Ponderingthoughts..

On....Cages that bind... 禁錮之籠 The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice... It is captivity 在我們社會中勇氣的反面不是懦弱... 而是束縛

Forever

Reflections (of you) Social media works like a mirror. It reflects back to us what we already know. By sheltering ourselves from everything outside our likes, we end up living in a "filter bubble". A narrow slice of reality where we are isolated from anything that does not reify our pre-existing beliefs and flatter our established identity. This filter bubble reflects the "confirmation bias" inherent to human thinking - the tendency to perceive things with only confirm existing beliefs. We stare into the screens and see our reflections, and then we think that this is reality. 社交媒體作用的就像一個鏡子。它反應回來給我們那些我們已經知道的。藉著庇護我們免於一切在我們喜好之外的，我們最終就生活在一個"過濾氣泡"中。我們被隔絕在 任何不具體化我們早已存在的信念的事物 且奉承我們既定的身份的 一片狹隘的事實中。這個過濾氣泡反映那 對人類的思維固有的"認定偏見" - 那以只有確認的存在 去感知事物的傾向。 我們注視著螢幕 且看到我們的倒影，而我們認為那就是真實。

Train (of thought in the overnight car) Our world is not designed to function with radical honesty. Lies are essential to keep the world from falling apart. One may look at this thought and think that it is flawed in its premise and understanding of the human species, but in fact one only need to look closely… and honestly… at ones own existence to see the lies we perpetuate on a daily basis (not all of them bad) in order to just keep… progressing. Lies to not hurt others, to make one feel more self important, build ones self up. Lies to better oneself, or perhaps better larger groups of people. Lies to calm, to ease the thoughts, and tensions of others. The list of how we lie is endless. Radical honesty is most often met with distain. It is seen as being cold, uncaring, unwilling to compromise or see others points of view. It is…misunderstood… in all its forms. Radical honesty would say the world is full of lies, and that lies are often the foundation of truths. And radical honesty would also know that our species is one with a grand lack of real understanding of pretty well most everything, especially of ourselves and each other. Radical honesty would see, know and understand how scared we are as a creature, and how we are our greatest triumph and our worst enemy. But radical honesty generally desires the best for the planet… it is usual others that see this as not the case. 我們的世界不是被設計去運行在極度的誠實中。為了保住世界免於分崩離析 謊言是必須的。 一個人可能研究這個思想並認為在它的前提下它是有缺點的，但事實上他只需要看仔細點...而且老實說... 於一個人自己的存在去看那些 在日常的基礎上我們使其永久存在的謊言(它們不全都是不好的) 就為了保持前行。 說謊為了不去傷害他人，使人自己感到更重要，使人的自我更強壯。說謊去使一個人自己變更好，或可能去使較大的一群人變更好。說謊去鎮靜 去緩和他人的思想和緊張。我們如何說謊的那張清單不剩枚舉。 極度的誠實常與汙辱畫上等號。它被看做是冷淡的 冷漠的 不願意去妥協或是看其他人的觀點。這是...誤解... 在其各種形式裡的。 極度的誠實會說這世界充滿了謊言，而那些謊言則常常是真理的基礎。極度的誠實也會知道我們人類是其中之一 重大的缺乏幾乎對所有事物真實的理解，特別對於我們自己和彼此。極度的誠實會看見，知道，了解 我們身為生物是如何的可怕，以及我們如何是我們自己最大的勝利及最壞的敵人。 但是極度的誠實普遍地渴望對星球最好的...這是其他的平常人所不這麼認為的。

在獨處中我們開始意識到在我們聚到一起前我們就已經在一起了，而那個生活不是我們意志的產物，而是對於那個我們合而為一的現實的回應一個主題專門於一段由於死亡/自殺/分手/謀殺 而失去的關係的博物館。曾經是環繞歐洲各地的展覽，現在則是永久座落於Zagreb的藝廊。這個獨特的博物館非常值得一探，在歐洲各地也頗富盛名我思 故我在 是一個低估了牙痛的知識份子的陳述。我感 故我在 則是一個更普遍地令人信服的事實，且它適用於所有有生命的事物。我的自我 就它的思想上來說 與你的並沒有本質上地不同。 許多人，些許見解 : 我們想的或多或少都相同，我們彼此交流，借入，偷竊思想。然而，當某人踩在我的腳上，只有我感覺到那種痛楚。那自我的根本不是思想 而是痛苦 那所有感受中最基本的。當它受折磨時，甚至連一隻貓也不能質疑它那獨一無二 且無法互換的自我。那世界消失在極度的折磨中 而我們每一個人 獨自的 與其自我。

