by ATV - they suggest small aircraft I believe.

To drive to Chisasibi, the northernmost town on the roads, I would need to start driving thursday right after work, bring along maybe twenty gallons of gasoline -- I think that will fit in my car, but I don't know about customs, and I'm not really willing to pay Canadian prices -- and I would arrive in Chisasibi (cross my fingers!) 1am on Saturday. That is without sleeping. I would see the sunrise from the road earlier that Friday morning!

And then I would sleep on Saturday. If I DIDN'T sleep that weekend, I would be able to make it back home in time for work.

However--!

If I went only as far as Matagami or Chapais (some of the southern Cree settlements, and just at the north edge of 'civilization'), I would ARRIVE there at Sunrise. Score! And I could do it in a weekend, with one night of sleep.

It will have to be after the Keith and Sarah wedding..

Whew, today went by so quickly! Particularly the time between 1:30 and 5:30 ... I can't really account for that time for some reason.

I was up with the sun (kind of) and was off to Fellows Farm when E---- let me know that tomorrow was a better day for gardening because a whole crowd was due to show up; I guess I'll be there tomorrow instead.

In the meantime I checked around for thermometers and barometers; well technically I already have a barometer, but it's an old german one, and I am not really sure how well it works; maybe if I compare it to a new model? Anyway I got a dial thermometer for the wall, 4 bucks. Not bad.

But in the meantime I stopped in to a Tae Kwon Do dojo, took off my shoes and talked to the guy. In the back of my mind I knew he could break my back in two or one second(s) but he was more of a business-owner type and not the flip out ninja type. So I was convinced it was safe. Really I want to start taking some martial art, if nothing else than to get some goal-orienteed agility-heavy physical exercise and martial arts goodness into my life. Perhaps Heather can recommend her Tang Soo Do dojo.

After not signing up but hoping soon to do so, I called Matt who had just gotten home, and we played 3 innings of Wiffle Ball. Let's just say the Detroit Tigers shut out the Pirates, 2-0.

Also the B-52 Bombers were landing and touring at the Beverly Airfield. Fresh from Hyannis Airport. For only a mere meager paltry 475 dollars *cough cough* you could go up and fly in the bomber. Oh yeah. But for some reason we didn't go up..

Instead we went to this new place on antoul Street, Cravings Cafe. Opening day! Turns out E---- (who knows JBrand) now works there. Perhaps I can convince them to get involved in community farming and purchasing local beverly grown goods.

And now my roommate is mad that Chopin isn't spelled Shopan, angered that English is being cheated out of its place at the pinnacle of the created order, out of its authority as the universal eternal absolute standard provided by God and the Bible from all eternity past. I'm going to call him Tomás from now on. Forever.

Aloe. I've had my first leaf, cut open drained and scraped, and chilled down really cold. Whoo. Talk about slime. Talking about invigorating healing power. I'm gonna try this on a fresh one, that I haven't let sit out for a few days.

Alright, my order of photos from Kevin and Carissa's wedding is well-nigh on its way! I am excited. It was great fun - yes even with the rain. A little bit of weather always helps a marriage off to a strong start, I say. Although it did hinder our ability to scribble on the car. But I'm sure even without that, they had a great honeymoon.

Kevin on a honeymoon!

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH~!!

In any case I have a good set of photos here.

Which reminds me; I have to take a photo of that 9-story willow tree on Pleasant Street, for Grandma. We were talking last week about trees and houses and such things, and it turns out she's all about those willow trees. We were talking about this tree and that tree, when all of a sudden, I had an epiphany, as it were -- those monstrous things are alive! Those nine-story twelve-ton bales of wood and debris, sitting on every corner, sucking on dirt and throwing leaves into the streets -- those things are alive! Heaven help us.

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm

I always like to hearken back to Madison. And I changed my opinion. I guess not ALL Federalists go to hell.

It was about this time I realized - the scientific method is all stopping at nothing to prove your ideas wrong.

Inert ideas belie a calcified, mummified, dead mind. Trapped by vines, a rotting house, termites, cabin fever and darkness. That this should be willful is one of the greater sad things in life.

