An Omen? Oh, Man.

What does it mean when your shower poof thing begins to unravel? I know it isn't the same as walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror, but is it bad? Should I spend all day seeking out leprechauns and four-leaf clovers? Maybe an unraveled shower poof is worse than having a black cat cross your path on Friday the 13th? I'm not superstitious, but I'm beginning to think I ought to go rabbit hunting. But if rabbit's feet were so lucky, why didn't Lucky include them with his breakfast cereal? I've gotta believe a rabbit's foot has more luck to it (not for the rabbit, as the joke goes) than a red balloon. What was Lucky thinking? Perhaps there is something unpleasant about a severed rabbit foot shaped dehydrated marshmallow bit. What was it they called those things? I mentioned Lucky Charms in a post a while back and found the name...marbits, I think that was it. I should use the label function for posts so I could find things like that for instances such as this. Luckily my memory recalled it. And with that insight I suppose I'm not in line for some bad luck. Perhaps the unravelling shower poof is a sign of good luck, as witnessed by my ability to recall the name of the cereal marshmallow pieces. What were we talking about? I'm sure it wasn't important. I'll go do something else now.

I Write a Blog?

I suppose I do. It has been a few days since visiting it. I graduated college last Friday; which means I had my last class and hopped on a shuttle to the airport. I finished the semester with the grades I expected, A's and B's, three of each. I'm not much for formal events, so I didn't participate in any of the commencement things. Those activities are, in my opinion, more for the family than the participant so there wasn't any point of me participating as my family wouldn't have been able to go. The important thing is that I can now tell employers that I have accomplished a bachelor's degree. (If anyone knows why "bachelor" is associated with an undergraduate degree, please let me know.) The other important thing is that I am home, in Vermont. I don't think I've mentioned that before. I live in Vermont. I grew up in New Jersey, lived there until high school. I was supposed to go to NJ Monday and Tuesday of this week, but one of my brothers didn't get back from a trip to California in time. This brother is autistic, so someone needed to be here when he got back. He went to a conference for the pseudo-therapy facilitated communication. I'm a little skeptical of the therapy, but so is the APA (American Psychological Association) so I'm not the only one, although I don't know if I want to be fully associated with the APA either. They have their quirks as well.
Anyway, the purpose of going to NJ was to meet up with my other brother's family. I'll have to go seem them some other time, or wait until they come here for Christmas. My parents and two sisters who are still in VT went to NJ. They brought back pizza and Tastykake products. What used to be called Dominick's Pizza in Kendall Park is now called Vinny's Pizza. Best pizza ever. If you find yourself in the New Brunswick/Princeton area do yourself a favor and find Kendall Park, it's between Routes 1 and 27. It is on Allston Rd, just off of 27. This is the official restaurant. Vinny himself is there. We always assumed his name was Dominick, for the years and years we ate there before we moved, but my dad talked to him yesterday and found out the story. As a side note, every time any of us have been to NJ since moving we eat there and bring some back. It's only a 6 hour drive, the pizza keeps well enough. Perhaps to someone living around great pizza places Vinny's isn't as good as I talk it up to be, but I've never had a better slice anywhere I've ever been. There isn't a good pizza place in VT. Vinny makes a good pie. Had I a hat it would be off to him. Also try the number 3 cold sub. Best ever.
Tastykake is the second NJ nostalgia item we miss. Like Hostess and Little Debbie, Tastykake is a snack cake company. My favorite are the Butterscotch Krimpets, just like Maniac Magee (how's that for a blast from the past? Do you remember 6th grade?). I went to the Tastykake web page and got distracted. I guess that's all there is to say there.
Now to think up something profound. I have nothing. I will make a literary allusion instead. Gerald O'Hara told Scarlett that she got her strength from Tara (the name of their plantation). The red earth of Tara, as Ashley says it. The closing scene of the story has Scarlett realizing she does gain strength from Tara and wants to go home. Today I went outside to trim up some dead branches on a tree in the yard. I think I get strength from the green covered earth of Vermont. Something about the green and the humidity makes me happy to be working outside. Eventually I am going to need to find a job, but for now I'll be happy cutting trees and digging up rocks and whatever else I can find to do outside. I'll gain some strength from the green covered earth of Vermont. That doesn't sound as good, perhaps I'll name our yard Tara.