沒有人可以為他人去發掘這個世界。只有當我們為了自己而去發掘它時， 他才會變成我們的共同點和共同聯結，而使我們不再孤獨

Doubt is the beginning, not the end of wisdom....

Beliefs, Models, Analogies: Part Seven On The Common Language of Science The mental development of the individual and his way of forming concepts depend to a high degree upon language. This makes us realize to what extent the same language means the same mentality. In this sense thinking and language are linked together. What distinguishes the language of science from language as we ordinarily understand the word? How is it that scientific language is international? What science strives for is an utmost acuteness and clarity of concepts as regards their mutual relation and their correspondence to sensory data. The supernational character of scientific concepts and scientific language is due to the fact that they have been set up by the best brains of all countries and all times. In solitude, and yet in cooperative effort as regards the final effect, they created the spiritual tools for the technical revolutions which have transformed the life of mankind in the last centuries. Their system of concepts has served as a guide in the bewildering chaos of perceptions so that we learned to grasp general truths from particular observations What hopes and fears does the scientific method imply for mankind? I do not think that this is the right way to put the question. Whatever this tool in the hand of man will produce depends entirely on the nature of the goals alive in this mankind. Once these goals exist, the scientific method furnishes means to realize them. Yet it cannot furnish the very goals. The scientific method itself would not have led anywhere, it would not even have been born without a passionate striving for clear understanding. Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem — in my opinion — to characterize our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare, and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state. Even if only a small part of mankind strives for such goals, their superiority will prove itself in the long run. Albert Einstein

Reality is not just what you "like"

Check out my Flipboard magazine, Ponderingthoughts http://flip.it/dE4tT

I Could Not Make This Up, Even if I Tried (part one) .... humans and the need for education A recent survey of the American public revealed some interesting (if not sad... but not unexpected... findings) According to the Borowitz Report, in a new poll released Wednesday, (July 2nd, 2014), people rank President Barack Obama as the worst President since the Second World War, and also blame him for starting the Second World War. While the respondents slammed the President for his handling of the economy, Iraq, and a host of other issues, his perceived role as the primary cause of the Second World War was the biggest drag on his numbers. Even more troubling, when compared to the three leaders of the Axis powers during that war, President Obama polled at the bottom of the list, finishing far behind Emperor Hirohito of Japan. “Fair or not, the American people hold the President responsible for starting the Second World War,” Davis Logsdon, a political-science professor at the University of Minnesota, said. “If the President hasn’t gotten his version of the story out, there’s only one person to blame for that: Barack Obama.” In other poll results, the most popular President in the survey was Ronald Reagan, widely credited with ending the Second World War. .... the mind boggles.

In honour of Canada's birthday

What is in a law? ( part one) Deception There is a gap between law and power. Ignorance is no excuse.... One is guilty in the eyes of the laws even if one does not know the laws. Power cannot assert itself as ( naked violence), it must be sustained ( by the elite and the masses) with this mystical aura of the law. In doing so, when it violates it's own regulations ( as so often it...or we....do), this violation can be grounded in the mystical abyss of the unknowable/invisible law. The laws of.. What if's. Human kinds perfect (self) déception.

It frightens… It deranges… It is subversive… It mistrusts what it sees, what it hears. It dares (and cares) to doubt… It acts (even if it errs)… It infiltrates preconceived notions… It rattes established certitudes…. It incessantly invents new ways, new vocabularies… It provokes and changes points of view.