Also I thought about the Self as they say. Someone in a book asked the question "arent you lucky to have been born a human." Pick that one apart. It puts a value judgement on the fact of being human. Granted (because the point of the statement is the ability of critical thought). Second though - with of course no prior existence (taking material existence as total reality, and granting that human mind is a deep, expansive and unknown emergent property of that reality, a veritable source of great mystery by itself) - the assumption of being lucky has to be rephrased in the sense that "aren't you lucky to have been born human AT ALL" - the difference being that in reality, "you" could only have been one thing, being dependent on the circumstances that brought "you" about. This ties back to the Self because the "you" (the Self) that exists presently only exists because your past self once did and has not ceased to live - the Self now is different from the Self then; it has no communion with that Self except through memory and similarity through habit; it is not an identical Self except to say it is your body's tendency to maintain a Self in the way that it does; there was a time before even that body existed, and the continuity of Self started at conception because it was recognized by others and treated as a continuous Self by those people; your Self was perceived as continuous by you at a later time, when memories became available to you. If you ask the question "why was I born at THIS particular time at THIS particular place" and ask whether that is lucky - in the light of all that, you must treat it as the same question as you would a certain tree: "why did this tree grow at THIS particular time and at THIS particular place" - a relatively easy question because you know about seeds and things like that, and are usually satisfied with those answers.. The addition of self consciousness seems to muddle the question for people, as if your Self at this moment had options, to have started as another person (it really didn't).

Lately also - and this idea is fun and/or significant - thinking without words. Newly borns and animals do not speak, and the deaf do not think audibly; their thought is wordless, but can we the speaking do this? Josh from the Onion said that words are symbols. This is a new revelation to me in terms of relating words to thought. Because my concern is that perhaps reason is a function of words; but perhaps reason is a function of having symbols. In thinking silently wordlessly the only things that comes to mind are pictures and kinematics (motion-feeling). I often feel while doing this that if I were to feel a particular emotion, I wouldn't express it outwardly. I wonder if I'm just supressing a whole lot, in addition to speech, because I may not be good at it just yet. There's probably a whole lot that could go on if I were good at it / used to it.

Listening to music evoked not a sing-along or analytical or beat-counting response as usual, but (amused at the correlation) a music video response, unrelated to the lyrics, i think, but in a totally unexpected way, the imagery and kinematics are wild free-associations; a certain punk rock song, for example, musically resembled a war between giant bumblebees and a legion of storks, frogs and gnomes. In that instance, it did. It struck me as both a form of imagination i almost never use, and i wondered if taking words out of the equation was a mechanism of what drugs do.

I mused that words often fill my head most of the time; whether convenient or inconvenient. It drives question-asking which leads to thinking things through in your head, and learning through reason. Without words I don't know if this does happen. I know that wordless thought (for me) is very centered in the present, with almost no abstractions. It is probably related to my (absence?) of nonverbal symbols, if that theory holds any reality. I briefly attempted replacing a few abstraction-word-symbols with non-verbal symbols, to see if it would be easier to rationally associate, think outside the present, and quit having 'minimally necessary' abstract words pop up that usually convey those types of thoughts. I wasn't entirely successful. The silent mood is not a seeking mood, in any case; it's a restful mood, that doesn't actively want, doesn't wander or stray wildly. Silence, I almost never get, and certainly not on purpose - except in cases when I'm overwhelmed and I actively cool down by silencing my mind - but not from a resting state into a silent state. I'll keep doing it.

Mmmm, just returned from a day of New Hampshirism, with Molly Mark and the Miller kids. You always have to sit up and take notice when nine and eleven year olds are interested in things almost on your level. Like I dunno.. venomous snakes and spiders yes, but also the ill effects of hypervitaminosis E, and the unwise practice of churning out child stars, and what have you. Very refreshing especially keeping in mind the nine year old on my street shouting F*ck you B*tch! at the eleven year old girl who was walking away laughing.

And you know, I'm not really inconfident in parenting; I know I can pull off somehow at least as well as Mom and Dad, or for instance the Millers (haha - either Miller family in fact) - and I can't remember if I ever was inconfident, I don't think so - but the infuriation levels towards poor parents tend to glower and bristle and flare ever more as time shows me more and more of what time shows me.

And you wonder why I start to consider raising chimpanzees.

Whenever I look up on a nice day, with hardly a cloud, and skies a rich brilliant blue, I sometimes think back to the oxygen catastrophe, and I have to smile.

