On Morality and Nietzsche

So... Here is where I talk about why I don't like Nietzsche. It's an adamant dislike, actually which is hopefully founded in sound reason. As I always say, the best way to avoid group think is to encourage disagreement and dissension. Thus, if you have issue, speak up.

Oh and please excuse my very topical treatment of Nietzsche and his "philosophy." After all, I only care enough to have read him to the extent I can write a proper essay of him and hopefully respond to his key arguments, but if I have missed something that would provide crucial insight, please, again, let me know.

First, the part that I can understand. The distinction between Master and Slave morality seems relatively intuitive. I'm not saying it's right, but I think its intuitive as the basis for my disagreement. For those who don't know, Master morality is the championing of natural strength, of wealth, and of power and the distaste of weakness and the like. Slave morality is born of ressentiment which is French for resentment but isn't necessarily being used in the same fashion. Ressentiment in this manner means building a moral code and value system based on a frustration towards an authority you don't respect. Thus we can see where we get the term slave morality (because it comes from the "slaves"). Slave morality is characterized by Nietzsche as self-denying the pleasures of life such as money, sex, and the like as well as adapting strong opposition to killing, stealing, lying etc. because those are things that the Masters do and is therefore bad because they treat us wrong.

He uses the example of lambs and birds of prey. The birds feed on the lambs and the lambs get mad and adopt a no killing policy as part of their moral code. This, Nietzsche says, is part of their ressentiment towards the birds and is not a justifiable moral... thing. Nietzsche says that the birds are just doing their bird thing and cannot be blamed for seeking to conquer and feed on the lambs. (Here, Nietzsche also is falsely attributing cognitive states to animals which I certainly don't approve of.)

Here's where I start to disagree, obviously. You can't blame someone for subjecting someone else? You can't blame the bully for beating up the nerd? You can't blame a murderer for killing? You can't blame someone for just being a general jerk? Really? Really Nietzsche?

Nietzsche adopts the argument that what is natural is right. As I was recently enlightened to, there is no arguable conceptual connection between what is natural behavior and morally correct behavior. Additionally, animals are NOT moral agents and therefore cannot make more judgements! THE LAMBS DON'T HAVE A MORAL CODE. Sorry. I digress. It seems that Nietzsche supports the Darwinian idea of might makes right and whatever behavior promotes oneself is good behavior to have. But again, these ideas in and of themselves are not necessarily moral. Again, since humans are capable of moral action, we are not on level with animals in our moral choices and thus what is necessarily natural is not necessarily moral.

Going back to slave morality: it is in this moral viewpoint that Nietzsche claims that religion is born from. He primarily attacks Christianity and, by extension, Judaism, but he really is attacking the moral framework of all religions. He says they are self-depriving and wrong because they are based upon this championing of the meek and lowly and weakness and the like which is not something that we should be okay with. My issue is that A) while that might be a possible source for morality in religion, that doesn't make it wrong. In fact, seeing injustice and forming a moral code around NOT doing that is what's right, in my opinion. B) To have a very Darwinian society is much like having an anarchist society in that no one abides by laws they feel they can physically overcome. It's a dangerous spiral.

Nietzsche wants a resurgence of Master morality which I think is dangerous to society. Moreover, he wants people to reconsider their morals. Because they might be grounded in falsehoods of slave morality, we should reconsider them. I think we should reconsider our morals for the same reason we should reconsider our beliefs about the world and other values that we hold dear. They might be grounded in false reason or misconceptions. Point is, I think instead of having a strict set of rules, we should have guidance systems that help us come up with rules as we need them. I suggest utilitarianism as just one of the many ways one can establish a frame of reference for these things. Nietzsche says utilitarianism sucks because it treats everyone as equals. REALLY? What kind of elitist is he that he can say that some people's pain or pleasure counts for more or less than other's? It's outrageous to say that one person is inherently better than another. It blows my mind.

Finally, on top of all this absurdity, Nietzsche spends a TON of time talking about why there is no truth. Mainly, he says that any proposition of so-called "truth" is just an assertions of someone's "Will to Power." That is, whoever says, "Hey I've got some truth for you," is really just saying, "Hey I want to be better than you and so here is something you should accept as truth because I said it is and I want to be better than you..." or something. This too seems outrageous for a few GLARING reasons. A) There HAS to be objective, empirical truth about the universe. It abides by laws and any positing of these laws cannot merely be an assertion of power. B) A priori truths are not necessarily false by the virtue of their coming to be. There is a definite possibility of some things being known without having to be experienced or without the need for definitive evidence.

and of course, C) HOW CAN NIETZSCHE SAY THERE IS NO TRUTH WHEN HE IS TRYING TO TELL US THERE IS NO TRUTH? By saying there is no truth, he is trying to convince us of something he believes is true. He's contradicting himself completely and entirely and it bothers me. His claim of untruth fails on so many levels. Additionally, I can't tolerate skepticism in general. Mainly epistemological skepticism because it's not practical in the slightest. It doesn't do us any good to sit around and try to think of reasons why we can't know anything because that's contradictory in itself. Descartes can get away with it because he at least makes an attempt at moving away from his starting point of complete skepticism. All Nietzsche is doing is whining in a corner saying we can't know anything while telling us what to think.

It's not okay.

On the Facade and the Public Self

Now... this post is the direct result of criticism and me being the way I am... but I'm going to do my best and keep it professional.

It's funny because I'm supposed to be writing a 1000 word essay about this very topic so I suppose the mere typing of this post begs the question, "Why don't you just write the stupid essay?" Truth is, I don't know.

Anyway, in my meditation, I was having a rough time distinguishing the private self from the public self. For me, I couldn't put A and B together but I now realize the following:
1) The private self is that who you are when no one is around. The private self is that idea that you know yourself best--that you're the best monitor of your own beliefs and feelings. The private self is the self you would sit down and have the most truthful conversations with (or just talking to yourself). The private self is that person you talk to when you think to yourself, "I should have known better," "I didn't really mean to say that," or any other type of cognition-related dissonance.
2) The public self is that person (the Jungian persona or facade) who you are to every other human being. Now, I think it's important to make the distinction between good friends (who you don't have to impress and who know you), acquaintances of interest (that is, people who you want to be friends with or people in a position to be flattered by you for your own personal gain), and strangers or other temporary acquaintances (those who will only you know based on a first impression). For the first, self-monitoring is usually low and who you are reflects your private self very well. For the second two, the public self can be this completely different person--that is, the person you think you want people to know. And of course, for some, this might be the same person as their private self. But you have to admit, for everyone, there are always those situations where they can't say or do exactly what they want because they're worried about how others will judge them for it.

That's another key point--being judged. That persona for the public self is a direct result of how you want to be remembered by everyone. The fact of the matter is, you can die with all your dirty secrets, but the person every one will know you as is the person you will always be. I guess it speaks to past transgressions: don't let anyone ever be mad at you for anything; simply because that kind of thing is hard to forget.

As I said, this all is a direct result of not only have to write a paper on the very same topic (which I think I have just mostly done... sort of), but a lot of self-reflection. I think my private self is very different from my public self but I think my good friends truly know me since I'm typically an open book for those people at certain times. I have a terrible time admitting my insecurities but when I do, that's pretty much a peek into who I am underneath it all.

I'm sure I had a point, but as usual, it escapes me. What can you do?

Considering things less important than usual...

So I don't have anything deep to say (surprise, surprise) and so I'll give a general update.

School is good albeit stressful--mostly due to personal expectations for a certain amount of academic success which isn't necessarily being met/validated on a normal day-to-day basis. I mean, I can suppose that I'm doing pretty well and considering the kind of material that I'm working with, I think I'm doing pretty good. I guess my main issue is the consistency of speculation towards performance in that I generally have to just sit around and hope that I'm doing well instead of actually having a quantifiable measure of actual performance.

That being said, I have a short paper to write (which will consist of 40% of my grade) for my philosophy seminar on Animal Considerability. Honestly, I wish I hadn't taken the class... but my main source of stress comes from my total lack of understanding towards cognitive ethology and a general lack of caring towards the idea of whether animals can think. I don't think animals have desires and while I grant that they have feelings and rudimentary/crude reasoning skills, I don't think that we need attribute moral status to them in so much as we only take cares to ensure they never suffer more pain and suffering than is acceptable for any living creature. But then again, that's how I feel about all people I don't really know. I simply wish that all people be granted at a minimum enough moral consideration that they not be egregiously harmed.