To Have and Have Not

Today is the final day of regular classes for my undergraduate experience. I am pleased. If you have read my post previous to this you will have a glimpse of how the impending graduation is affecting me. For a week or two my creativity and intelligence factors have seemingly been less than what they usually are. Rereading that last sentence makes me think the drought isn't fully recompensed yet. Moving on. The reading assignment for today's ethics class was a New York Times (1999) article, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. It is an interesting piece, so I would like to comment on it here. In a way it is my swan song after a final semester of complacency and just getting by academically. Formal schooling doesn't have a monopoly on learning, it doesn't even have a Baltic Ave on learning. [which reminds me that a long time ago I mentioned an article I was writing about formal education, I will perhaps return to that writing after school is over.]
Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton University, and a crusader for helping the world's impoverished, and animals. He is utilitarian and relativistic in his personal ethics, from what I can find written about him online (http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/ld/peter_singer.html, http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/). Apparently he is quite a controversial thinker. I don't know about all of that, though, perhaps I will read more later. The article on the angelfire.com site seemed interesting, I read only a few paragraphs. I want to comment on the "World Poverty" article.
Singer sets up a scenario to support his argument, which I will explain after I explain the scenario. A man nearing retirement age invests his money in an expensive car with appreciating value - making it a true investment. This man enjoys using his car as much as he enjoys keeping it as his retirement account. One day he parks by a railway and takes a walk. He notices a runaway train, with no passengers or operators, on course to collide with a child. The child is too far from the man for him to affect any successful rescue attempt, except for throwing a switch and diverting the train to another track. Well what's the problem? The only way to save the child is to throw the switch and divert the train? Do it. Unfortunately for the man, his car is parked on the side rail and will be destroyed if he diverts the train. He has a choice to make, save the child and lose his retirement fund, or let the child (who he doesn't know and has zero conscious attachment to) die and save his retirement. You probably have an immediate emotional response to this scenario, keep that in mind.
People spend more money than they need to, those who have money to spend, that is. After necessities are paid for, what do we do with our money? Singer suggests that it is immoral not to use our excess for the benefit of other people throughout the world. In the retirement investor example, the man has to decide between his personal well-being and the life of another person. This is analogous to all of us. Money spent on convenience food and HD television could be better spent on saving a starving child, vaccinating an at risk village in a developing nation or literating (my word) the illiterate of the world. These examples are mine, but the message is Singer's. Those who have ought to give to those who have not. When I buy the $800 guitar instead of the equally playable $200 one, I am neglecting the child on the train track to save my expensive car. And I am acting immorally by doing so.
I agree with Singer, in principle, but I don't know where the line ought to be drawn. How do we determine how much to give? I can certainly cut back on some of my luxury spending in order to donate more to charity, but when you put it in terms like the train track scenario, how much more could I cut back in order to save more children? What if there are three tracks to choose between switching to and each has a child on it? Maybe I have time to drive my car in front of the train to stop it and save all of the children, but I only have enough time to get on the track with the car, not get out. How far do I go in sacrificing for the starving children of the world? Do I give my life for them?
There are probably sufficient resources for all people in the world to live comfortably, so why do we have such stratification? I suggest that the answer can be found in the first of the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It isn't a matter of money or resources, it is a matter of focus. Are we focused on accumulating goods because they make us feel good? What other purpose is there for collecting things? I think we all have the tendency to want to feel good, it is a natural drive. "Feeling good" can be defined and expressed in many different ways, of course. And we all pursue different avenues to reach that destination. Singer addresses one aspect of that in what he calls luxuries, categorized by things acquired beyond what would be termed a necessity. It is very subjective, but I think we can agree that we all do things seeking to feel good, or at least better than we previously were feeling. I don't want to whittle this down into one form or another of ethical philosophy, meaning a concrete reason why people "do" or "don't." I simply think that there is an individual motivation in most to all people that says "I want to feel good, or at least better than I do now." I'm not making implications about whether or not this is right or how it ought to be, it just is. So, we seek to feel good and focus on that. Unless we seek to feel good through obtaining a steady influence of the love of God in our lives, our focus isn't going to be on God.
The first commandment says that we should have no other gods before our God, our Heavenly Father. This means that we are to put no other thing, person or ideal above our focus on God. He promises that if we trust in him and exercise faith he will provide for us. Jesus posed to his disciples, "...Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these" (Matthew 6:28-29). OK, now tie it all together, Ajax.
Singer suggests we meet our needs and then give of our excess to help others. Many of us, upon hearing that, start hemming and hawing (whatever that means) about "what is a need?" or "doesn't God want us to be happy and doesn't buying a nicer car make me happy?" How about "but I work hard for my money, can't I spend it how I want. Let the starving people work hard for themselves." These are excuses and rationalizations. The issue being addressed by Singer is superficial. Sharing our excess resources is good, but it is akin to treating symptoms and not addressing underlying causes. Will an increase in charitable donations bring about improved living conditions for some? I believe it would. But it won't fix the problem. In fact, it could make things worse. Something for nothing does nothing good for everyone. What I want to derive out of all of this, finally, is that we need to change our focus. Singer addresses a problem using money as the surface feature, but structurally it is a matter of focus. The man in the fancy car scenario is focused on himself more than the life of a child. He would rather allow a child to die (by the way, in the scenario presented by Singer the man does let the child die to protect his car) than to sacrifice his material goods. It isn't a matter simply of money, but of focus. Why do we spend our money on extravagances and luxuries rather than use our resources to help others? Because our focus is on ourselves.
When I read the article by Singer I felt a twinge of pain, knowing that I indulge in excess. Can I be more charitable, sure, but a more important matter is where I fix my focus. I think it comes down to a question such as this "what do I want in (or from) life?" When we honestly address this question and take some time to think about how we can obtain what we want I think we can begin to address the structure behind the issue presented by Singer. Am I in this for myself? For my family? For God? What do I want, how can I get it. But even if everyone took a moment to contemplate and evaluate their motivations we wouldn't see universal solution to problems like poverty. Some people would still decide their focus should be self, and would continue to act as such. Does that mean we don't bother? I don't think so. I know I can't change much. Perhaps I can't change anything other than myself, but I can change myself. If I can reassess my life and fix my focus then I think I'm doing OK.
So I try. I think and plan and remember, for a little while. Then I get home to my TV, Internet connected computer, refrigerator full of convenience food and other such amenities, and I slowly forget the starving children and my human connection with them. I forget God and return to self-focus. Until another instance of bringing things to my mind again and I feel guilty and desire to better align my focus and improve. It is a process. Sometimes you've gotta break the machine and rebuild. Once the robot starts laser blasting people with its eyes and snapping necks, do you just wring your hands and lament over ever making the robot, but decide there is nothing you can do now because it is already in motion? NO! You (hopefully) dismantle the robot and rebuild it. Sometimes you have to dismantle your life and rebuild it. It is a process.
In my personal revolution I sometimes have these moments when I realize I need to dismantle the machine and start over. And with each new build the machine works better than it did before.