I had to contact my company's union rep and give him my condolences on not having me as a member, today. There's a deadline to sign up for either the service fee or for the union fee. But he was salesmanning the union membership, plus he wouldn't look me in the eye, it ended up having a reverse effect - I was getting a little confused. I would have liked to meet with him for a lengthy time, just to discuss the grit and gristle, the politics, the ethics, all of the little shoestrings that seem to be tying together and tripping me up on the idea. There wasn't time for anything, unfortunately, but the heard-it-all-before salesman pitch. And then he wanted me to explain myself in under ten seconds, like I had the burden of proof.

What I didn't say was how irritated I've been with the way union members treat management, and how it's antithetical to teamwork and the group dynamic; I didn't mention any of the good non-union companies I'd worked for that were employee-responsive just fine, as well as excellent in client responsiveness. I didn't try to argue for the fairness of merit-based wage increases, and the fallacy of across-the-board tenure-based wage increases. Nor was I prepared to join an organization of whose methods and politics and ethics I have not been convinced.

What I did say in ten seconds was that I wasn't comfortable with a third party organization existing that supposes itself the only mediator in the case of any troubles I might have. Roughly. (In any situation, employment included, I am 100% responsible for my work, including any trouble I cause, including also my relationship with my employer and dealings with them, and I should be free to own up, 100%.)

"Oh I see: live dangerously," he said. "Different strokes for different folks, that's alright."

Some people don't really want to listen, I realized.

There is an objective reality that exists without need of interpretation.

But my very assertion of that fact is not an objective statement, it is a subjective statement, based upon my (I think warranted) assumption that our world is not, at its root, a cauldron of madness and chaos. In other words, even at the most basic levels, there is some sense in which I cannot leave subjectivity and embrace objectivity - I can only hold to an interpretation of the real truth.

An animal survives in the wild not by deviating from reality, but by being close to it, and taking advantage of its reality. Just the same, our human reason came about because it helped us in better discovering reality. Any human in the wild not using reason is not going to survive as well as a human who does: his reason is a way of discovering truth that can outpace his competitors. (this is not original with me, that is really all Ayn Rand)

The better a person's interpretation matches reality, the more it is that two such people will tend to agree.

If people make up something and call it truth, they can survive out of the momentum of civilization. At this stage in history, civilized society has put up so many safeguards against every form of human failure, that the original safeguards of wild survival are not as important. Reason is not wholly abandoned, but it is not taken as seriously.

Thus, we have religions who USE reason in their thinking, but incorporate a societal idea - authority (people in society rather than the wild inevitably submit to authority) - to fill the gap between the real truth, which can be reasoned out, and the made-up truth, which cannot. Authority is set at odds with reason. At early ages, you can use reason, but for direction and teaching you get that from authority - and usually supplement that 'knowledge' with reasoning to back it up, at a later age, once you can. People mix authority with reason, as easy as putting on a shoe. "God is unsearchable" is another one of these signals to people that the domain of reason has ended, and authority's has begun - i.e., don't think about it anymore, you'll never get an answer to this one.

I was listening to a Benny Hinn tape at the behest of my roommate. I can't recall who Benny Hinn exactly is, but he sounds suspicious - however in the interest of dispelling all preconceptions, I listened to his sophistry for a while and drew a couple of conclusions based on the spiritual concepts he put forth. If an unbeliever is permitted to do such a thing.

here are a few points he was very explicit to make; the numbering is mine.

1.a - The holy spirit is a person - that is, he has a body spirit and soul.
1.b - same with 'god the son' - he is a different person though
1.c - same with 'god the father' - who is a third person.

2.a - a soul is not equivalent with a mind.
2.b - that's because a soul is three things: will, personality, and activity

3.a - God is unsearchable.
3.b - that means that his infiniteness and other aspects of him entirely prevent us from understanding him.
3.c - except that he can reveal himself to man to whatever degree he wants, outside of the limitations of man.

4.a - an angel has no soul, only body and mind.
If you put together 2.b and 4.a, you find that angels are utterly without action or will.
4.b - an angel therefore has no capacity to understand god.
If you put together 3.c and 4.b, you find that god can transcend the limitations of man, but cannot/will not transcend the limitations of angel.
4.c - an angel can only understand god through 'observing his church on earth which ought to be a strong incentive to us'
If you look at 4.c, you find that the entire reason for stating all that logical buildup about god and angels, is to provide angel-lovers a source of moral fiber, arising from the fact that if you don't live up to the ideals of Christ, then we're due for another lucifer-style uprising because they're watching us! Oh-no! Nevermind that soulless as they are, they cannot watch or act or behave morally of their own will...