Is it so much to ask that I not be forced to believe that animals are so morally considerable that they be granted the right to property and representation in congress? I exaggerate of course because out of all the gargantuan readings we've had for that class, none of them make any sense and I don't understand the point of any of them.

Perhaps you can see the underlying causes of my stress?

I thought this wasn't going to be a deep post...?

Anyways, everything else is going fine. Social life is fine and considering it's infinitely better than the past two years of college, I can't complain. The radio show is going swimmingly. Writing for Broadside has been much, much better than it was last year but still not nearly as wonderful as it was Freshman year when I was able to write more to my style and about more things I cared about.

Note to self: Broadside retrospective in an upcoming blog post?

I'm participating (for the most part) in National Novel Writing Month. Even though, I'm really only doing it in my head and not physically because I still am lacking any extrinsic motivation and pressure for actually doing it. I write my best under pressure and I am not feeling any when it comes to these novels. I guess I could drop out of school and declare to the world that I will make a living writing novels and the only way I can eat is by the fruits (lol) of my imagination. Seems like that would deliver adequate intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for finishing one or more of the five projects I've started.

Latest project: Novel! By: Author (by Dylan Hares)

It's the epic story of writing an epic story. The journey of one writer in his quest for his magnum opus. I got the idea from Paul Laudiero (who came up with the title) and from Milan Kundera's Immortality whose first chapter seems much like Kundera is narrating his epiphany on immortality and identity and the human condition. It will be literally brilliant if I can find the voice and pacing and stick to it. Maybe I'll write some more tonight after I study for my Personality exam.

But yeah... I suppose that's it for now.

I mean... considering things less important than usual, that is.

More on Humans, animals, and the state of nature

This first thought kind of relates to everything I've been talking about when it comes to religion and evolution and stuff like that.

It's amazing how perfect everything works isn't it? I mean... out of all the stuff that can go wrong in the scheme of things... it's amazing how perfect everything works.

Here's a thought I had earlier:

What do dogs hear when we talk to them? I imagine it would be like someone talking to me in very fast Japanese. I have NO IDEA what they're saying. But then think about an infant. The infant makes noises, thinking it's communicating in an effective manner... but it's not. But what the infant does do is as it develops, it learns that the words it hears from its parents have meaning beyond just being sounds. That the word "chair" refers to something shaped like a chair and that if it wants to reference the chair, it should say chair. But despite hearing "chair" a million times, a dog could never absorb the word chair and learn that it should say the word chair if it wants to talk about the chair. I mean, its obvious that it doesn't have the same capacity for vocals that a human does. But still, can you imagine the cognitive function and upper-level thinking that it takes to absorb first language? We learn new languages by referencing the one we already know and so it's crazy thinking about we first make associations.

Oh i remember what I wanted to talk about..

I've been reading Rousseau almost out of genuine interest (but don't have nearly enough time on my hands) and he talks about a lot of interesting things. For example, he says that because we live in a civilized society, we feel the ever-increasing need to advance ourselves that, without society, we would never do. That there are so many illnesses and maladies that exist simply because, as creatures in society, we indulge and therefore push our bodies beyond their natural capacities. It's just really interesting to read about his state of nature.

I have a very similar view as Rousseau, I think. He talks about nature treating infants as did Sparta. That is, weak or deformed infants just die because of the demands of living in the wild. Nature would treat humans the way it treats all creatures, with a fair and crushing indifference.

He says that man in the state of nature has to be strong. That he could easily beat up civilized man, even with all of his tools because nature has crafted him to be resourceful, smart, and cunning. It's funny because beyond the natural sciences, every single thing we learn is an attempt to understand the society that has emerged from this hypothetical state of nature. Rousseau says that man has no need for reason and thus, no need for philosophy.

And without philosophy, there is no need to ponder the workings of the universe.

And thus, no need for any other discipline.

In the state of nature, man knows all he needs.

Anyway, I might post more things that he talks about that I think are interesting.

Oh and another thought I had during my terrible, awful philosophy seminar:

We spent nearly 2 and a half hours talking about whether animals have ideas and if we need to worry about the content of their ideas in order to show that they have them. On the one hand, I believe it can be argued that animals are little more than fleshy things with feelings. I believe animals can feel pain and respond to stimuli. In the vein of Hume I believe that animals have a very limited capacity for reason in that they can be trained through Pavlovian conditioning.

For example, when my Dad opens the fridge and takes out the pack of American cheese, the dogs come running because they've been conditioned that when he takes out the cheese, they will get some. They come because for whatever reason, dogs just like to eat and eat and eat and I think if you somehow had a never-ending pile of cheese, a dog might just sit there and eat it til he died.

On the other hand, you could say that the dog had the desire for cheese or that when my dad gets the cheese out, they already know they want some and now is their opportunity to grab it. This would imply that animals have desires and no matter the content of their desires, gives us some insight to proper moral treatment. Now I think it's very possible that animals can have desires. Like when it comes to playing games. Maybe dogs legitimately like fetch or tug-of-war because they have fun doing it. Maybe they only do it because it helps them work out their instinctual frustration that being a house pet surpresses. If the former, then dogs have desires to play games. If the latter, my point stands that they are little more than fleshy things with rudimentary brains.

I can't decide and frankly, I don't care. Still, it's interesting to think about.

On schadenfreude and suicide

I'll keep this short, mostly in part because I don't have a ton to say on the matter but I think it's important and should be said.

With the recent suicide of Tyler Clementi, the homosexual football player from Rutgers who was lead to the act because of bullying, I've been thinking about how society views suicide. Not only have I wanted to use schadenfreude in something, but I think it certainly applies in part to how the media portrays suicides. I mean, schadenfreude is German for a concept that means to delight in the pain of others. Now I'm certainly not saying anything like the media is delighting in the pain of Tyler and his family, but LGTQB groups as well as the media are jumping all over the over-arching themes behind the suicide such as LGTQB bullying. And yes, of course, this is important. We need to learn from tragedy and things like that, but it was really hard to find this kid's name in the news. I mean, they've completely forgotten about him. Most people have. They only remember now that bullying is bad. Again, a good thing to remember but I think it's kind of disrespectful to the victim. Now LGTQB groups will forever put his face on a collage full of people who have been victims to bullying and he's just going to be a statistic for their cause.

Again, it's important that people learn from the tragedy, but does anyone really think that this guy killed himself so people would use him in their campaign against bullying? I just think the whole system is kind of messed up. What should they do instead? I don't know. Talk about it. Tell people what happened. Just inform the public that he did this because of bullying. Don't parade it around.

Maybe there isn't so great of a point here (and thus merits another use of the word schadenfreude), but take it for what it's worth.

Again though, society feeds off this stuff. Stories based off pain and suffering are incredibly popular. There are entire genres of music dedicated to pain and suffering. As John Cusack puts it in High Fidelity:

"What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

So potent.

On the other hand though, I think the actual act of committing suicide is very interesting. In fact, the phrasing I just used is interesting: committing suicide. It makes it sound the crime goes way beyond the victim. The interesting thing about the "crime" of suicide (among all the others), is that the victim and the suspect are the same person. To commit murder involves at least 2 people. To say that someone committed suicide, at least in context, makes it seem like there are more victims than the person who did it. Now obviously everyone around them are affected and maybe my tone sounds like I disagree, but I don't. Suicide, in one respect, is the most selfish thing you could do. But it's also fascinating when you think about what it takes to do it.

I mean, people have a biologically driven desire to further their own lives. To end it by your own hand must take an extraordinary amount of desperation. I mean, if you can rule our intrinsic motivation by the idea that one is biologically pre-determined to preserve one's own life, then you must say that it takes at least 1000% more extrinsic motivation to get them to actually do it.

What makes life not worth living anymore? When the things that you're living for don't matter? Think about homeless people. They spend the latter part of their years in the streets begging for money. Most of us, having lost everything, would really think about just ending our lives. I mean, why don't they? You've got nothing left and you're reduced to begging. And to what end? To make another day of life possible? And then when you think of these college students who end their lives because of bad grades... it's just incredible. To be under such pressure of performance that when you have an inkling of failure, your life is suddenly less worth living than if you were homeless. Again, maybe suicide is incredibly selfish. And maybe it's stupid. Life could always be worse, right? Maybe.

This whole post feels really scatterbrained so if you are shaking with rage by now because I didn't make any sense, I sincerely apologize. I think it made more sense in my head.

