Apple iWeb 08

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:51:59 -0700

You might have noticed some changes to the site. I took the plunge and bought Erica and I a family-pack of Apple’s recently released new version of iWeb. And I am glad we did! Minus some changes to the user interface that make some operations a bit more tedious, my overall impression is that this is a significant upgrade.
I have already used the Google Maps and HTML snippets to good effect on our wedding site. Additionally, I have re-done the entire site in a new template. While this process was not nearly as straight-forward as I would have liked it was nevertheless not fraught with a lot of headaches other than my time one evening.
Hopefully people will enjoy the change. And if not then that is okay, too.

Conflate

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:57:00 -0700

It seems such a natural a thing for us to do when we look from effect to cause in daily lives. But how rarely do we appreciate how subtle a turn it is when we come back from our search, our quarry in hand, that we have transmogrified our cause into Hydra itself. It may be that our penchant for seeking causation is a fundamental consequence of our illustrious roots, stemming from the heady days of the Renaissance when the modernity of man was born and borne to us upon the shoulders of objectivity. It is then only natural that we take this great lineage writ sublime only to find ourselves too oft off course and mislead down intellectual cul-de-sacs. Certainly we should remain proud of these roots; but, how easily we fail from the narrow line of mental neutrality into those seedy, subsumed currents of supposition, implicit assumptions, and the remaining rash of ill-fortuned mental fallacies.
There is a great power in a word. It can deliver its message to us on fleet foot every so precisely as to be heir apparent replacement for the mercuric messenger now fallen into mythical shadows. Yet a word can be too powerful as is oft the times when mere denotation belies our real intentions. Conversely, even when we counter the denotation with its connotation by context and or inflection still can we slam too hard rudder and find ourselves facing into winds, drifting on seas where nary a breeze will idle us even ever so gingerly back onto course.
Even with this afore-mentioned regale for the bountifulness of words , we must acknowledge that words are always but shadow emissaries of but one thing – reality. And this is the real danger; we confuse the meat of reality with the shape words, we conflate meaning with reality. Words are proxy for things that exist – whether through hard, external reality or else personal perception it does not matter. They are the exciters, the agitators, the catalysts for thoughts, emotions, and feelings. But remove the word and reality still exists – albeit arguably less rich a world we will live in when the last word dies. Nevertheless, words are mischievous creatures that with genie powers to do as precisely ask yet with consequences both severe and unforeseen at the time of their casting.
But I am not particularly interested in re-pontificating upon the nominal nature of words. Instead, I am interested when we erroneously enlarge the scope of our understanding by conflating one word with another word. The best way of moving forward may be providing various word-pairs as submission of evidence to this august jury – you – for further consideration.
Reason versus Excuse
This is the first example that comes readily to mind. And it is one that I encounter almost universally with people. The conflation of reason into excuse is quite insidious, and even though I am aware of the existence of this pair still I mistakenly allow myself to move reason into excuse.
The universe is full of reasons since it is quite naturally a universe of causality. Thus we have to but look ever so superficially to discover a reason for any thing we can imagine. Granted, most reasons are not root cause reasons and thus explains why religious and secular alike will continue to consume innumerable generations searching for the ultimate reason. Even when we do not have anything nearly so zealous still we are left with our every-day lives to fill us with opportunities aplenty to sleuth out reasons.
But the danger is not in the discovering a reason, but in the very discovery itself. Once we discover a reason a sudden shift may occur. By qualification of “may” I mean to note that this shift occurs most naturally in situations that center on our human nature. Nevertheless, the transmogrification is almost universal when these certain conditions are met; namely, we humans will take a credible reason and turn into an excuse. And once we have it as noun, an excuse, it is but a bit of amateur slight of hand that we then morph noun into verb so that we can then excuse the behavior.
There is a reason for everything. And most everything has multiple reasons for occurring. But it is an unfortunate opportunity when we turn a reason – a cause – of something into an excuse for the very phenomenon. To wit, we are all human along with the many virtues and vices this implies. We certainly make mistakes both minor and mighty. But taking as excuse a reason for our failure only hides from us opportunity to grow.