I realize I'm being a smartass. A complete smartass. But I shut the tape off, it was so painful.

But the thing is, 3a, God is unsearchable.

Huh, how about that. All this time I have been searching for the 'proof' of God, the moral basis, the great principles, the evidence for something greater - maybe by definition it doesn't exist except as revealed! I had already suspected that was the only kind of evidence there was ever going to be. What 'unsearchable' really means is, god is not ever going to reveal himself to you in a way that leaves you without any doubt - that would be searchable. Like if my friend had the impression that I was trying to get in touch with him, but instead of assuming I would just walk up and talk to him, maybe he would look at the leaves on the trees and say, 'man, Aaron must be telling me something!" and rather than actually trying to logically decipher leaves on the trees in some way (which would lead him godforbid to conclude i wasn't communicating through leaves), he would weave something in his own mind about what he thought I was trying to say, and then smile and walk away as if we had actually talked.

I'm surprised I put this tape in. My mind must have left me.

In recent spans of time I have become preoccupied with broad, heady questions; where is the proof of God, what is the nature of morality, objectivity, subjectivity, deriving and justifiability, etc. Man that stuff kills your brain cells off in a hurry! Better than whiskey.

Then the girl downstairs started spinning some sort of kata with dual fire-poi in the driveway, with some kinda hip trendy earthy yanni music.

The economic angle: Whether an incentive can be found for an employer not to lay off workers while controlling costs during a minimum wage hike.

The ethical angle: Whether it is right or preferable for said employers to lay off workers in such circumstances.

The objectivist angle: Whether a worker is able to be sufficiently rational and self-interested to stay away from such situations.

The epistemological angle: Whether we are valid in presuming such situations really happen.

Everyone here is whispering around, complaining about their paycheck, complaining that the governor didn't give them a raise, up in arms, and in the same breath not willing to do the work that's given them, what little there is. God help us.

If there was ever a genre of music that syncs true to the Mom's Apartment episodes from 1996 to 1999, that man would definitely be Yanni.

So I have finally finished the project of converting the Italian subtitles of the German silent film Metropolis to English. I'm excited to watch it through, but those goshbedanged subtitles just took a lot out of me. My mind is all german now, with all this sprechen and sprachen and zweitausendjahrigen and entschuldigung.

I have not found my badge, which they tell me is required for getting my final (partial-period) paycheck. Which is somewhat of a load of crap, considering I am an employee in good standing who has worked 56 good hours for that paycheck. That will all come tomorrow.. tonight I have to make something to eat, put some pages behind me on Sense and Sensibility, see if I can win some RDRAM sticks on Ebay toward the end of the bidding, and man, hit the sack early because I have things to do tomorrow. Wow, do I.

The first ten articles or so of the Bargaining Agreement seem very reasonable. They read like an employee handbook, more or less. Well.. Article 4, describing the Union activities, particularly 4.2 describing Union Security is somewhat infringing, in my opinion.. the Union requires the company to extract dues from paychecks, from union and non union employees alike. Granted, a non union worker will enjoy many of the benefits of working for a unionized company -- minus of course the inconveniences that the Union employees have set into the Bargaining Agreement to make life harder on non unionized coworkers. For instance, Section 8.2, internal Job Openings / Selection process states that where the company has to decide who to award the position to, union employees will be given preference over non union employees of equal or lesser qualification.

The seniority system, fortunately or unfortunately, seems to apply to all employees.

Largely these are mostly fair and sensible practices. I suppose the book serves as a legal defense against infringement of certain lines. Anyone who's worked at Wal-Mart (as a primary example) has no such advocate, I recognize (I got into a fierce argument with a drunk Unioner yesterday about this, hehe). Wal-Mart has a terrible workplace environment, reputedly. The fair and sensible practices that we find universally respected and upheld at other notable non union workplaces, notably Bridgewell and the Arc -- and might I add, the familylike and positive atmosphere nurtured at those workplaces -- are not seen in every company, the facts testify.

If I find more about SEIU 509's role as a political machine, I'll have to write about that. I can't pass up that opportunity. Even if they turn out to have no objectionable rules but have some kind of objectionable ideology, I may not be able to cast my lot with them. Depending on how radical or how ecumenical it all turns out to be.