Next time--something that makes sense.

On Animal Welfare and Politics

So Professor Light was (thankfully) absent from class today and we were left with a video on animal welfare to entertain our thoughts for a small portion of the class period. Probably since it would be unthinkable to allow us to go unstimulated for two whole weeks.

Either way, it was an interesting video. But really, it just pissed me off. Not because of animal cruelty, but because of the politics involved behind the whole thing.

Now, it's not that animal cruelty doesn't bother me.... in fact... let's do this. We can accept the following as true:
A) Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and potentially slightly more complex feelings such as fear and being to know if they're separated from family.
B) There is a ton of science to back this up.
C) Good, peer-reviewed science is legitimate grounds for legislation.
D) As moral agents, humans with the knowledge of A and B have, at the very least, the ability to recognize animal suffering in factory farms.

Factory farming is horrible and unnatural and as a meat-eater, I dislike supporting the organization. In fact, I plan to be more conscientious about buying products and plan to look out for animal products market as free-range or humanely raised. In the video we were even shown how in the modern day, traditional animal husbandry can be not only humane, but just as profitable.

Now, if we can accept these things (and please tell me if you can't), we need to look at why we're actually dealing with the issue.

Agribusiness (which is actually a word, surprisingly enough) is huge. Massive. Pervasive. It has the same lobbying power as the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms industry and we can all attest to the power they have. The issue is that because the agribusiness lobby has such intense power to influence senators and congressmen from farming states as well as any other legislators, nothing gets passed. The legislation as it stands is muddy and convoluted in the way that while many common animals are protected under anti-animal abuse laws, animals under the domain of factory farms are not. It's appalling how Europe has already passed dozens of laws for the humane treatment of farmed animals and yet we lag nearly 50 years behind.

The thing is, nothing can get passed because of the greed in the legislative body. In true Orwellian style, we are being subjugated and told what to believe and not say by a totalitarian state. The worse thing is that it's not even the state that's doing this. The corporations are so powerful that they've pushed the government aside and are not only feeding us with their product, but with the power they have over how this country runs. Again, it's not just the agribusinesses. You hear all the time about how perfectly sensible bills that could really help people are stricken down by special interest groups and heavily pressured subcommittees of Congress because the vote of our legislators, the people we vote for, are up for sale.

I know it's a very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kind of thing in that it's truly idealistic to think that lobbyists, the people who are only supposed to be providing congressmen with legitimate information, should and could never hold real power over our congressmen, but the fact of the matter is that they do.

Animals in factory farms do suffer and that's not really debatable. I know it's tough to watch PETA propaganda and it's even easier to push it out of your mind as isolated cases. But I feel like the fact that every PETA documentary has new footage of animals squeezed into tight cages is enough to say that maybe this stuff is really happening.

I'm not a vegetarian by any sense and I certainly don't plan to be. I don't think we have a moral obligation to be vegetarian, but I don't believe we have to harvest animals in a way that makes them suffer more than necessary just to increase productivity and expand profits. Natural animal husbandry in such a way that is profitable to small farmers would increase competition and drive down the prices of animal products and hopefully alleviate the suffering of farmed animals. While this still means we bring animals into this world to kill them, at least they don't have to suffer along the way.

I just don't think it's possible though until we have someone in the White House that is not afraid to take a stand against Congress. We also need a total flush of Congress while we are at it. Get some young, educated, idealistic Senators and Representatives in there and get some stuff done. Again, I support a totalitarian state as long as it is one that uses ultimate power and subjugation FOR all people instead of against them. I support the state dismantling factory farms and agribusinesses so we can have smaller, more humane farms. It would probably solve a lot of problems as long it was run by a totalitarian dictator that isn't trying to kill a certain kind of people or conquer the world and instead is motivated by a desire to help everyone at the same time. I think it's very possible.

Again, always open to objections.

Krav Maga

So I've been taking this class for about two weeks. That's 5 classes (including today's).

Wikipedia defines it as full-contact hand-to-hand combat developed in Israel that involves wrestling, grappling, and striking techniques. It's known for extreme efficiency and brutal counter attacks and is taught to elite special forces around the world. It's derived from street fighting emphasizing on threat neutralization, simultaneous defensive and offensive maneuvers, and aggression.

Sounds pretty intense. Well it is.

Training, according to me and wikipedia, is aerobic and anaerobic. We do a lot of running and physically trying "warm-ups" which normally have us sweating and panting by the beginning of class. We do a lot of pad work which involves long sessions of repeated striking and moving. We've done drills where we were "attacked" while our eyes were closed and had to deal with the situation instantly after opening our eyes. We also do a lot of training at the peak of exhaustion which helps deal with the adrenaline of being in a real fight.

First class we learned how to get out of a two-handed frontal choke like when someone rushes you and is trying to literally crush your neck. We learned some subsequent counter attacks which seem pretty brutal.

Class 2 we learned what I call the pez-dispenser. Basically its the counter to a from-behind choke hold like you would do on the playground to give a noogie, except you're giving it to someone to hurt them. Anyway, the way you position yourself as soon as you get in it, you have the opportunity to get some leverage against them and put them in a pretty bad position.

Class 3 was pretty intense. We did groin kicks and hammerfists which when used in conjunction is pretty nasty. We also were taught open-palm strikes which can be pretty useful in a long fight.
ON that, while it's ghastly to imagine condoning groin strikes, the point of Krav is to get through a fight/get out of a fight quickly by debilitating your opponent. And if you're fighting against more than 1 dude... you need to do some otherwise deplorable things.

Class 4 we revisted the choke and incorporated the palm strike which on the one hand seemed like a good idea, but in order to get out of a real tight choke, you typically need two hands which this maneuver doesn't allow for. Hopefully won't have to test the theory. Did an interesting drill where half of the class stood in a circle and closed their eyes the other half walked around and attacked them. Half of the walking group had pads so if you were checked by a pad you had to open your eyes and punch it quickly or if someone put a front-choke on you you had to open your eyes and deliver the proper counter. It was scary to be just standing there with your eyes closed and feel someones hands come around your neck.

This past class we learned elbow strikes. We were taught 7 different positions for which to deliver strikes and it was a serious core and shoulder work out. Useful stuff I'm sure.

Overall, a good investment. I'm enjoying the class and look forward to what I can learn from it. Still not sure everyone who shows up has paid for it which makes me feel like a putz for actually doing so... but what can you do?

On Free Will

To continue my brief series of philosophical discussions, I'm talking today about the notion of free will. I don't think I'll actually be positing any sort of final claim on the issue but I'll surely be exploring what is an interesting perspective.

This came up when we were discussing... Spinoza? Or... Leibniz? Err... well doesn't matter. I thought it was an interesting notion and I want to share.

We go through our lives believing that we are in full control of everything we do. We choose when to wake up, what to eat, whether or not we want to go to class or work. We make "choices" every day. We believe that we have a personality that makes us a unique snowflake among the six billion people that live on the earth.

But consider this: maybe we have zero free choice. Maybe we make no choices that are of our own accord.

Think about this. Say we have a personality. Say it is the governing force behind everything we do. Perhaps it is the genetic rule book that serves as the guidelines for all we do. I chose to wake up 11am today. According to my genetic rule book, I was predisposed to get up at that time. The way I act towards people and what I do in my free time, what I believe and think about, it's all pre-determined. There is nothing I do and nothing about me that is in my control. Say I choose to get up at 9am instead and I choose to go running outside for the first time in my life. Free choice, right? Wrong. The only reason I was able to break from routine is because I recognized a genetically and personality-driven pattern and according to that pattern, deviation is possible only when I recognize it. Say I walk a certain way on my way back from the Gym. As I'm walking, I realize that I always take this path and I suddenly veer off on a different one. The only reason I took the different path was because I recognized that I always take a certain one and purposefully deviated. Even the deviations in the pattern are pre-determined.

Another interesting look at free will is given to us by social psychology. A radically conservative, hardcore social psychologist would say we have no personality. He would say that every moment of the day we are in a situation which molds the choices we make. Naturally, situations can only provide us a certain few options that we can take and so we are always confined within the situation. The choices we make in the situation are based on how we view ourselves inside of the situation. We are in desperate need to constantly fulfill the human desires for social and self-acceptance and thus, the choices we make in a situation are always geared towards those needs.