Soon isn't Soon Enough

Today is Monday. I finish school on Friday. I am eagerly awaiting the end. I still have regular classes tomorrow and Wednesday. Thursday and Friday are days reserved for finals. I only have one class making use of that schedule. So no classes on Thursday and only the one final on Friday. Why do we capitalize the days of the week? Seems useless to me. They aren't people, why are they getting proper pronoun status? Pronoun right? I don't know. Who cares? I'm about to graduate with a B.S. in psychology. I don't need to know pronouns. I've been neglecting to write anything of worth on this here blog while the semester has been winding down. Don't worry, I've been neglecting school just like I've been neglecting writing. I spent today packing things up and realizing that I have too much stuff. When you have to mail everything you own you realize how much your stuff is really worth to you. I'd like to just throw it all away and start new, but then I remember that I don't have a job yet and what I do have is student loans to repay. I'm liking the USPS flat rate boxes, they are kind of helpful. Not helpful enough. They should be refrigerator sized boxes for a flat rate. I could put a lot of stuff in a box that size. As it is, I'm stuffing the large size box, which isn't very large, in my opinion, full of the heaviest stuff I can find. I put clothes in one so it wasn't very heavy, I then lined the cardboard with lead. That'll teach them. I didn't actually do that. But I did skip studying for my cognition test tomorrow. I could do that now, but why bother? I really have nothing worthwhile to type about. I'm just flat out ready to be done with school.

The Root Cause

1. We discussed problem solving in my cognitive psychology class. Getting at the root cause was one technique or formula or something. I admit, I don't pay attention in class. No qualifiers for that statement, I just don't do it. Anyhow, I remember root cause being written on the chalk board. And now I will explain the root cause to our countries problems (analogously, and in a make-believe way). As I sat at our kitchen table this evening eating bacon and cheddar flavored cheese from a can, with crackers, a beam of light shown down and inspired me. The cause to all of our problems is processed cheese in a pressurized can that doesn't need refrigeration. There are three issues here: 1. processed cheese 2. pressurized can 2. plus 1, meaning 3. (I typed 2 instead of 3 and just ran with it) doesn't need refrigeration.
   1. Processed Cheese. This is a problem because it represents how far from natural we have gotten. Our lives are full of counterfeit attempts at reality. Just turn on MTV or any of the network channels during prime-time. Reality is Facebook and television? For some of us it is, maybe not all of the time, but more than we might realize. There were once ideas that some characteristics, virtues and rules/laws were natural. There were rights that were free by virtue of being a human. People didn't need to pay for water or for air. Folks were free to pursue their interests and industry. For the most part we still can, but I think it is sometimes helpful to look at the direction rather than the location. Are we on an upward, downward or neutral slope? The point is that everything is processed, or forced, or legislated. Processed cheese is an amalgamation of other types of cheese, created specifically for its "manipulatable" qualities. It is an interesting connection for us "paranoid" types to make about life these days. With an over-encroaching government (in my opinion) it seems that we are becoming processed cheese. Look it up. Head over to Wikipedia and read about processed cheese and its advantages. See if you can draw some similarities between the stuff and whats going on in the U.S. these days. What reality are you living in? There was once a great deal of importance put on "natural" and "unalienable" and "basic," and now there seems to be a swing of the pendulum over to "processed" and "dependent" and "bureaucracy."
   2. Pressurized Can. There is a warning on the side of the cheese can which says to be careful because the contents are under pressure. Along with our being processed, we are lazy. Does it get lazier than cheese from a can with a slight press on the nozzle of the can? A sharp cheddar IV drip is the only way I could think of making it easier. Maybe that's the next breakthrough in junk food. There once was a time when people had to work to eat. They had to. If they didn't work then they didn't eat. There are still many people who embrace that principle, but there are some who would rather whine, protest and elect corrupt people into government office for their food than to work for it. Getting something for nothing, especially the "essentials" is not good for people. I'm not anti-gift giving, quite the opposite, I love giving things to people, but continuously receiving something for nothing creates dependency. Look at all of the Hollywood stars gone bad. Something for nothing leads to entitlement which leads to dependency. If I don't have to work for it I begin to lift myself up and think that I am deserving of the handout. Then I expect it and if I don't get it I become a little stinker. Eventually my ability to get what I need on my own atrophies. At which point I become dependent on the giver. I wrote up some of these thoughts in more detail back in May, http://ajaxswhimsicalrevolution.blogspot.com/2010/05/long-paragraph-regarding-my-thoughts-on.html. A can of pressurized cheese isn't evil. I am using it as a means to an end in describing how I think that tendency towards "something for nothing," as well as laziness, is one of our major problems in the world today.
   3. Doesn't Need Refrigeration. This is where the analogy gets deeper. Or sounds more like I'm contradicting myself. In point one I suggested that we have strayed from natural, which is bad. I am now going to say that natural, when left alone, becomes corrupted. Cheese, left without refrigeration becomes corrupted; not that it participates in shady deals with people who have criminal tendencies, but rather it spoils so that you don't want to eat it. I just said natural is the state we want, but now I'm saying that natural isn't self-sustaining. Stick with me. Cheese needs to be refrigerated, but cheese in a can doesn't. The cheese in the can has been manipulated so far from its natural state (ignore that cheese is milk manipulated from its natural state. We aren't adding that into this analogy) that it no longer is in danger of going bad without refrigeration. Perhaps it isn't even cheese any more. That's what I'm trying to get at, without the need for refrigeration you no longer have cheese. How is this representative of a problem we see in the world today? Without God people are no longer people, not in their truest form. I believe we need God to survive well. Many people survive, but do they survive well? Again, a very subjective matter to discuss. I'll keep it simple (if that is still possible): real cheese without refrigeration will spoil; real people without God will spoil.
   The forces that processed the cheese, put it under pressure and made it not need refrigeration are like the forces that are processing us, making us not want to work and leading us away from God. I'm not saying that Kraft foods is out to destroy us, at least, I can't confirm that they are or are not. I am saying that while I was eating cheese from a can, bacon flavored cheese at that, I realized that there are some similarities between cheese and people. And maybe that means something.
   This account is farce, but with underlying ideas to think about, as disjointed as they may be. I am living a personal revolution. There are two primary uses of the word revolution: an orbit around a fixed point and a process of changing power or control structure (paraphrased from the American Heritage Dictionary and Wikipedia, respectively). I would say that my personal revolution is attempting to fit both definitions. I am trying to change my personal power struggle with myself as well as correct my orbit around a fixed point. Perhaps I can use the example of cheese in a can to help me accomplish my revolution.

