"The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind."
Malcolm McMahon
OB
Why I blog
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
“Angry or upset? Try picking up a pen. According to psychologist Matthew Lieberman, most people don't think of writing as a way to calm down. "When you look at the brain, it looks a whole lot like emotion regulation is going on when people put feelings into words."
Source
Source
Ramble On
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
I am not a writer; I have a hard time expressing myself. Communication was never my forte, so I am going to write how I feel and I hope you can make sense out of it.
There are emotions in life that are deep and subtle, covered up by many layers of our consciousness. There is an art to expression: chiefly avoiding over-expression, but at the same time to convey it justly. Maybe because it is so inscrutable, that by definition it is hard to articulate or maybe because we are muted by the intensity of the emotion that we lack the ability.
I want to go further, not only is it hard but it is inequitable.
We express ourselves through the arts. We try and do it justice; we try to avoid degrading it by mere common words. If you do use vernacular it lacks the romantic appeal, and in the end it does not express. We stand at the nexus of staying true to the source while at the same time giving it its due light.
Most people lack the sensitivity to understand this; they over express an emotion, it is the cause or the effect of lacking perception, lacking depth. They truly do not feel, and therefore they can express. So in the end it is not hard or unjust but reality, if you can see the bottom you are at the shallow end.
It might all depends on whether it is a subjective or objective emotion, but either way wordiness is not fair, it is not elegant, and not graceful.
What inspired me to write this?
Mumbai.
Reading all the reports and news and memorials, I came to realize that it hurt me; I was made to feel part of a PR campaign rather than truly feeling hurt. I came to think that the masses were made out to be TV viewers being sold a product “as seen on TV”. And they sell it to you by saying it over and over and over again, their goal merely to ingrain it into your head, so that you should lack the awareness to realize the product for what it is.
Do we have to do that to them? We have over-expressed it, and therefore we have cheapened them. Expression is a means to end, not the end itself. People forget that sometimes.
There are emotions in life that are deep and subtle, covered up by many layers of our consciousness. There is an art to expression: chiefly avoiding over-expression, but at the same time to convey it justly. Maybe because it is so inscrutable, that by definition it is hard to articulate or maybe because we are muted by the intensity of the emotion that we lack the ability.
I want to go further, not only is it hard but it is inequitable.
We express ourselves through the arts. We try and do it justice; we try to avoid degrading it by mere common words. If you do use vernacular it lacks the romantic appeal, and in the end it does not express. We stand at the nexus of staying true to the source while at the same time giving it its due light.
Most people lack the sensitivity to understand this; they over express an emotion, it is the cause or the effect of lacking perception, lacking depth. They truly do not feel, and therefore they can express. So in the end it is not hard or unjust but reality, if you can see the bottom you are at the shallow end.
It might all depends on whether it is a subjective or objective emotion, but either way wordiness is not fair, it is not elegant, and not graceful.
What inspired me to write this?
Mumbai.
Reading all the reports and news and memorials, I came to realize that it hurt me; I was made to feel part of a PR campaign rather than truly feeling hurt. I came to think that the masses were made out to be TV viewers being sold a product “as seen on TV”. And they sell it to you by saying it over and over and over again, their goal merely to ingrain it into your head, so that you should lack the awareness to realize the product for what it is.
Do we have to do that to them? We have over-expressed it, and therefore we have cheapened them. Expression is a means to end, not the end itself. People forget that sometimes.
There is a reason.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Dont talk of love,
But Ive heard the words before;
Its sleeping in my memory.
I wont disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.
“Nashim daatam kaalos”- TRS
Monday, February 16, 2009
I have learned a lot of Gemara and Halacha, and every time I come across a sexist statement I cringe. Truth be told the Torah is full of sexist remarks, and it is hard believing is something that clearly does not make sense.
Last year I and my good friend Schenur were learning about woman testifying before a court, and how they are not believed unless they state the information by way of gossip or chit-chat.
We got into a whole discussion if my hypothetical wife saw a murder and she wanted to testify in Beis Din, can we say today she would not be accepted? How does that make sense? I know her (hypothetically) to be a trustable source; I know that she is brilliant, what would I say?
It was a tough one; we started discussing a lot of social and scientific claims in Judaism that do not make much sense. The problem is that they claim it empirically true or they claim it based on rational, not on Torah which we supposedly could slime out and say it does not necessary have to be reasonable.
I am not a feminist; I do not agree with everything the movement stands for. But like Voltaire said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
It really felt good to read seforim blog’s post about how we have changed, and that maybe even Torah would agree today that woman are equal in this regard.