Now you could say that our personality factors in a little to the decisions made in situations and of course our personality drives us to the situations we find ourselves in... but that only lends credence to the first postulation I brought up. But still, I find it crazy that we are completely governed by the situations we find ourselves in. My main interest in psychology is social psychology, mainly in social cognition and mob mentality. I just find it interesting how the goals and mentality of the group always, always supersede the mentality of the individual.

So what does it mean to be human? To be the moral agents of the world? To be able to held morally accountable for our actions which we can make in a rational and autonomous way? Yes. Absolutely.

The question is, while we are morally accountable for everything we do, right or wrong, are we making these choices from true free will? Or are we governed by something we cannot control?

On Evolution

First of all, I just watched some Boston Legal with my Dad. As far as legitimate dromedies (thats, dramatic comedy) go, it's THE best written I've ever seen. It's got legitimate legal practice mixed with humor and serious intelligence and hits hard on actual issues. But I noticed a few things about the lawyering portrayed on the show. Mainly that the lawyers exhibit strong skills reflecting deep psychological knowledge, acting skill, and philosophical backgrounds. They know how people function, know how to lie or speak in such a way that is convincing, and in their most compelling arguments don't cite complicated legal code, but ask deep, probing questions about humanity. In the last one, Alan Shore asked what it means to be a human. What kind of question is more philosophical than that? And tell me, what academic field involves the detailed study of morality, ethics, and logic? Philosophy!

So what would be the BEST preparatory undergraduate study for a rising lawyer? PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND THEATER! What Am I doing? haha. See, I have a plan. I've had a plan all along.

Onto the topic at hand.

I'm going to go into an involved discussion about evolution or creation. I am a Christian but I am also a firm believer in evolution. Thus, I believe in intelligent design. That is, an evolutionary process that was set in motion according to the will and omniscience of a creator with a plan. I believe that in my view, all of science is compatible with religion.

Again, that's not the point. I'm going to set aside my beliefs (sort of) and outline the mythology that both camps of the debate subscribe to.

First, creation. Now, I have to admit... Creation, to the non-believer, sounds far-fetched. If you have no concept of the power of a omnipotent being, then I can imagine how crazy it sounds. We start off with a vacuous abyss. Then, God molds the earth. It happens, as I assume, suddenly. Genesis simply says, "in the beginning." I assuming it is much like the ancient Egyptians say, that is, out of an infinite ocean came Atun and he created all that is (more or less). Specifically, Genesis says "the earth was without form and void" so I imagine this is the case. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." See the similarity?

In a talk I gave a while ago, I mentioned the word eschatology and said in passing that many religions hold the similar mythologies as Christianity. Maybe some will say, "No Dylan, that's absurd." But it's true. If you read ancient creation stories and ancient myths about the end of times, you'll see that they all sounds incredibly alike. I say that these were passed down by the will of someone much greater than I with a plan greater than I can imagine. I say that there is truth in all these stories because they were inspired by a divine entity.

Anyway, So God says let there be light and there is night and day and then he creates Heaven, land, plants, seasons (except in places like Florida and the arctic lololol), stars, birds, whales, animals, and man. He made Adam and Eve and the rest is history. We know that Adam and Eve were kicked out (for lack of a better phrase) from Paradise and then we have humans.

Now again, I believe this story for the most part. There are certainly parts I find hard to believe. Most importantly, I know that we are here through a plan greater than our own. I don't need to get into what I do/don't believe/understand and why because that's not the case. But it's easy to see how one might not believe this stuff. It's a lot to get around their heads. But as I know it, faith opens many doors, even unto knowledge.

So... the other side is EVOLUTION. Dun dun dunnnnnnn... Here's how the story goes.

One day there was a burning hot singularity sitting in the middle of a vacuous black abyss. Before that there was possibly another universe--who knows. Then, the thing just up and exploded. Maybe it got too hot or maybe spun too fast--who knows. It erupted and sent crap flying everywhere and because of what we know about matter and possibly dark matter (which as Mr. Gregorio puts it, "explains a lot of stuff we can't otherwise explain), things started clumping

Actually, let me go back to that for a second. For those who completely discount Creation because "evolution makes so much more empirical and scientific sense," can we talk about "dark matter?" An invisible undetectable thing that only exists because it satisfies a HUGE variable in the equation? Because its the only thing that explains how the universe can spin without flying apart? Hahaha... you guys...

Anyway, so stuff starts clumping together (and I sincerely apologize for any hardcore scientists who would hang me for paraphrasing this in such a cavalier way) and stars form from gas that collects which came out of the large, dense floating ball of everything. Around these burning balls of gas clump other matter which clumped from other matter. So we now, at this point, have burning balls of gas with matter spinning around them. One of these happens to be in the Milky Way galaxy in our very own solar system which doesnt have a name. One of these spinning balls of matter is EARTH! Ta-da! But wait, at this point, Earth is a giant ball of FIRE! Ahh! (sorry I'm being incredibly insensitive to this.) So it's burning and it's burning and then it stops burning and... well gosh I don't remember how we got from A to C on this one (Sorry Gregorio) but somehow the earth stops burning and the atmosphere settles and then we have WATER! Then somehow we have PLANTS! Ta-da!

Now comes the best part. So we have this semi-new semi-volatile earth and it's probably raining a lot and there are some trees (probably palm trees) and a ton of water...

oh wait I forgot! An asteroid or something hits the earth and breaks off some stuff and forms the MOON!

Anyway, so it's raining and crap and just like a sci-fi movie where an asteroid hits and is full of aliens, an asteroid hits the young earth and I guess it's full of CELLS! Not just any cells... but SINGLE CELLS. I mean, SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS... I guess. Anyway, somehow these single celled organisms ride this asteroid through the volatile atmosphere and land in the water. They stew for a hundred years or something or there's a lightning strike and they start multiplying and form fish. And the fish grow legs and form the TYRANNOSAURUS REX. But some grow legs and form other things like lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and likely monkeys. But not in that order. Anyways, the T-rex dies and then I guess Pangaea breaks apart at some point and then monkeys turn into humans somewhere in Africa and they migrate and there's an ice age blah blah blah and then they build New York City!

Sorry. Really, I'm sorry that wasn't fair. I shouldn't trivialize these well-thought out theories that may be based on a modicum of science. I mean it makes some sense to theorize based on old stuff we found but that's like saying it's going to rain today only based on the fact that it rained Saturday of last week (which it didn't). That's also the fundamental problem with the scientific theory, empiricism, and inductive reasoning in general... Making PREDICTIONS based on observations of things that happened in the past. Sure, you can be 99% certain sometimes and maybe even 100% but there's no rational reason to think that the world won't flip upside down the next time. Not the point.

I just think that the theory of evolution, while very plausible, has some holes in it. Additionally, you have to admit, that it sounds a little crazy (especially when I talk about it). Sure, an arbitrary creation is no less crazy sounding, but at least Creation covers all the plot holes.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm just saying that on their own, these stories have their faults. But an omniscient, omnipotent being who set these events in motion... now that's something I can sink my rational teeth in to.

And if I'm wrong, as always, I'm happy to talk about it. Convince me wrong, please. I'll happily admit it.

Integrity

In the past I have complained a bit about my "job." The fact is, I'm thankful to have it and regardless of how much it sucks, it's good, practical experience that I will need.

Broadside, as a production, is a good paper. The people working for it are good, smart people who seem to (most of the time) strive for the best production possible. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a part of the team.

I do think I have some legitimate complaints.

1) Trying to turn my stories into something they're not. Sometimes by the end of the editing process, it's like I didn't even write it.
2) Not really taking a firm stand on anything by keeping a tight grip on what can be said.
and the most important complaint of all...
3) A lack of overall journalistic integrity. And of course, I'm not directing this at the whole paper since the news is reported fair and things like that. But what I am angry about is a recent column that has appeared twice in Broadside that makes me feel like no one is even paying attention to what is going on.

In lieu of what seems to be the end of what I thought was a rather inappropriate sex column, is now an even more over-the-top and even more tasteless in-your-face shock column by a certain duo of GMU senior girls. Now... I'm okay with expressing oneself and I'm certainly okay with a little shock and awe... but this column is simply too much. Using explicit sexual language and tasteless jokes puts this way beyond the aforementioned sex column that was at least smart. There's no reason for this garbage to be published and it makes me wonder who green-lights this stuff.