Don't Drink the Water

Imagine we are all together in a body of water. The water is our connection with each other. If someone contaminates the water, everyone suffers, even the one doing the contamination. With this scenario it makes sense that the person doing the contaminating will not do it for long as it has adverse impact on them as well. Now imagine that a boat is floating by. If someone gets into that boat he is no longer connected to us through the water. Now if someone contaminates the water, all but the one in the boat is affected. What if the one in the boat becomes the one to contaminate? He doesn't have to deal with the contamination while he is sitting safely in his ship. Aside from a personal connection with those still in the water, or solid moral character, why should he not contaminate the water? Perhaps he is neutral on the matter and decides not to. Perhaps someone else is in the boat, and this other person wants the water contaminated. The man from the water has two options, contaminate or don't. The second man begins to offer the man from the water all kinds of things that he likes. Eventually, the man from the water gives in and begins contaminating the water. Now all of the people he used to be connected to suffer, while he enjoys his new gifts with the second man in the boat.
Imagine a country founded on principles of self-governance. The people of this country saw the benefit for a controlling body to protect those with less power, while not losing the ideal of self-governance. The governing body would be made up of the people in the water. They wouldn't go sit in boats, they would stay in the water. The governors and the governed would all be one people. Should a person decide to contaminate, the governors would intervene for the good of the community. Should the governors decided to contaminate, the people would intervene for the good of the community. In any case, everyone was in the water together, contamination from one affected all. Eventually, the governors decided they could do a better job from the boat, so they climbed aboard. For a while they were able to remember the people they used to associate with in the water. They kept the water clean, even from the boat. But all along there was a man in the boat, riding along. He began to offer certain privileges and gifts for the governors to go against their promises to the people. Some gave way, then others, until they all were participating in the contamination. They didn't suffer from within the walls of their boat. The people in the water did.

If You Can't Stand the Heat, Stay Away from ESPN

Yesterday evening the most important event since the death of Michael Jackson occurred. LeBron James (yes, I just did a Yahoo! search to see if I was formatting his name properly) decided what team he would play basketball for. I know! Amazing! Some guy from Cleveland who plays basketball really well decided where he would play a game for millions of dollars a year. Unfortunately, I was busy watching paint dry or something, I didn't catch the show. 7% of America tuned in to hear his decision, but I wasn't part of it. My roommates were watching. I was well aware that for several hours ESPN seemed to cover only this one story. This morning ESPN continued to cover the story. When my roommate left the room I flipped the channel to the news to see what was really happening in the world, guess what I found? LeBron James. Apparently in a country facing high rates of unemployment, a huge oil leaking disaster, war and a constantly-bickering-like-children group of people in the federal government the most important thing to discuss is where some guy will play basketball. It's really great though, he scores nearly 30 points per game. I bet you can't do that. As an aside, my friend Harris likes to point out how ridiculous it is that basketball players who only sink about 30% of their shots are seen as all-stars. He continues by asking how long you would last in your job if you had a 30% efficiency rating. Good point. Imagine a heart surgeon with a 30% success rate. Do you think he'd be making millions of dollars a year, or even be able to retain his license? We've got some mixed up priorities in this country. Last night people were cheering in the streets of Miami, the receiving team for James, and crying and burning James' jerseys in Cleveland, his hometown and previous play place for basketball. The whole business of where this one guy will play ball was even attended to by the president. At least he is representing the people. I like the Mets; I think it is fun to follow a sports team, but come on people! Do you think James or anyone in the viewing audience cares about where you take your next job? What makes him worthy of so much attention?
So let's make some lemonade. As I was preparing some food last night the guys in the TV were talking about how the Miami Heat don't have enough money now to pay for a full team. Apparently basketball teams in the NBA operate with 12 team members. Along with James were two other all-stars who signed with Miami. The three of these guys have such hefty salaries that the team is down to 8 players and can't afford more. I'm sure they'll figure it out, but in the meantime my roommate and I figured out a solution to their problem. We decided that we will play for the Heat. Two of my roommates and me. The three of us together are barely as tall as most NBA players (over-dramatization) and none of us have the skills required. Primarily me. But here is my plan: they pay us $50,000 a year to fill in the gaps on the team. 5 players are on the court at a time, so it's not like the three of us novices would necessarily play at the same time. They'd have 8 players for regular play, we'd just go in periodically to spell a guy and give them a few minutes to rest. I think it could really work. Given the points per game scored by these big three (James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh [had to look up spelling on these names too]) you've got to figure that if they start a game the score will be so lopsided by the second quarter that the three of us could play and not lose the game. All we'd have to do is run around and avoid the other team. We could play keep away or just sit on the ball until the shot clock runs down then throw haplessly at the basket. The fans would get a little Marx Bros. routine to boot. It might sound ridiculous, but I think this plan has some merit. We'd save the team a lot of money, make the three superstars look even better and provide comic relief. I'd suggest this as a movie idea, but I think Air Bud and Space Jam have already told this story sufficiently.
And with that I am done thinking about LeBron James. It's time we spend our worrying energy on something with practical significance.