ایران

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:55:39 -0800

Here is the complete documentary by Rageh Omaar produced by BBC4; this is an excellent opportunity to see a more meaningful, in-depth look at Iran from a Western’s perspective than Ted Koppel’s exceedingling superficial exposé that was broadcast on The Discovery Channel a few months back. You can also follow-up with more comments by Omaar on this documentary here. ((If anyone has a link to Omaar’s piece published in the Iranian magazine please send to me.))
It is difficult to actually summarize this documentary. In some ways it is a disarmingly uneventful examination of Iranian life in modern Tehran. And that is what is always so exciting about these truer examinations of societies. They are mundane. We see ourselves in the beautiful faces of the peoples of this world; irrespective of their religious, economic, social, or otherwise hierarchical hen-pecking that we too oft hang ourselves from. This is all the more particularly disturbing – albeit in a means I find deeply introspective – given my own path through life originating on the eastern coast of my own country and further juxtaposed against the currently buttressed and inane politics of our two nations. Here again we find ourselves swaying in the gallows, too easily are we biased by the overly simplistic, vapid saber-rattling of our national “leaders” looking to boil down our humanity into a penurious stew composed woefully of non-nutritional, diametric diatribes; we wasting away without nourishment from the now disposed nurturing depths of our humanities that sustain us; and so thus we lose our very selves.
But the one thing we find in this sliver of life in Tehran, is a peoples finding their voice no different than any other peoples. For some who read this this may seem a most obvious, even trivial, observation. But for myself I was raised by educational and governmental institutions to hate the enemies of our democratic state (communists (Russians, Chinese, et al.) and theocracies (primarily Iran)). In this light the afore-mentioned observation is always a surprising thing for me to discover. Not that I actually hold this indoctrinated hatred in me any more, but only that this observation still holds a degree of novelty – even now – for me.
Where as we speak of the positive space for which we stand within; oft we can hear Iranians speaking of the negative space as means of getting to the positive space. It is only if you float on the surface of what is said do you come away with a sense of disengagement; listen instead to what is equally not said to hear the voice of Iranians in this documentary.
This is most evident in listening to how the “red lines” are avoided by those seeking to publish or else engage in publicly consumed mediums such as music and printed magazines. The degree to which we discover how much sub-text is fundamental to Iranian discourse should make us truly question our understanding of their presumed motives and intentions on the world stage. In this I do not mean to imbue any discourse with a presumed pejorative taint; quite the opposite. I might postulate that Iranians, at a personal level, speak to be listened to; whereas at a international level they speak to be heard. No matter the gestalt of their communications, we have a supreme obligation to hear them.
Iranian Film Festival
At present there is the Iranian Film Festival being held in Seattle by the University of Washington’s Near East Languages and Civilizations (NELC). You may view online a calendar of the films here; else, you can subscribe (iCal compatible) to the calendar here. As of today three of the films have been exhibited.
The first of these is Ceasefire. This movie is maybe the most accessible of the three movies thus far in that it follows very typical Western machinations in story-telling. Personally, I wonder if the film was not intentionally produced for consumption outside of Iran given a few awkward moments of explanatories looking to counter popular (Western) criticisms of Iran. Minimally, it is mindful of the possibilities that this film will be viewed by Iranians and non-Iranians alike. Certainly there are elements that are very directly applicable to modern Iranians and as such provides Iranians an opportunity to publicly examine themselves together; but, minus some nuances of culture, much of it is of a didactic exposition on the difficulties of relationships between genders regardless of culture. As an aside, it appears to draw much of its basis, especially toward the concluding vignettes, from Thomas A. Harris’ seminal self-help book, I’m OK You’re OK. Irrespective of its goals or impetus, it is a very enchanting film worth the time spent to watch.
The second film, The Fish Fall In Love, is maybe the most moving film I have experienced in a very, very long time. In some ways the universality of it is disarming. In this, I find a similar pattern in Middle Eastern civilizations that I rarely find in our Western civilizations – an intense identification with your immediate community as source of meaning in your life. There is one scene toward the end of the film that I believe could become my new email tag-line albeit it is too difficult to summarize in a few words. Nevertheless, I know that of the other people who saw the film it is a scene that equally resonated with them.
The scene starts with four women and a man, who has recently reentered their lives, sitting together for the first time for a shared meal. The women have noted that he seems to relish eating. His reply is that he does not relish the food but the companionship accorded by the sharing the meal. He recalls how he always looked forward to the time of dinner when his family would gather together to share a meal and their day with each other. And he more so dreaded the end of the meal; always hoping he could rewind the clock and start all over if only to continue with this sharing of thoughts, of emotions, of the little things in life with the people he loves. It is this, not the food, that he relishes.
What more is there than this?
The third film, A Little Kiss, is what I might conclude – even without having seeing any other Iranian films other than these three – is a more typical Iranian film than the other two. It is a highly symbolic film of the two paths of Iran since the revolution. And I imagine that many of my Iranian friends presently living outside of Iran may have some strong or else mixed feelings about the possible meanings within the film. Naturally the sub-text that I garnered from the film is highly a function of my own perspectives and nascent understandings of Iranian culture. Thus writ, I hope to have an opportunity to hear my friends’ own impressions of the film before I throw out what I suspect are highly suspect and wildly inaccurate conjectures that, if shown, would be revealed to you, dear reader, as mere crude caricatures.