Personally, I find the material published inappropriate and seriously lacking in any quality. It's not only poorly written but tasteless and offensive. I know at least a dozen people who find it offensive and I feel like in our very politically correct world, even one offended person should matter, especially for stuff like this. I mean it's one thing if the publication is being intelligent and backing up it's claims while being offensive... but to be offensive just to be offensive isn't what should be published in a university newspaper. Especially one that no one even really reads to begin with. While I think controversy is good publicity, controversy is NOT what should be driving people to pick up the paper, read the column in question, and then throw it away. We should be informing and entertaining while enriching people's lives with stuff they care about. I like to think that's what I provide with my work and I'm kind of ashamed to be in the same section as this crap.

So what should I do? Well I plan to speak with my editor about it. Again, I don't think we should be publishing inappropriate and offensive material. If I was a true nobleman I would make a very public resignation in protest of what Broadside is doing, but honestly I don't think they would miss me enough.

Free speech is one thing. I understand that they have the right to say what they want. But as for George Mason University Student Media publications... we should be striving for excellence--for journalistic quality. That's not what we are seeing here and I firmly believe that free speech has its limits.

This is certainly more than about just some girls who want to shock people. It's about free speech at large. Really, and I mean REALLY... where do we draw the line? When considering our founding fathers and their intentions for free speech, how much did they actually want to give us? I think that they did not want mean for us to have as much as we try to assert or claim is our birthright. (Which of course brings up the HUGE issue of what our natural rights are if we have any.)

If I may posit a reductio ad absurdum, if we let free speech truly be free--to give it access to the mass media as a whole, what would it look like? Any idiot could write for the Wall Street journal or the New York Times and reduce these extraordinarily respectable publications to mere babble and rambling about what the author thinks is true and relevant. Even if they were to allow just one controversial column, don't you think that they would lose respect? And again I'm not talking about a writer making controversial claims with rational, well-thought-out evidence with which to back them up. I'm talking about someone just being downright offensive just so they can be offensive.

Maybe I'm overreacting but I think that there's something wrong with this picture. I ask, "Where is our integrity?"

A Modicum of Validity

What to say...

Well I recently performed in my first ever improv show. Well... it was just a series of improv games performed in front of an audience. I used to be firmly convinced that I couldn't ever come up with things on the fly but I actually did really well and it felt great. I gotta say... I want to do it again. Paul is excited and convinced I should take classes. I would like to perform with him...

I was walking behind a girl today. She was moving at the speed of slow and when I moved to pass her, I noticed she was talking on her cell phone and wearing a tiara. I understand you might wear one if it's your birthday... but to wear it around campus? Really? Unforgivable.

I had my first radio show today. Mine! Hah! No longer a guest host on the Enclosed Instruction Book. I played some Paramore, Bloc Party, and some other good stuff. I talked about music and events on campus. Overall, great time. I think it went well. I want to record it so people can access it online and listen to it on their mp3 players but I found out there are legal issues with recording the full show and making it available. Apparently, it might as well be piracy because of the music on there. And I doubt people want to just listen to me talking for a total of 15 minutes. Anyway, it went well and next week i'll be flying 100% solo.

Had philosophy of animal rights today. That's not it's real name, but I'm really starting to think it might be PETA 421 instead of PHIL 421. I mean, it's a good class but we're talking about why humans are "speciesist" (a word made up by Peter Singer) and how because we can speculate that they feel pain and are conscious that they deserve equal treatment as humans. While I love animals, I don't know how I feel about this. One argument is that if we refuse to kill an infant or someone in a vegetative state, we have no rational justification to kill an animal since in all three cases, we're dealing with a conscious organism that feels pain in some sense.

My professor yelled at me at the end of class for not participating. I had nothing to say.

I don't want to say anything without at least a

modicum of validity.

The Project

A) Someone (Ethan) suggested to get a Tumblr. It seems like a great blogging site as well as giving "seamless" integration with facebook and things that I use (as well as a plethora of other crap I don't need). Well that poses a problem for a dozen reasons, among others, I've already posted a dozen things here (all of which have stellar literary quality) and I refuse to TUMBLR them down the drain.

B) I think these posts will be a lot more streamlined from now on. A lot more "Here's what I thought about today" and less "Dear Diary, Here's what I did today."

So Dear Diary... Here's what I...

Haha...

But really, sitting in Acting 2 made me think a lot about sitting in Acting 1 (surprise, surprise) and the moment I got inspired to with a legitimate idea for my first novel. In order to help me write it, I think I'm finally ready to reveal the idea here (minus a few details so I still maintain artistic license, suspense, and so no one will steal my idea). World premiere.

So here's the concept. In one way or another about a dozen unique characters came out of my Acting 1 class. In presenting each of these characters, another student from the class was used in conjunction making it seem like Character A is best friends with Character B while later Character B was all the while talking to Character F. Know what I mean? So in my head I wrote down every characteristic that I observed and in a notebook I have about a dozen named characters with full biographies, personality traits, relationships, and mannerisms (even a few hobbies and occupations). I put them in a city and I have ideas for how they will interact but I guess what's really holding up the whole project is a few key plot points... you know... the beginning... the middle... the end. I mean, I've got individual scenes all mapped out but I can't for the life of my figure out how to start the chain. I think once I get going I can really put some shape to the beast.

Anyway, point is, if anyone wants to help or has any ideas, they can get acknowledgments, co-authorship, or even money. Yeah, I'm THAT confident in what this could turn into. It's too legit to quit.

And really, that's what this whole thing has been about. Trying to get myself to think everyday about putting words to paper... or at least keys to a word document. I figured if I thought, "Hey that's a good thing to blog about," I could finally say, "Hey that's a great thing to WRITE A STORY about" because I know when I finally get down to it I can just keep going and going.

Movies have been giving me good plot inspiration (for better or worse since people will read it and say, "Wait a second, didn't they do that in that one movie?") for other ideas I have (to be revealed later). Obviously, that doesn't help me now.

So... whose in on

The project?

Animalistic Musings

Three in one day?!

Well... I already told my professor I wasn't going to class (see previous post) and thus I am taking a pity day for myself to think. Plus, he said if I just kept up with the reading, I'll be fine. And thus, I am reading the book and will just go to class from now on (seeing as how there will be zero conflicts in the future).

Anyway, I wouldn't be much of a philosophy student if I didn't posit some questions every now and then.

I would like to go back to something I talk about a while ago concerning human evolution and our place on the earth, in the universe, etc. What with all that's going on with the theater fiasco it makes me think a lot about why we do these things, why I feel the way I do, and about life in general. If you think about how a lion carries out his day, he eats, sleeps, defecates, and that's pretty much the extent of it. Instinctively, lions know how to hunt and how to take care of their young. What intrigues me is how lions perceive their environment. They obviously recognize a particular patch of land as their own and recognize a certain shape of animal that they like to eat. They have some degree of learning. That brings me to an interesting quote we read in Hume about how animals do in fact have some sort of elementary reasoning abilities. Typically, when we say, "What's the difference between animals and humans?" we say, "the ability to reason." Personally, I don't think we have any rational ability to say that's true. Animals certainly reason and biological psychologists and behavioral psychologists can tell you that their behavior can certainly adapt and change.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make thus far is that animals and humans, on the most basic levels, are not so different. We have basic adaptation and reasoning skills and we have a short degree of instinctual skills, what we might otherwise call a "gut reaction." Our brains are not even so different since scientists are able to identify pleasure and pain receptors in the brains of rats, an animal far removed from the primate line. It could certainly be reasoned that humans have some sort of basic relation and similarities to all mammals. In some ways, all animals (but mostly mammals).

Where the differences in humans lie is our ability to utilize our higher brain functions. That is, our ability for abstract reasoning, to make complicated choices, and complicated emotions like love, jealously, remorse, and so on. From a purely biological perspective (which I admit I'm no expert), humans, by reason, must have SOME extra glands or synapses that cause different hormones to flow in our brains, causing these feelings of love and genuine emotion. What else could explain the reason that we can build civilizations and learn and feel complex things? Sure, you could argue that lions can't build things because they don't have thumbs. In fact, you could say that the only reason humans, at whatever point in history, ascended to greatness because of our thumbs--that is, our ability to pick things up. And maybe that's true. But then I must posit the ultimate question: Why? Why do we have thumbs? Accident? You would say "evolution" but now we're just arguing semantics. I do believe in a kind of evolution but I don't believe in astronomical chances. If I did, I would play the lottery more often since you have a better chance of winning that then evolving into a creature with thumbs.