You are What I Think You Are and I Am What You Think I Am

For my ethics class homework I read a chapter about relativism, cultural and subjective. The writing portion of the assignment was to speak to whether or not we agree with these theories and why. While I believe that there are objective rules of morality, I don't believe that I can tell anyone else that they are objective and expect them to take my word for it. I agree with relativism. There is no way that any person can prove objectivism. If there is I don't know about it. That's not saying much; there is certainly a lot that I don't know about. But I've been through enough classes where this topic has been discussed and there isn't any moral objectivity for proof. There is subjectivity which leads to a belief in objectivity. That is my suggestion. I believe in a personal God, personal to everyone. His laws are objective, that is, they apply equally to all people. I believe this. I also believe that his justice in upholding the law incorporates mercy, making the law just for all people, while maintaining objectivity. We are all accountable for the law, but culpable only to the extent which we are capable. A decision that no earthly tribunal can make. It is up to God. I believe this to be objective, but I believe it because of subjective experience. It is impossible for me to prove that what I believe is the case for everyone, or for anyone. It is an individual task that must be accomplished dependent upon the individual's desire and interest. It is subjective. This is why I believe that moral rules can only be discussed in subjective terms among people, unless there has been similar subjective experience which leads to the acceptance of divine objectivity. Murder is immoral because a collective body of individuals says so (cultural relativism), because an individual says so (subjective relativism) or because God - possibly through a prophet - says so (objective). I, personally, me, Ajax, cannot prove the objective morality of life, but a group of people can band together and establish a rule for themselves...

The rest of this post can be found in the Ajax's Whimsical Revolution ebook for Amazon's Kindle. The book is a compilation of my favorite posts, 78 to be exact, of which this is one. If you don't have a Kindle e-reader you can download the free Amazon Kindle app for PC or Mac.

Muse - Uprising

I don't know if this video will play on the blog, but I love this song, so I am making the attempt. Just watch it.

And with this posting I have slooped my blog down to Facebook level. I apologize. I will try to present a more thought intensive product from here on out. For now, pay attention to the video and lyrics and pretend I posted something about revolution.

Marie Curious and Great Friends

The title was the subject line of an e-mail I received today from one of my mentors. He was writing to give me the context of the Marie Curie quote I ranted about yesterday. I'll post the contents of his fact-checking:

"Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."
Response to a reporter seeking an interview during a vacation with her husband in
Brittany, who mistaking her for a housekeeper, asked her if there was anything
confidential she could recount, as quoted in Living Adventures in Science‎ (1972), by Henry Thomas and Dana Lee Thomas

Variant: In science, we must be interested in things, not in persons. This is stated to be a declaration she often made to reporters, in Madame Curie : A Biography (1937) by Eve Curie Labouisse, as translated by Vincent Sheean, p. 222

So there you have it. The context of the quote does make her sound more personable.
While I'm on the subject of this friend, I will introduce him. Prior to going by the name Ajax, I went by the alias Rocky Pinstripes. I guess I still do, but it was a name I picked up in my home life. I am at school now, this is where Ajax emerged. Basically I have dissociative identity disorder among my nicknames. I am Ajax, I am Rocky Pinstripes. As Muffin Man is to Ajax, Bugsy da Spaniel is to Rocky Pinstripes. Bugsy is one of my philosophical brothers. We worked together prior to my university excursion. He was the bodhi tree to my Buddha, but not in a weird way. When I came to school Rocky kind of fell out of the mainstream and Ajax took over. I like Ajax so I don't want to shelve him when I finish school and go home, but I'd also like to keep Rocky around. I haven't given any thought to this dual personality before tonight. I am thinking about it now though. Perhaps Rocky and Ajax will fuse and I will become one new entity. Perhaps I will fuse the two alters and be myself. Which is who I am now. I'm just saying maybe I'll drop the pen names. Probably not. I like both nicknames. I'll have to give more thought to it though. Maybe I'll share those thoughts with you, but if I don't, too bad. I'm grateful to have friends like Bugsy and Muffin Man who entertain, inspire, enlighten, support and laugh at me. Here is to great friends.
While I'm on the subject of great friends... A friend of mine passed away yesterday. We met two years ago in a psychology class. We worked together with the student psychology society. He was a fantastic fellow. Always happy and kind to everyone. He had ambition and integrity. His death was sudden, brain aneurysm. I've been very somber when thinking about him today. It is interesting how this experience makes me recognize how much time I waste on things that don't matter. This friend was the one I mentioned a few weeks ago in a post. I had just gotten out of three classes in a row that boggled my mind. I was frustrated. I ran into him in the hall after the last class and we stood there and talked for about an hour. I vented and expressed my frustration and he listened and encouraged me. We covered all kinds of topics of discussion. One of those deep conversations you have with friends when you start out on one topic and then it just evolves into something entirely different, usually ending up with some simple solution to the world's problems. It was one of those. A great conversation. I walked away with a desire to adjust my life so I wouldn't be as frustrated. If I had been an explosive device ready to blow up, he defused me that day. He was a great guy. We weren't the closest friends but whenever I saw him on campus it didn't seem like he saw me just as an acquaintance. A man for the ages. I'll miss having conversations with him. I have great respect for him and the deepest sympathy for his wife and 5 month old daughter who he leaves behind. Once again, here's to great friends.