I think that anybody who says these sexist statements based on Gemara or Poskim should really think twice if they are embarrassing our Chachomim. It is a Chillul Hashem and might be against Torah to state their opinions as if it is relevant today. (Just look at all the Anti-Semitic blogs and sites that use this as ammo)
Seforim blog:
“The fact is that earlier generations often thought very differently about things. For example, we are much more sensitive to matters such as human rights than they were. They took slavery for granted, while the very concept of owning another person is the most detestable thing imaginable to us. Followers of R. Kook will put all of this in a religious framework, and see it as humanity's development as it gets closer to the Messianic era”
“As noted already, I have observed this personally when haredi figures, and not only of the kiruv variety, have asserted that certain ideas and concepts are in opposition to Jewish values, and have then been flustered when I showed them that great figures of the past have actually put forth what today is regarded, even in the haredi world, as immoral statements.”
“These are incredible words. R. Kook was also "confident that if a particular moral intuition reflecting the divine will achieves widespread popularity, it will no doubt enable the halakhic authorities to find genuine textual basis for their new understanding.”
Last year I and my good friend Schenur were learning about woman testifying before a court, and how they are not believed unless they state the information by way of gossip or chit-chat.
We got into a whole discussion if my hypothetical wife saw a murder and she wanted to testify in Beis Din, can we say today she would not be accepted? How does that make sense? I know her (hypothetically) to be a trustable source; I know that she is brilliant, what would I say?
It was a tough one; we started discussing a lot of social and scientific claims in Judaism that do not make much sense. The problem is that they claim it empirically true or they claim it based on rational, not on Torah which we supposedly could slime out and say it does not necessary have to be reasonable.
I am not a feminist; I do not agree with everything the movement stands for. But like Voltaire said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
It really felt good to read seforim blog’s post about how we have changed, and that maybe even Torah would agree today that woman are equal in this regard.
I think that anybody who says these sexist statements based on Gemara or Poskim should really think twice if they are embarrassing our Chachomim. It is a Chillul Hashem and might be against Torah to state their opinions as if it is relevant today. (Just look at all the Anti-Semitic blogs and sites that use this as ammo)
Seforim blog:
“The fact is that earlier generations often thought very differently about things. For example, we are much more sensitive to matters such as human rights than they were. They took slavery for granted, while the very concept of owning another person is the most detestable thing imaginable to us. Followers of R. Kook will put all of this in a religious framework, and see it as humanity's development as it gets closer to the Messianic era”
“As noted already, I have observed this personally when haredi figures, and not only of the kiruv variety, have asserted that certain ideas and concepts are in opposition to Jewish values, and have then been flustered when I showed them that great figures of the past have actually put forth what today is regarded, even in the haredi world, as immoral statements.”
“These are incredible words. R. Kook was also "confident that if a particular moral intuition reflecting the divine will achieves widespread popularity, it will no doubt enable the halakhic authorities to find genuine textual basis for their new understanding.”
Birth Control
When discussing birth control methods with the girls in their school, the teachers tell them that if they go on the pill that it will affect fertility; they will have a harder time conceiving later on. Naturally the girls believe the teachers because we have a natural bias of appealing to authority.
When hearing this from girls I know, I laughed, telling them it is an old wives tale and they are just using their normal scare tactics. They turned to me wonderingly, as if who I am to know the mechanism of a woman better than their teachers?
To which i replied: Google it!
Sure enough, all doctors agree that the information so far conclusively proves there is no effect, that by their knowledge of biology it ought not to affect fertility.Msnbc/Past Pill Use Doesn't Lower Fertility
The lesson I learned was that these old teachers do not yet realize that the facts they state can easily be checked up and verified, they have no clue that we live in an information age, which can take seconds to find out if it is true, that by stating old fictional tales they are ruining their credibility.
It is sad that we have such teachers educating our kids. I hope my wife is smarter than this; that we can have an open conversation about the wrongs and rights rather than me debunking all the tales she heard in seminary. I dream.
Why do they feel the need to scare the girls, do they think it will work? Has it ever worked?
I guess that is an historical question, going back to witches and spells.
Update: I was wrong in stating that they teach girls about BC and its effects. I take solace in knowing that they would.
When hearing this from girls I know, I laughed, telling them it is an old wives tale and they are just using their normal scare tactics. They turned to me wonderingly, as if who I am to know the mechanism of a woman better than their teachers?
To which i replied: Google it!
Sure enough, all doctors agree that the information so far conclusively proves there is no effect, that by their knowledge of biology it ought not to affect fertility.Msnbc/Past Pill Use Doesn't Lower Fertility
The lesson I learned was that these old teachers do not yet realize that the facts they state can easily be checked up and verified, they have no clue that we live in an information age, which can take seconds to find out if it is true, that by stating old fictional tales they are ruining their credibility.
It is sad that we have such teachers educating our kids. I hope my wife is smarter than this; that we can have an open conversation about the wrongs and rights rather than me debunking all the tales she heard in seminary. I dream.
Why do they feel the need to scare the girls, do they think it will work? Has it ever worked?