So maybe thumbs is the reason humans evolved to having success in the primitive world and maybe that's the reason human brains have evolved to such a level such as being able to love another human unconditionally. Maybe when the first batch of humans that had thumbs conquered the non-thumbed batch, they were able to flourish and write epic poetry and worship gods. They were able to sing and to love. I suppose that's possible. But then by reason, you would say that all animals should be able to choreograph elaborate dance numbers and solve complicated ethical dilemmas. I mean, there are a lot of species on this planet that are as old as us, that have been evolving with us. If all brains develop at a constant and predictable rate (which I don't know if they do), then theoretically we shouldn't be too much farther ahead of anyone else. Unless someone's ancestor ate the only genius lion.

It can be said that from abstract thinking, all knowledge is born.

We would know nothing unless someone did some exploring or hypothesizing. No math, no reading, no engineering, no nothing. And in this vein, all knowledge started off as PHILOSOPHY.

So there.

Anyways, it still perplexes me to think about the differences between us and the rest of living creatures. Why are we designed the way we are? Through endless mistakes made by mother nature we have two eyes positioned above a nose and a mouth in front of our heads which is settled on a spinal column which runs the length of our back which holds complicated nerve systems that allows us to move our appendages. Again, I don't believe in that kind of luck. That's like throwing a bowling ball into a dark china shop and truly believing you won't break something. I'm not saying I don't think it happened, I'm just saying it stands to my reason that it was guided by someone/something that knows a lot better than we do.

And thus we have the modern human that emerges a long, long time ago. We have the Greeks who posited philosophical theories on math, astronomy, physics, and life. We have the Egyptians that made amazing and complicated structures. There's also the Mesopotamian civilization that contains the earliest recorded religion. (That obviously was NOT in chronological order.) It just amazes me how all of a sudden there is a species on the earth that is flourishing at an exponential rate and all the while developing its knowledge of the known world and most importantly, its self-awareness and even more amazingly, still developing its paradigm of its role in the universe.

Let us think for a minute about how language was born. Obviously language means nothing without more than one person. Even in the most comical fashion, how did one caveman start talking to another caveman in such a way that they both understood? Even for one to draw pictures that made sense to the other involved the first one processing in his primitive mind the idea of a picture being a symbol for something else. And in the second one, he had to associate that picture and connect the symbol and determine the meaning all on his own. Then they both agreed on a sound to make that would tie it all together? We see an apple and we immediately hear the word apple and see in our heads maybe a taste, smell, and a feeling of an apple and we associate all of these things simultaneously and at some point, that had to happen on more than just an individual level. Sure caveman #1 could associate these things in his mind by himself, but he then had to communicate those ideas to his cave-mate. Wow.

And the first lie? Once communication was established in the community, someone came up with the first lie. And this is another amazing feat. Think about it. What goes into a lie? You see a disadvantage to telling someone how something really is because in your mind, you can abstract the consequences of certain communication in your head in an instant. You then decide on a new, equally plausible story and decide to tell that instead, despite knowing its not true.

Then perhaps you feel remorse? Knowing the consequences of the lie and being able to abstract in your head the consequences of someone else believing a falsehood. Or knowing that the consequences of something you did would hurt someone.

And theater? Song? Philosophy? To be able to abstract your feelings and communicate them in a form that is pleasing as well as thoughtful is another amazing human invention. To rationalize in a systematic and convincing fashion? This furthers our understandings of things and allows us to look at things beneath the surface. The lion sees the sun setting in the west, but we can understand it to mean that this side the earth has turned away from the sun. We then associate night with different things, and even feel inspired to communicate those associations. The lion sees his dead prey and all he can think about his food. We see a dead human or something and we feel remorseful or sad. Or we feel alive and happy (if you're psychotic). We associate primal things with ourselves and in the grand scheme of things, beyond what any other creature can do.

Humans are capable of a many great and wonderful things. We are also capable of terrible things. We are the only creature that is self-reflective and able to think outside of itself. So, why us?

Now I understand that someone might read this and say, "Dylan you're retarded." That's great. Thales of Miletus posited in the 5th century BC that everything is, in some way, made of water. Obviously he was wrong but he made an observation based on what was known at the time (at least to him) and made a rational argument for it. If I am similarly at fault, I would be happy to chat. I am always happy to admit not knowing something.

And maybe I can make someone think. Or maybe these are just

Animalistic Musingings.

Counting Chickens

Well... the results are in and out of the 101 people who auditioned, maybe about 40 or so got called back. Yours truly... was not one of them. Yes, I know, I know I was confident--even going as far to say, "I'll let you know how call-backs go." But that obviously won't be happening and now I don't have a good reason to skip my awful personality theory class, much less drop it.

I think I didn't make call-backs (and here is not the time for me to be self-deprecating or insecure) because for the FIVE male roles (for the entire semester) that I was going to be going for, I don't fit the description for any of them in the slightest. One was a sixteen year old boy which I haven't been able to pull off since Freshman year, and the other four were men 30+ which I won't be able to pull of til after I graduate. I won't say that I didn't get called back because I'm not good or the monologue was a bad choice or the directors just don't like me (which is still highly possible), but I will say that maybe they didn't want to bother calling me back because I just don't fit the descriptions of the characters.

I think that's fair, right? Sure, I would have at least liked the chance to read for the characters and maybe change their mind. But hey, you win some, you lose some.

And no, I would never work backstage. I've never aspired to do work behind-the-scenes and I won't start now.

Still, I would be lying to say I wasn't hurt and mildly devastated since I had the impression that I would be in good favor for these parts. Regardless, the six year-old thing to do would be to cut off all friendships I've made in the theater department as a public protest of the unfair treatment I've received and a demonstration that I don't really care about any of this.

But I'm not six and that's not right so I guess the grown-up thing to do is to say, "It's fine, they didn't want to waste their time or mine on characters that I wouldn't even look like," and to remain friends with everyone and a familiar face around the department so everyone is constantly reminded of me and hope to the Lord and all his grace that somehow I'll catch a break.

So for those keeping score, that's 1/4 failures for this semester and 1/4 successes. The Radio Show (name pending) is still quite up in the air. I received an email from the director saying I should come to his office on Thursday to discuss the equipment and answer and questions I might have. So... it's highly possible that this could be happening by next week. I'm going for Wednesday at 5pm or sometime Monday-Friday before 2pm. We'll see.

And the other potential success? Not looking great, but we'll see. The semester is young but I think it might be aiming a little high on this one.

But I'll try to hold future speculations and/or predictions about my future lest I be...

counting chickens prior to emerging from their eggs.

Terrible

I've been awful at keeping this up, sincerely. I mean, the last post was WEDNESDAY of LAST WEEK? Where have I been? Okay I had a night class Wednesday night so that might be it.. But i didn't even talk about Acting 2... it's not like Thursday was a trying night. Anyway, let me backtrack and cover some ground.

Acting 2 was last Thursday morning, preceding the ever-awful philosophy/lit and social psych. It wasn't bad. Mary Lechter is our modestly famous acting teacher who really knows what she is doing. We did some pantomiming and went over the syllabus which is very, very work intensive. But so far, so good. I think it will be a fun class, maybe. Either way, if I don't get casted in a play, I will be doing some sort of acting.

Ugh the problem with retrospective posts is that I'm not always 100% on what I did in a day. So I completely don't know what I did Thursday night or Friday. I can't imagine it was too exciting. Well Thursday was Theater convocation where all the teachers, officers of the Mason Players, and interested students gathered to discuss the upcoming year... wooo.... boring. And Friday was a preliminary sit-down reading of the two upcoming studio shows this semester. So I guess that was that.

Saturday went with some friends to the Kennedy Center to see a Mister Paul Laudiero (remember that name because he's going to be famous in some capacity) perform in a page-to-stage of "Still Beating Hearts" which he and his cast-mates were fantastic in. Then traveled to 14th St. in DC to watch him do an improv show. I always feel so classy and hip when I go to these things. Like one of those quintessential art guys.

Sunday was chill. Nothing to report.

Labor day I did some work with Paul on our monologues for today's audition as well as did some homework for phil/lit.