Eternal Us

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:54:11 -0800

What of the word eternal[1]? It has always struck me as an odd word; for something to be "forever." What exactly does this mean? Let us begin by presenting New Oxford American’s entry for eternal, or:

e•ter•nal |iˈtərnl|
adjective
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning : the secret of eternal youth | fear of eternal damnation.
• (of truths, values, or questions) valid for all time; essentially unchanging : eternal truths of art and life.
• informal seeming to last or persist forever, esp. on account of being tedious or annoying : eternal nagging demands | she is an eternal optimist.
• used to emphasize expressions of admiration, gratitude, or other feelings : to his eternal credit, he maintained his dignity throughout.
• ( the Eternal) used to refer to an everlasting or universal spirit, as represented by God.

If time has a beginning and an end – its own alpha and omega if you will – then can anything that does not start from, well, the start of time be defined as eternal? Frankly, what is it to be around for an eternity? Of course, it would therefore seem that for us to die and to go to an "afterlife" (where we are to live in eternal peace) implies we either:

• we go back to the very start of the universe; or else,
• eternal means something other than forever (more).

But it may be that this is a thought birthed during childhood that never maturated, and thus is too naïve to be interesting to most people. Nevertheless, the word eternal seems, to me, to be something more than just "lasting or existing forever" or else "valid for all time."

Theologians will quickly note that eternal oft refers to something (i.e. god) that exists outside the boundaries of time. More succinctly, eternal means means timeless? In this we must confront the fact that the very laws of causality – that we assume are valid and are intrinsic to the very nature of the the physical universe – collapse. Even quantum mechanics seems to allude to this very possibility. More than stating that time is nonexistent, we are intimating that our very universe, that is dependent upon causality, recedes into mere fanciful thought[2].

God

For those devout persons this timelessness bodes nothing overtly dire – their understanding of god goes unperturbed. However, for those who aspire to see god and the universe as synonymous then the implications are epochal. Where has not merely our universe gone, but where has god gone?

As for definition let us merely stipulate that god is from without this "universe." Note, I do not find it necessary to define either god or universe other than to say both are "something" and "everything", respectively. Truly it may be that god is from without this universe or else is this universe. However, as hopefully will become manifest is that the distinction between god and universe is a mere matter originating in nominal nature of words, and not instead an intrinsic one.

Imagine there is an existence from without this universe that is timeless; a place where this god resides. How would it know what it knows? How might a god think, comprehend, exist in this domain? In that timeless universe everything is possible only because nothing is possible; everything shrinks to a singularity ... space is irrelevant since time spans both forward and backward infinitely onto itself so from anywhere in "space" you can instantly move to any other point in space "instantaneously." Without time there is no longer a governor overseeing movement. To wit, distance is equally meaningless in terms of causality; every moment of existence simple folds back onto now. In short, in this place god will be omnipresent, but without power to influence anything.

More so, there would be no real sense of identity as a corporeal self ... only oneness with yourself, space, and time[3]. Thus, in our timeless universe we have stumbled upon an admittedly contrived definition for god – omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. And all of that "omni"ness, as it were, is utterly, supremely useless.

Now imagine this god wants to understand itself. And why would it not? If we assume god is not self-aware then this entire gedanken is quite trivial – namely, a bit of supernal flotsam, a bit of nothing. So let us assume god is self-aware. Given this primitive compulsion then how might it go about it?

Recall that god is everything and yet nothing – it can be anywhere anytime. But this abides little insight for us as god can be anywhere anytime as long as it is itself. All we can deduce, as it were, is that god is an axiom. And this, of course, where theology starts. God is impenetrable. We crib notes from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to contend that no (mathematical) system is self-closing and further apply this proof to our investigation, then god cannot simply say "I am therefore I exist". In short, we argue that all systems require minimally a second reciprocating system to substantiate itself. To wit, god needs something to reflect itself upon. We proffer that this second system is our universe. However, without time to unfold things in a causal manner then the universe is god in its entirety. And more so, god in its singleness is the universe. We have merely created two words to describe the same thing. We need to one more ingredient to this stew to help bring everything to a proper boil.

What if god didn’t just create a universe, but a universe of causality – timefullness? That is to say, god created our universe, set it into motion and let things play themselves out. But god wants to know itself, so in reality god did not create a separate universe but more simply[4] transformed itself by stretching out to encompass the dimensions of space and time; starting the proverbial clock at 0 and let causality do the rest. Namely, god let a timeful universe (itself) tell god what god is.