The Dickens

A few days back, maybe a week or more, I was responding to a text message shortly after I had gotten into bed. As I flipped open my phone to reveal the keyboard the dark room was lit up by the small screen. The muscles adjusting my pupils strained to adjust for the new light. How's that for setting the mood? Well, I opened the phone and accidentally pressed the voice button and my phone started talking to me. It scared the dickens out of me. I remember thinking that, and then wondering what the phrase means. I thought that perhaps it was good if the dickens were scared out of me, I don't know that I need them hanging around. I finally got around to looking it up. A question and answer posting from World Wide Words suggests that "the dickens" is an old euphemism for the devil (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dic3.htm). Older than Shakespeare, in fact, who used it in one of his plays. If this is an accurate history of the phrase, then I am going to stay with my initial thought, I don't want the dickens in me because now I know that it is the devil. The question now becomes why would we say something scared the dickens out of us when we get really scared? Or better yet, why is the devil in us in the first place? With this new understanding I will not use the phrase anymore. I will make a suggestion for an appropriate substitution: you've scared me like the dickens. I think I will make this part of my revolution, knowing the meaning of the words and phrases I use. As long as there are unsubstantiated Internet resources to help me I think I will be just fine.

Quote of the Day

Here is another offering from the quote of the day widget. Is it called a widget? That's what they call the song player add-on, so I'll assume the quote add-on is a widget as well. Here's the quote:
Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas. - Marie Curie
I'm not sure what is being said here. Is she suggesting we spend more time with ideas than with people? If so, I don't agree with that. People are more important than ideas. If she is saying we should be less suspicious about people and more suspicious about ideas then I am on board. Since she is a scientist and I know absolutely nothing more specific about her, I'm going to suppose she was more interested in ideas than people. (If anyone knows if this isn't the case, please let me know. ) I think we should be curious about people, as the definition of the word is "eager to learn or to know" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curious, but don't go there because it takes a long time to load and is wacky, I hope this commentary doesn't make you too curious). We ought to want to learn about and know people more than ideas. I wish I did. I don't think I do all the time, but I think I'd like to. It is good to be curious about ideas, but I would place more caution on this one than on people. Let's be curious about people and suspicious about ideas. Take that Marie Curie! The quote of the day widget is nice, but there are a lot of quoted ideas that I don't agree with. Which I think is good. Opposing points of view help you to determine what you really think and feel. Maybe not you, but me, I just said you because that's how I say things.
I'm watching the Mets play the Reds right now. It is one of those tense games. The Mets were on the down side of a missed call by the umpires which led to some bad news. Directly it led to one run, which was followed by five more. There is no way to know whether or not those runs would have been scored had the play in question been made correctly, but psychologically you know it takes a toll on the players. Happily the Mets came back to score five runs in the bottom half of that inning. It is currently in the bottom of the 8th and the score is 8-6, Reds. I hope the Mets come back to win it. To which I will say "Take that Marie Curie!" once again. She's probably a Reds fan.

[note: I do not have a vendetta against Marie Curie. I respect and appreciate her work in the advancing of physics and chemistry.]