Today was a big day though. Got up, went to work with Paul some more (since he changed his monologue last minute), and went to my two classes for the day. Then I sat around a bit and went to my very first Krav Maga class. Seriously, from Day 1 the instructor was kicking my butt. Warm ups alternating between strafing and running backwards, stance work, punching form, and how to get out of a frontal choke-hold (as well as counter-attacks) was certainly more intense than I ever imagined. I feel that this will be a lot of fun and will be beneficial if I can learn it and practice it and internalize it. The worst workout was the non-stop punching, push-ups, punching exercise during which I literally thought I was going to die.

Afterwards I quickly showered and went off to audition for the GMU Players Fall 2010 lineup. My monologue was, as it turns out, a compilation from Mark Twain's Excerpts from Adam's Diary which is actually a hilarious bit of literature. The actual audition went wonderful. I hopefully made the judges laugh for potentially the first time all night and overall felt good. Callbacks are all night tomorrow night and so I'll definitely be missing my Personality Psych class.

The rub is that for all of the shows, they want to practice wednesday night while i have this class so I potentially have to drop it and pick up something else... ugh. What a pain. Hopefully keeping that class won't affect my chances of getting casted. I guess I could always ask.

I'll be sure to update on how call-backs go and, of course, how the final cast posting goes.

Oh and a few nights ago I had a slight inkling to work some on my novels. And plus with my beginning Krav Maga training, I might have more inspiration to do so. Maybe this thing is working after all?

Either way, when it comes to posting, I'll try not to be too

terrible.

RE: blog project

In last night's post I mentioned that this thing doesn't seem to be working out too well.

Well I would like to qualify that by saying that like taking medicine, it takes time to work.



Hah! Self-justification!

New class and radio show

Today was a standard day. One that will probably serve as the epitome of a productive day at college and what is potentially a routine for wednesday.

Got up, went to the gym, went go get food, ate food, reviewed some cds, went to the Broadside office, worked on a story, didn't talk to my editor about my lack of power, reviewed my monologue, co-hosted Martin's radio show, went to class, ate, now typing.

And that's about that.

Tonight's class was Psychology 324: Personality Theory. It was... painful; so painful I started doodling. Well it's not that the class will be boring as much as it will be awkward and slow. I think the material will be interesting but the professor is way too into things and borderline oblivious. He had the audacity to split us into groups to figure out what personality was. Not only do I not like group work in college (since we're above that, right?), but it's mainly that I don't like sitting around talking about what we will be talking about. And yes, I recognize that the entire first week of classes is pretty much talking about what we will be talking about, but it's just so boring and I really just want to get into. This guy dragged the whole class [metaphorically] kicking and screaming through a boring lesson that was mainly just a preview of what we will actually be covering next class. Suffice it to say, there was no reason for us to be there even two hours of the potential two hours and forty minutes of the allotted class time.

Tomorrow: Acting 2! Which I'm legitimately excited about because it will be a fun class and hopefully not be an excruciating 3 hours of note taking.

So tomorrow: New class. Hopefully within two weeks: a radio show.

Dropping the Ball

Wow, so I missed a day. Oh no...

Well I guess it's just something not to make a habit. Plus that will just mean today's is extra long...

So on top of still feeling like an awful, awful person (for additional reasons than the previous due to misunderstandings), I've been having my first two days of class. It's so hot so walking to class from my far-off apartment building hasn't been much of a joy.

Monday was Philosophy 421 whose name is now Moral Considerability and Animal Science. As Professor Light explained it, we won't be talking as much about fetuses and machines because those issues are either very well drawn out or far from being drawn out, respectively. So he decided that we should talk about more considerability of animals because it represents to him what is generally considered a "moral blindspot" for the majority of people. The way he explained it was a lot better and made it sound less like a class about how animals have feelings. And it doesn't help that he is a pescatarian, who in his words, won't eat anything more neurologically complex than a fish. Regardless, I am confident he will be fair to all sides and we will be taking serious ethical and moral looks at animals in relation to human-like intelligence.

Tuesdays and Thursdays at 1:30 is Philosophy two-hundred-something: Philosophy and Literature. Should be decent, I hope. A ton of reading but easy essays and hopefully what seems to be no exams. I'm guessing we will just be taking a hard look at the issues, or something. I'm not a fan of the professor who seems to not be that great at public speaking... but hopefully it at least turns out to be an easy class.

Also on Tuesdays and Thursdays is my Psych 231 class at 3:00: Social Psychology. I'm pretty excited about that class since it's going to deal with a lot of what I'm interested in Psychology: how people act based on a perceived situation. It's funny because the professor (who is so boring to listen to) said that Psychology is based on early Philosophy, which I already knew. So basically when talking about Psychology and themes of perception, we're intermingling the science of the brain and Psychology with Philosophy, my minor and major, respectively. So I think it's pretty neat that what I'm doing in school is related to each other. He also talked about fundamental attribution error being people attributing how people act to their personality instead of the social situations they are in which is cool because I'm going to Personality Theory tomorrow! It's like ALL MY CLASSES ARE RELATED! Which is weird. And hopefully not as confusing as it could be.

As far as this blog project is concerned, I don't think I've really produced a lot that has to do with my professional writing career. Additionally, it hasn't motivated me to do any writing that I actually want to do.

And as far as my new job at the Broadside is concerned, I kind of regret it since it seems like my editor is purposefully pigeon-holing me into doing his dirty work like coming up with stories and taking credit for them. I mean all this really does for me is making me a professional story idea creator who gets to write the stories he comes up with. Wow... I was thinking (and was told) that I would be put into contact with people who run the Center for the Arts and local booking agents and nightclubs and being able to have some content control. Apparently not.

Well, I might see if I can wrestle some of that control from my editor via the Editor-in-chief. It will be a slow usurpation.

Else I'll be

Dropping the ball.

Well... Yeah

So A) I know it doesn't look great doing these so late in the day (since they're dated for the next day). One of these days it will look like there is two in one day.

and B) tonight's post will be... truncated to say the least. I'm not feeling really great right now and thus, am not in the mood. Actually, I feel like a huge jerk.

Anyway, I saw my Dad today and gave him his birthday present. Hopefully I'll see him some more before he moves so we can enjoy his new Boston Legal DVDs together. Saw Mom too. Mom is... mom.

Well... yeah.

8/28/10 (because insightful titles will alude me)

Today I did a lot of the same stuff I did yesterday. Well no, I'm making it less than it is (I tried for five minutes to find a word that means this). I woke up at 9 since my roommates were starting to move in. Yes, they woke me up. I had a staff meeting for Broadside at 10 in which i sat there at this conference table the whole time thinking, "Man I don't really need to be here" which my Editor-in-Chief kind of agreed with. But I did leave with the feeling that I'm doing a lot of work my editor would otherwise be doing and thus I have a made-up position that is basically just him outsourcing his own work. Either way, I think I'll be receiving a paycheck, so it's not too bad.

Afterwards, I helped Paul move in and saw some more people on my way back to the apartment. Then I basically sat around doing nothing for a few hours til I went to DC to see Paul in his improv show. It was very funny. Some awkward moments but these are just improv students... what do you expect?

Anyway, I've got a ton of stuff on my mind... including but not limited to:

A) how unproductive I have been and how leaving 80% of my video games at home hasn't help but will still prove a fruitful endeavor within the coming weeks (provided I can hold out that long).
B) That my roommate goes to bed incredibly early and now I'm being that guy who stays up all night typing incessantly. Hey, all the lights are off and I'm being as quiet as I can be. Unfortunately, I don't get internet in the living room which would be the logical thing to do. Then again, maybe I should go out there anyway.

And yes, I realize the date on this thing won't be

8/28/10

Attempt #1

Well... interesting day.

Well, it wasn't actually. I got up late after a long, wonderful sleep. I slowly got up to shower and managed to finally get dressed and grab a sub for breakfast. It was decent.

Point is, I found myself at my computer after eating bored and unsure of what to do. On the one hand, I need to start and work on some articles I've been sitting on for a while. On the other, nothing is really due for a while. Suffice it to say, I sat at my computer playing strategy games all day, and to be fair, there are worse things to be playing. At least I was being educated on the conquest of Alexander the Great.

So several hours later I realize I got nothing done and am continuing to do so. I also realize this makes for a boring post, but I humbly believe that my word wouldn't count for anything if the day after I made a promise, I failed to keep it.

Thus, Attempt #1 = finished.

A fresh start

Well, not really. I have decided two things.

A) I need to try and do this daily. Not only can it be used as a live portfolio for my writing but I think it will really help motivate me to work on my larger projects. So every evening I'll update with something I saw today or thought about. I know I said that was what I would do at the beginning of this all... in fact it's the reason I did this in the first place. But I think I'm actually going to do it.