The Real Black and White of this Blue and Red thing.... or... How About We Agree on The Gray/Grey? It seems we have a bit of an epidemic on our hands… it is not something that is necessarily that new in its deceiving ways, but it seems at the this moment in time, it is (in some parts of our globe more than in others) more overtly being displayed. The epidemic I speak of is the twisting of facts to fit whatever it is one is speaking about. Take for example recent events in the United States. Not to pick on that country in particular (for it does occur the world over in many different instances and in many different ways be if for religious, political, personal philosophical reasons.. what have you), but it seems that when a person running for the office of steering the self professed “leader of the free world”, then one may want to lead by example, and understand the real facts…. Or suffer the consequences of a population that (in my humble opinion) has become disillusioned with the whole process and mirrors the leaders in their own person interactions and way of looking at others around them. In short, take out a mirror and take a long hard look at what you see. ….but I digress Recently, it was discovered that a certain person had given a speech in which he bemoaned the 47% of the population of his country that was lost to him (in terms of votes), as they were dependant on the state for their welfare and so would never vote for one whom wanted to sever the teet that they suckle so earnestly But a strange thing always occurs when one speaks about things in such generalities… A little thing called “facts” gets in the way, and like them or not, spin them as you will, if one is not so easily swayed by the emotional thought (and understands the personal place it is coming from), then one (hopefully), would look beyond the rhetoric to see the truth, and the truth of the matter is this: Anyone whom follows world politics knows of this idea of what has been called “red and blue states” in the USA, and in recent times the divide has become more pronounced and deeper than since the inception of that country. So why not take a look at these red states a bit closer and examine those whom are voting for the person whom speaks about such a large number of people whom are not “taking personal responsibility” and see themselves as “victims”, and would never vote for him. Who are the many who vote for the man who speaks about the loss of so many? *Statistically, in these so-called red states obesity is higher because there is less physical exercise being done. More junk food is eaten, which leads directly to more strain on the health care system (another so call… crutch… in the eyes of many in that country). *Pregnancy rates among young women aged 15-17 is statistically higher in states that are see as “red”, meaning it seems that those in blue states tend to have more protected sex than those in red… a strange dichotomy for this idea of personal responsibility. *Smoking rates are higher in red states, as are cases of death from drunk driving. *In fact “the average score of the five reddest states (Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho and Alaska), is worse on each of the six measure of irresponsibility than the average score of the five bluest (New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Hawaii): more obesity, smoking, Chlamydia, teenage pregnancy, drunk driving and firearms assaults. In the latter three measures, the “reckless” share of the population is almost twice as high among the reddest states vs. the bluest. *Despite this battle cry of getting government off our backs… the red states in the United States receive the most federal transfers (Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virgina and N/SDakota topping the list), while blue states like New York, New Jersey, California and the New England states are net contributors to the federal government and actually subsidize everyone else. So what does any of this mean? Well, it seems to mean that people are easily dissuaded by a message of little substance and that instead of looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility, they seem to buy into this hypocritical stance (or are still caught up in this outdated and more and more unreachable idea of the American Dream)… and why wouldn’t they… the person running for the party they vote for cannot even see whom his own party base is. Politics, it has been said, breeds strange bed fellows, and in the case of the United States and the bedfellows of the rich and the poor, (whom seem to think that the person whom actual cares for their welfare is the bad guy) has always been something that makes me scratch my head in bemused misunderstanding and amazement. …. But it does make for damn good TV. (statistics taken from the article “Mitt Romney Rejects His Natural Voters by Jeffrey Frankel.)

Political Science, Cows and You... Feudalism You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. Pure Socialism You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need. Bureaucratic Socialism Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need. Fascism You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. Pure Communism You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. Real World Communism You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation. Russian Communism You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market. Perestroika You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the "free" market. Cambodian Communism You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. Militarianism You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. Totalitarianism You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. Pure Democracy You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. Representative Democracy You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. British Democracy You have two cows. You feed them sheeps' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. Bureaucracy You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. Pure Anarchy You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you. Pure Capitalism You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Capitalism You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral. Enviromentalism You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them. Theocracy You have two cows. You get all the milk. You love God, He loves you. Monarchy You have two cows. You give some milk to the King/Queen. Political Correctness You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. Surrealism You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. Talibanism Nobody has anything. The government shoots you in the soccer stadium. photo via wikipedia