What is so Great About Change? And Another Thought

Everyone is always talking about change. They say it is good. I say change is neither good nor bad, in and of itself. People talk about how old things are out of date and the progression of time requires change. Why? Is there anything wrong with time tested and proven? I think people just get caught up in assessing the "now" and finding it isn't all that they dream it could be. They then think that change is the only answer. But what does change mean? And how can you guarantee it is good? Change isn't one thing or another; it is a description of what is becoming something else. Changes in temperature and air pressure result in rain, which is good, but they also sometimes result in tornadoes, which are bad. Change isn't concrete, it is abstract. When we cry out for change and hang slogans around our necks, let us be a bit more selective and specific. Don't seek change, seek progression. Don't change who you are, become who you want to be. Abstraction has its place, but so does concrete. I've heard a saying attributed to George Washington (I don't have a source and I don't particularly feel like looking for one right now), the saying is this: Deeds. Not words. We can sing the praises of change, which doesn't exist, or we do the actions and live the characteristics (virtues) that will allow us to become.
I hear two other phrases thrown about quite often, "everything works out for the best," and "everything happens for a reason." Without intending offense to anyone, I don't agree with the first wording at all, and the second, well, of course there is a reason, but there's more to it.
To the "everything works out for the best" crew I ask this, what about being boarded on a train marked "TO AUSCHWITZ" and then never returning from the prison? How is that working out for the best? First of all, saying "everything" or "every time" just doesn't work. Absolute statements often fall short, not always, but often. I would be inclined to accept that often things work out for the best, but everything just doesn't cut it for me. Maybe I'm too involved with my self-proclaimed realist thinking. An interesting aside, in my abnormal psych class I heard an interpretation of pessimistic and optimistic thinking. Depression is not pessimism, it is realism. Non-depression (whatever that is) is optimism. That doesn't seem to mean anything after I typed it, but it has meaning in my mind. I call myself a realist because I like to look at the glass and determine if it is being filled or emptied. It would be half full if it is being filled, but half empty if it is being emptied. It isn't about the state it is in, but the state it is becoming (there's that idea again). I've lost myself here....absolute statements, everything....I don't know. I guess I just think the statement is unrealistic. I think I understand the motivation behind it; it is said as a motivational and a comforting statement. Maybe I'm the one that is unrealistic in my interpretation of the saying, or maybe I'm reading too much into such a simple catch phrase. I worry about people developing an unrealistic perception of the world. Everything isn't great. That's life. It is great that it isn't great. If we think everything will always work out for the best, and then it doesn't, where does that leave us? Calling a therapist? Taking a prescription? We think 'this can't be right, everything is supposed to work out for the best, but I'm feeling pretty miserable about having just failed something.' If you would like to discuss this, there is a comment box below.
The other statement was "everything happens for a reason." Here's the reason, something happened before it that caused it. A hammer falls to the ground, the reason? I dropped it. If I was in a car accident, did it happened for a reason? Yes, another driver was being careless (probably texting) and they crashed into me. Things happen for a reason, that is a sound statement, but given the way people typically say it is where I have a problem. When something bad happens people can be quick to say "everything happens for a reason." Again, I think I understand why, to offer consolation and hope. Personally, I don't think I'd want to hear that phrase if a family member or good friend just died suddenly. Yet if I were in that situation I expect I would hear the phrase. I'm not trying to imply that people who say it are insincere or have bad intentions, I just find the phrase to be misleading at best, or rather the context of the phrase is. I would like to suggest an alternate phrase to be used, or maybe an amendment to this one. I would rather hear this: sometimes things happen, not for some grand reason, but just because they happen; the trick is to find reason in what happened. This is what Viktor Frankl taught. Meaning is supplied by the actor in an experience. I believe in God and I believe in his intervention in our lives. I also believe that he allows a lot to happen because of the gift of agency which He gave to us. So when someone says "everything happens for a reason" implying that God is scripting my life, I don't agree, not all of the time. Again, absolute statements are often dangerous. I think that everything happens because of personal choices that people make. God will not force us to follow certain paths. He will lead and direct us, and I've got a poem or hymn on the tip of my tongue along these lines but I just can't recall it. The point is that everything happens for a reason, but I don't think that reason is always divine. Sometimes the reason is just that it is the result of your choices and the choices of everyone around you. That doesn't mean that it is a meaningless occurrence, unless you let it be that. What Frankl said, and what I'd like to echo, is that events occur and we assign meaning and reason. We can let the event dictate us, or we can dictate the event.
I don't know. These are just some things I was thinking about today.

The Declaration of Independence

People, denied their right to liberty, banded together and declared themselves independent of the greatest empire in the world. It wasn't a declaration based on selfishness or desire for power. They weren't thinking 'it's my way or the highway' in regards to British rule. They were not being defiant to the king as a teenager is to their parent. The founders of the United States were motivated by humanity. They were not perfect, nor was their revolutionary approach perfect. They were doing something that none of them had ever done before. They were framing a new government and country. We can sit back in the comfort of our private homes 234 years later and say what they did wrong through our 2010 lens, but if we do, we do so without justice. We do not know the full context of the era in which they lived. What we do know is what they wrote, but even then it isn't a perfectly accurate picture of life in those times. It is impossible for us to divorce ourselves from our current standards and norms. We can see that they were not power seekers. They wrote the declaration out of "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," not exactly the language I would expect from war-loving conquerors. The Declaration of Independence was an expression of grief by an abused population which inadvertently set forth a model for what human rights are. By defining what treatment from a governing body was unacceptable, the Declaration established what a list of rights ought to consist of.
To anyone who thinks this document no longer applies to governance in our day I say we need this document now as much as ever. The same goes for the Constitution, which is obviously written in attempt to right the injustices outlined in the Declaration. Personal liberty and responsibility was the desired goal of the founders, not total control and absolute power, which seems to be the case in (all of) our government today. The final sentence from the Declaration: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
This pledge ought to be hoisted on banners throughout our country and across the earth. Whether directed to king George or to tyranny in general the Declaration is a standard for "unalienable rights" for all. It is time for another American Revolution. The enemy is not a tyrannical government, though some might argue it is. The enemy is not amassed in uniforms on a battle field, though that type of enemy is available if we seek it. This time the enemy is each citizen of this country, ourselves included. We who have become complacent with the liberties and freedom we have been divinely blessed with, we are our own enemies. We are constantly presented with choices. Some might think they can choose not to choose, but this isn't the case. When the choice is liberty or captivity, there is no neutral ground. Either you choose liberty or you don't. I want to choose liberty.