B) This was in many respects, the best summer ever. I didn't have a job for the first time in 4 years and I had all the free time I could ever imagine. I had time to read, write, see people, and take me time. This was, however, hindered of course by my mother constantly bugging me about something and of course, having to do things I didn't like to do (as a direct result of being unemployed). But I can't really say I don't owe them one, right? Anyway, it was nice not to have to work but it was awful not to have any free money. Summer is typically a season of increased spending but it had to be curbed in a big way so I can leave room for books, etc. It was tough and it would have been nice to have some income--at least to increase my nest egg. I saw Shaelyn which is an insurmountable pleasure and without a doubt, the highlight of the summer. I went to the beach and as I said, sat around a whole lot mooching off my parents. As much as I treasure the extra free time, I certainly don't wish that unemployment becomes a trend.

I got a job as the Broadside's Media Beat Writer which basically means I come up with a lot of the content we have for movies, music, and theater. That hopefully not only means a more frequent/bigger paycheck, but means that I will hopefully be doing a lot more reviewing of the aforementioned media. What worries me is that my editor wants to completely reform the newspaper, making all of the pieces more feature related. Despite the massive logistical undertaking that is, it is a vastly different shift from the previous style section which was all but feature-based. Plus, a review is essentially impossible in feature form. I guess this is a sign that I need to practice writing like a legitimate journalist because law school won't work out. But hey, who knows.

With classes starting soon, my new, challenging job, the potentially to be in multiple theatre productions, and a possible radio show on the horizon, I feel like this semester and 2010-2011 school year will be a great opportunity for...

A fresh start.

Like magic!

Well... remember how I said it would be magic if my C+ in Philosophy of Law turned into a B-?

Well it turned into a B. Hah!

A in english
B in pysch
B in history of modern philosophy
B in Philosophy of Law
B+ in spanish.

and I still have a 3.71! Wow... turned out well.

still looking for a job. I hate bothering people whose job it is to comb through applications but like my parents said, maybe they went over mine and forgot or just want to see that I'm really interested. Who knows... I feel like "following up" aka. bugging someone is counter-productive. Who wants to hire someone who is annoying? I don't know.

Oh well. Summer is pretty good so far. This week off though just means I'll be working that much longer into the summer unlike last summer when I had August off.

Haha...

So I started using G-mail to get my Mason e-mail on my ipod since every single web portal used by George Mason is dumb and not user-friendly. Anyway, I have it forwarded this particular G-mail address that I only use for college email and so Blogger keeps me signed in under that... but I post using a Yahoo email address... FUNNY rite?

Yeah...

Anyways... So Spring semester is winding down (completely). Finishing up some critiques for my English class, finished my Modern Phil class like a month ago, just got done with my Phil law class, and am now waiting to finish Spanish and Psych. Grade-wise, it's not going to be a pretty semester but somehow my grade pessimism causes me to get decent grades at the end of the day. So who knows the C+ that my PhilLaw class is going to net me will somehow magically turn into a B- because of the huge opinion paper I wrote for it and the final exam that I magically did well on (even though I don't think I did). Overall though, Spring Semester was great despite having a roommate I highly disliked. Great people, great opportunities... it's got me really excited about the next two years school-wise.

It was a pretty unsuccessful year for the paper though. I wrote maybe 11 articles the whole year where I wrote 15 in my first semester. Ugh... it's no good.

In other news...

I'm not really excited about the summer. No job so far (by this time last year I had one). My favorite girl isn't here (but I'll hopefully see her). Overall bordem. Hopefully I can use any free time I may or may not have to work on my artistic exploits. Then again, I said I would last year and I didn't get anything done. Who knows.

My life isn't very exciting lol. But then again... who really has an EXCITING life? Professional bungie jumpers? People who get paid to travel? Who knows. I feel like the only thing that can come from full-time work and adult responsibilities is stress... and when you're stressed.. well... it's like when it's hot outside. You wish it was cold. When it's cold... you wish it was hot.

Know What I'm Saying?

Being unable to keep up in general...

Wow so when I got this I REALLY had the intention of keeping up with it. I find that I get distracted easily and so when I want to put something down into words it often falls to the wayside in favor of some paper I've got to write... and believe me, I've had a lot of those.

But Spring semester of 2010 is winding down and I've got a LITTLE free time.

Well... actually I should be working on my Spanish presentation but since I could potentially have laryngitis (or a bad reaction to pollen or just a very irritated throat), I HOPEFULLY wont be giving it on Wednesday. Who knows.

either way, here's what's been going on since march:

Not a whole lot. Doing pretty much the same old same old. Dealing with all things that need to be dealt with. The semester is wrapping up and while I'm not too terribly optimistic about most of my grades, I feel like I should just be glad it's ending as well as it has been.

I just got done with the annual Ten Minute Play Festival and while I'm not new to one-acts, I am new to the GMU Players and the whole theater department here. I met a lot of cool people and it was an experience of a lifetime. It opened me up to a lot of connections with a lot of talented people who have said that they want to see me a lot next year and have heard rumors that I'm being scouted for parts in upcoming shows. I'm super excited. I love the stage and truly hope to be on it a lot more.

I really hope I can make it into some more main and serious roles though. Yes, I love making people laugh and minor parts in plays are okay but I really want to show that I can really shine in something much bigger. We'll see. This is truly just the beginning and I'm feeling good about it.

I want to put down for the record that I've been missing Shaelyn a lot lately. I want to be able to share everything going on with her and due to obvious circumstances beyond anyone's control, she can't be there to laugh along with me. I feel her always in my heart and keep her always in my mind and I know that as long as I do, it's okay.

Until next time, (which could be a long ways away unless I get something brilliant to say)


Dylan

Adventures to the west coast and things of that nature

I know this is waaaaayyyy late

Well I went to Seattle the weekend before last (Friday the 19th to Monday the 22nd) and well... it was wonderful. I never thought I could be so happy to see someone as I was to see Shaelyn but I was! I hadn't really seen her since August and so it was really just kind of surreal that we were together again. The weather was fantastic--a true blessing on the trip. It was a big change from the extremely crappy weather in VA. We went to a park on Friday, Downtown on Saturday, and Church on Sunday, but all I could really think about was being with her. I mean of course I was soaking in the environment and being in a new place (hopefully not for the last time) but all I could think about was how good it felt to be with her. It was truly a weekend that can't be topped.

I guess part of the reason I delayed this is because I was still coming down from seeing her and well... this last weekend was awful in comparison. I mean I didn't have any homework so I certainly can't complain but... it certainly wasn't the same. Friday when I woke up I was like... well last week I was in a much better place than this. Lame. But no worries. We have lots of good memories that will help us out. I truly think things are going work out really well with us.

I truly can't wait to see her again. Hopefully over this summer--if I have anything to say about it!

Re: Memory

Dunno why I felt to make this a new post but I would like to succeed my last post by saying not all memory is bad.

Memory is great when you have the people around to remember them with.

Memory is also only meaningful if everyone remembers it. If no one thinks of a memory, does it even exist?

The burden of memory

So coming home often causes me to get real nostalgic. But lately I've been thinking a lot about much older memories from Elementary school, Middle school, and onward. Thinking about people I used to hang out with and talk to regularly--the same people who I lost contact with so long ago, I'm not even facebook friends with them. And I've tried to find them but can't; makes me surprised at how many people don't have a facebook.

But the point of this post is to talk about the memories I've been thinking about that involve these people I've lost contact with--old and new(er). I mean, these memories from middle school: do the other people involved think about them too? Do I ever cross their mind? I mean sure, I've got a mostly photographic memory (even though I'm losing it) and I probably think about a lot of things I've seen more than most people (so I assume). But these memories are so old and the people in them are long gone that sometimes they just seem like figments of my imagination. I can't find these people so maybe they never truly existed. Yeah there's a little picture of them in the yearbook but anyone who is anyone has a facebook too (haha). I'm just saying... it's weird to think of all these events in my life and all of the people that used to be in it.

I think about memories as fresh as Freshman year and think about people I used to talk to and when I look at all of these fond end-of-year messages in my yearbooks I wonder what happened.

But of course, I'm thankful for what i've been able to do in my life and all the people who are still in it--despite so many losses. My current friends and my girlfriend mean the world to me and I hope to never be without them.