Us

This is all well and good. But what would that mean to us? Namely, what does that make us?

As many have written about, it is possible to think of the universe as a computer ... and as such it can be demonstrated there are limits to the computational power of the universe. We can a priori know whether a computation is knowable based on the physical and temporal dimensions of our universe. Given the physical limits of the universe we have a limit on the complexity of a problem that can be proposed. Additionally, we are further constrained by the total available time of the universe. If there are enough individual, discrete states (bits) in the physical with enough available time then a question is knowable. Else, it is not. Given this let us model our god as a computer – albeit a very mindful computer.

And this mindful computer would be computing the most complex algorithm in existence – quite literally god itself! The universe with all its galaxies, stars, planets, and life is god's infinite sub-algorithms running autonomously as a function of time and space – causality. Furthermore, if time is now finite, or minimally flows in one direction, then as time progresses so does gods understanding of itself. When the clock finally winds itself down thus heralding the end of the universe god will discover for itself that "single number[5]." God would come to know itself having summed over the entirety of itself.

If we interrogate this proposal more closely we realize that it is not god that tells us the meaning of our existence; but instead, that we are the very essence of that answer to god. Our sum over all of space and all of time is the very answer god is seeking – is god. But wait, is god merely the simple sum of things? Or is that there is some holistic nature to our existence that allows god to be more than its original self? That is to say, 1 + 1 = 3, not merely 2.

Holism

I wonder what this might mean to our lives as humans. Six-billion human souls on this planet alone. Each again an algorithm. Rather than an algorithm, let us instead model ourselves as complex waves with frequencies upon frequencies piled onto each other[6]. What is it when these selfs come near each other? There is constructive and de-constructive interference, of course. But not as simply as happens with a wave with a single, simple frequency – we are carrier waves upon carrier waves upon carrier waves ... modulating through time and space and our interactions with other sources of these frequencies.

Let me go slightly tangential for a moment ... I have always felt that two entities (humans if we wish to be pastoral) co-joined is not a mere matter of summing I and you into us. This is where the holistic sum of parts enters into the equation. However, this holistic summing demands that both original parties continue to exist. The I, you, and us are all simultaneously existing – remove either I or you from the equation and the triangular convergence dissipates back into its separate entities. Else, if either I or you meld into the other then us ceases to exist and a new I or you is formed and thus devolving from us.

How and when does this occur, though? This creation of an us. Might it be when a I and a you life vectors are brought both together in time and space to an intersection that it is at that instant that a possibility for a higher order harmonic, a us, is possible? Of course, there are many intersections throughout our lives. Some more powerful than others.

But to some people these intersections are fated. And indeed they may be; but, the one thing that god did when it created our universe is to give all things free will. More to wit, recall that god does not know a priori what it is; therefore, it is impossible for it to a priori set corporal selves careening through the universe to intersect each other without first knowing about itself ... which it does not know and is at the very core of this thesis. So fate, if there is such a thing, is something other than not what the Greek scholars taught us about. Fate is not three sisters weaving us into a tapestry of existence; but instead, sentient, corporal selfs applying their free will to the moment of intersection with each other.

It is at this afore-mentioned intersection that free will is at its most liberated moment – it may continue on its original vector, or else change course to pursue that very liberating moment, that intersection in perpetuity. And this is where fate is most sublime; it is ultimately where we all must become both willful – to dictate our own course through free will – and equally willless – to let the other person to determine for themselves what they will do at the intersection.

There are four possibilities to take any such intersection. 1) Both corporal selfs do nothing. 2), 3) one, but not the other does something. Or 4), both parties decide to change course together. 1) is trivial and uninteresting; it happens every day. 2) and 3) are tragic ... and what much of what eastern philosophy teach is the source of our "suffering" especially when either party is fully willfull for both itself and the other party. But for me it is 4) that is the most interesting; I wonder if this last possibility is what so many others have proclaimed as their destiny? It is seemingly so per the records found throughout the ages.

Now this is what astounds me ... assuming you concur with all the above assumptions. Namely, that god gave us free will ... the very free will that it had when from without the universe but could not exercise, and the very free will it forewent when it created our universe. The universe in its entirety is imbued with god's own free will; a free will that is more so exercised through all interactions (intersections). And by exercising our free will on ourselves, we are making decisions, as proxy for god, that ultimately lead to god's very definition of itself.

That we are from within god, yet are now from without god. That our lives lead to a great symphony. That when we exercise our free will we are making decisions that lead to greater harmonies, adding holistically to the sum that is god. This is the universe. And that this pattern is fractal. It repeats itself infinitely. From without is found the within.