Read the Declaration of Independence here:
http://www.usacitylink.com/usa/declaration.html

Progress on the Whimsical Revolution Thus Far

Yesterday morning I read my first couple of posts on this blog. In the very first one I explained that my revolution wasn't on the macro level, but rather it was a personal revolution. I think great change on the macro level has to begin with individual people changing and then harmonizing with others around them. It is like changing and tuning strings on a guitar. You can't magically change them all and have them in tune in an instant. Each string needs to be detuned to release the tension, and then removed. Each new string needs to be strung up and then tensioned individually, but in conjunction with the other strings. If you tune your E to E and then begin to tune each other string successively you will find that the tension on the E has changed by the time you finish the sixth string. Fine tuning a guitar requires multiple passes through the set of strings, fine tuning each as you go. After several courses the strings will be in their proper tune and will be unified with the other strings in the proper key. I think people are similar. When you want a revolution, for good or bad, each person involved needs to change independently of others, but still in accordance with others. You can't expect them all to turn out the same, some will be tuned to E, others to D or A, but together they will be in unity of purpose. This is why my revolution is one of self. I can't do anything to effect a large scale change of thinking in society, but I can do something to effect a large scale change of thinking in myself. This is what I thought about as I reread that first posting. I didn't think about it much throughout the day, but in the evening I became very introspective. [As an aside, to finish the guitar-revolution analogy, when new strings are put on a guitar and tuned up, they don't hold that tuning for very long. There is flexibility in the strings and they will stretch. Retuning is constantly necessary for the first few hours or days the guitar is played, depending on how much it is played. Eventually, the strings will be adjusted appropriately and they will maintain the tuning. In applying this to people, I would suggest that new ideas and change in people needs to be reinforced for a while until the person is sufficiently able to maintain the change of habits and ways of thinking.]
I will need to set the table for this next story, otherwise you might be trying to eat your spaghetti out of a mug. You could if you want to, actually, maybe you should. I'll still give some background information. January of 2008 brought me to this university. My brother had be attending here for about 2 years before I got here. He had his group of friends, not unlike the cast of a sitcom. They developed their own sovereign nation, New Massachusetts, NewMa for short. Within NewMa there were all of necessary political leaders. While the country maintained independence, they were still loyal to the United States and lived peaceably within it. The boundaries of their country consisted of whichever apartment the majority of them were living in. The motto was "Brotherhood Until Marriagehood." This was strictly adhered to. I would have had inclusion in this society due to my blood lineage with one of the founding fathers of it, but by the time I arrived at school most of the NewMa'ns were already moved on to marriagehood or graduationhood. Those who remained were working intently on obtaining marriagehood as well. The pie parties, Charlie Brown Christmas parties and whatever other formal events of the past were no more, or more accurately, not as frequent. I was able to participate in a few events. It was just that one semester though, and then NewMa was pretty much finished. The remnants remaining were a rug and a door magnet that read "NewMa main office." I must address the door magnet first. I call it a door magnet because it was on our front door, I suppose it could be any sort of magnet though. Our door was already special in that it must have been replaced some semesters back due to damage, because it was different than the other doors. Highlighting the difference was the fact that our door didn't have the apartment number painted on it. We had a different style door without a number, and it had a magnet that said main office on it. This was entertaining to me when confused college students would knock on the door and then see that it was a regular apartment and ask with perplexed look and tone, "is this the office?" I'd say "yes", then pause, and then say "but not for the apartment complex." I enjoyed it. The other remaining relic was a rug. It belonged to a member of the country who had graduated two semesters prior to my attendance and was off at grad school, I think. He is a professor here now, so he must have gotten an advanced degree. Anyway, I never met him until last night. This rug was a bit of a celebrity in NewMa. It was similar in appearance to a twister mat, only not as brightly colored, not plastic and not with circles. The rug was all squares, different colored without pattern. Dark colors, such as maroon, and dark blue, and some muted beige type thing. At one point in the NewMa history the rug did serve as a twister mat; a unique spinning pointer wheel thing was made for the occasion. Another time featured my brother being rolled up in the rug and carried around, finally to be unrolled from the rug from above the sofa, making him roll down to the floor a la a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I wasn't present for these events, I only saw pictures, but it was enough to make me feel at home when I moved into the apartment and the rug was present. I have been in school for 7 semesters now, and that rug has always been in the living room. The whole time I was told that the owner would someday return for the rug.
Through my first 4 semesters there remained a founding member of NewMa in the apartment, but after that the duty of rug guardian fell to me alone. My new roommates didn't know the story of NewMa and didn't quite understand the door magnet. Last fall the doors were repainted and the magnet came down. I mailed that to my brother. The rug remained. I started mentioning it to the members of NewMa I retained contact with, that I would soon be leaving and that rug would be on its own. Last week, James Johnson, of http://www.jamesjohnsonfineart.com/ called me to inquire about the rug.
It was a Friday night, I think. I was home, sweating in the heat, watching TV. James called and the first thing he said was "I'm at [some water/amusement park]." I told him my situation and thanked him for calling to let me know that. I thought that was all he was calling for, but then he got down to business and told me that the owner of the rug would be coming for it within the week. Last night he arrived. He has been teaching at the university for a while, so he's been in town and wanted to recover the rug, but he didn't know where it was. He asked James, who then called me and the rest is history. It was nice to finally meet the friend of my brother and his friends, we had an enjoyable chat and laughed for a while. We joked about how I was told that one day someone would show up asking for the rug. It was very Biff and Marty-Back to the Future II-sports almanac-like. Only no one pulled a gun or threw a matchbook holder at anyone's head. It felt mythical though. And when he had left with the rug I felt like something had been accomplished, or rather not accomplished.
This is when the introspection began. I spent the next 4 hours after that thinking again about my revolution of self and just the last two and a half years in general. I asked myself questions like these: am I any better off now than I was before I came to school? In the last few months have I progressed or am I complacently stagnant? If I get hungry for pizza over the weekend, should I walk somewhere or pay the delivery fee? Eventually I was able to fall asleep, but the pensiveness remained when I awoke this morning.
It is interesting to see what events will trigger the thoughts or actions that lead to change. A simple joke between two weird guys who never met before, about the mythical guardianship of a rug. This sends me into a spat of introspection. I suppose it is actually quite proper, after all, it is a whimsical revolution I am trying to lead.