Footnotes
1. This is not an entry per se, but instead a “reprint” of a letter to my intended audience of one. This reprint is of my thoughts I wrote to this person awhile ago that I feel are worth repeating. It should be noted that I have edited the below material as appropriate to clarify content while maintaining the anonymity of the original recipient. 
2. Is time thus a measurable quantity, or an artifact of other things? Or, is it that the physical universe is an artifact of time itself? But I digress. 
3. Pauli's exclusion principle would be null and void in this timeless universe.  
4. What? You never simply stretched yourself out to make a universe? No, seriously? It is easy. Everyone is doing it. 
5. 42. 
6. In this model your "instances" would be one frequency amongst a multitude of frequencies that, when combined together, form into our corporal selves.

Listen versus Heard

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:01:02 -0800

For those not familiar with my own personal proclivities then I should forewarn you that I thoroughly enjoy exploring modes and intents of communications. I find this topic immensely intriguing and will gladly monopolize any conversation whenever the philosophy of communications emerges. Given that I have a captive audience (don’t touch that Back button!) let me expound on this very topic.

Modes of Communications

In the past I have often referred to modes of communications in very diametric terms, or:

Bowling Conversation
Catch-ball Conversation

In bowling conversation (primarily uni-directional, asynchronous) we have a simple analogy to bowling whereby the listener(s) are the pins, the bowler is the speaker, and the (topic of) conversation is the bowling ball. If the pins fall over, as it were, then they received the intended meaning. In this model the responsibility of successful transmission is laid upon the bowler (speaker) while the pins (listeners) are subservient. This mode of conversation is not necessarily a pejorative affair albeit it tends to lead to poor listening skills. Nevertheless, it is a common approach in education.

In catch-ball conversation (primarily bi-directional, synchronous) we again have a simple analogy albeit to tossing a ball around. In this analogy we have to ball tossers and a ball as the (topic of) conversation. Both ball tossers act as listeners and speakers, constantly changing between the two as the ball is exchanged. And similar to a tossing a ball around, if the ball’s trajectory does not map on to the catcher’s (listener) current position they nonetheless will work their best to move to catch it. More so, even if the ball is dropped the activity does not stop. One of the ball tossers will go to the ball, pick it up and start again.

Intent of Communications

On top of the above-mentioned modes of communications there is equally important the intent of communications. It came to me tonight that there is a dichotomy in intents. One might argue that one is preferred over the other, but I will leave that matter till later. First, let us propose these two methods, or:

Saying to be Heard
Saying to be Listened (to)

Saying to be Heard is what, I imagine, is a more typical intent of communications amongst Americans. In this mode the preponderance of responsibility of understanding is on the listener. The speaker, while interested in the listener understanding, is not overly concerned with the impact that this transmission will occur. To wit, in extreme situations the speaker will not necessarily be empathetic to any deleterious effects their words will have on the listener.

What is most difficult for any person is encountering a person that is trying to be heard at any cost. Encountering a person with this intent they will naturally slide into a bowling-mode. They metaphorically want to bowl you over. The greatest damage occurs when the speaker is trying to say something about the listener. This very fact can lead many a listener in a very defensive position whereby they stop listening and starting defending themselves. However, so doing precludes the speaker from being heard. I have experienced first-hand this very situation (affectionally known as my childhood); and, recently witnessed as third-person how all of this can bring to a boil many latent resentments.

Saying to be Listened (to), is a intent of communications that is best exampled by Japanese. In this mode the preponderance of responsibility is on the speaker. In this the speaker needs to craft their message in a manner that the listener can understand. It is not just merely a matter of what is said, but how it is said that ensures cogency for the listener. Superficially many people appear to prefer this intent of communications in that they craft their words to be favorably received by the listener. However, the truer incarnation of this particular intent is to craft your words to be understandable to the listener irrespective of whether it is received favorably (agreed with). This is a subtle important difference, me thinks.

What is most interesting is the congruence that mode and intent appear to share. For myself there is a strong correlation between catch-ball mode and saying to be listened intent. And equally strong correlation between the remaining mode and intent. My own personal preference is to work toward catch-ball mode while remaining intent on listening while degrading my own need to be heard. It is certainly not always achievable nor even desirable as some situations require alternate modes and intents.

But I believe there is a great (and wonderful) responsibility to be actively engaged in listening to other people. Listening may be the most sublimely powerful applications of empathy. And more so we find this quality in us required in situations where we meet people who need to be heard. Without the ability to empathize with them we remain too oft times the victims of their potential diatribes.