I guess that is an historical question, going back to witches and spells.
Update: I was wrong in stating that they teach girls about BC and its effects. I take solace in knowing that they would.
Rationality
Sunday, February 15, 2009
"Poets, philosophers, acidheads, salesmen: everybody wants to know, 'What is Reality?' Some say it's a vast Unknowable so astounding and raw and naked that it grips the human mind and shakes it like a puppy shakes a rag doll. A lot of good that does us."
-- The Book of the SubGenius
Source
-- The Book of the SubGenius
Source
Peace Of Mind
I went to L’Chaim last night, it seems like I am at one every night, what is with all these people and getting married?
We got to talking about the economy; I came to realize how little this person knew about basic economic laws. People really have no clue, they hear Rush Limbaugh on the radio and they think they are the next Adam Smith. Why are we like this?
It gravels me that people can walk through life without basic knowledge. How can this be right? I just went on using the Socratic Method, it was funny.
I hate socializing. It is boring, people just end up repeating what they heard, I end up getting angry at peoples lack of knowledge and basic thinking skills, and I lack patience for foolishness and incoherence. I am doomed to isolation.
I hate people like TRS, they retell stories I heard a thousand times, like there is some bit if revelation every time they say it. Hey, did you know I can read the same story books that you do, and faster?
What do I like about socializing?
I think meeting unique stupidity, contrary to my opinion a few years ago, stupid minds to not think alike.
This reminds me of my smicha companion, I miss him.
We got to talking about the economy; I came to realize how little this person knew about basic economic laws. People really have no clue, they hear Rush Limbaugh on the radio and they think they are the next Adam Smith. Why are we like this?
It gravels me that people can walk through life without basic knowledge. How can this be right? I just went on using the Socratic Method, it was funny.
I hate socializing. It is boring, people just end up repeating what they heard, I end up getting angry at peoples lack of knowledge and basic thinking skills, and I lack patience for foolishness and incoherence. I am doomed to isolation.
I hate people like TRS, they retell stories I heard a thousand times, like there is some bit if revelation every time they say it. Hey, did you know I can read the same story books that you do, and faster?
What do I like about socializing?
I think meeting unique stupidity, contrary to my opinion a few years ago, stupid minds to not think alike.
This reminds me of my smicha companion, I miss him.
Scary
Carl Orff - Carmina Burana - O Fortuna
Fate, in health
and virtue,
is against me
driven on
and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour
without delay
pluck the vibrating strings;
since Fate
strikes down the strong man,
everyone weep with me!
Jack it up,savor the beauty.
G-D
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What I consider the strongest argument for G-D, debated:
Jerry A. Coyne;
Miller raises another argument also used by creationists and theists as proof of celestial design: the so-called "fine tuning of the universe." It turns out that the existence of a universe that permits life as we know it depends heavily on the size of certain constants in the laws of physics. If, for example, the charge of the electron were slightly different, or if the disparity in mass between a proton and a neutron were slightly larger, or if other constants varied by more than a few percent, the universe would differ in important ways. Stars would not live long enough to allow life to emerge and evolve, there would be no solar systems, and the universe would lack the elements and the complex chemistry necessary for building organisms. In other words, we inhabit what is called a "Goldilocks universe," where nature's laws are just right to allow life to evolve and to thrive. This observation is called "the anthropic principle.".........
........Also, scientists have other explanations, ones based on reason rather than on faith. Perhaps some day, when we have a "theory of everything" that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe. Alternatively, there are intriguing "multiverse" theories that invoke the appearance of many universes, each with different physical laws; and we could have evolved only in one whose laws permit life. The physicist Lee Smolin has suggested a fascinating version of multiverse theory. Drawing a parallel with natural selection among organisms, Smolin proposed that physical constants of universes actually evolve by a type of "cosmological selection" among universes. It turns out that each black hole--and there are millions in our universe--might give rise to a new universe, and these new universes could have physical constants different from those of their ancestors. (This is analogous to mutation in biological evolution.) And universes with physical constants close to the ones we see today happen to be better at producing more black holes, which in turn produce more universes. (This resembles natural selection.) Eventually this process yields a population of universes enriched in those having just the right properties to produce stars (the source of black holes), planets, and life. Smolin's theory immensely raises the odds that life could appear.
KENNETH R. MILLER Responds:
For someone so insistent on empirical evidence, Coyne is remarkably quick to invoke faith when it suits his purposes. Realizing that the anthropic principle could indeed be seen as friendly to religion, he knows he just doesn't have enough evidence to reject it. So Coyne dreams that "perhaps some day, when we have a ‘theory of everything' that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe." Indeed. Perhaps we will. But even if we achieve that theory, we will still have to ask where the laws and principles of that theory come from, something that even Coyne at his speculative and hopeful best does not seem to appreciate............
.....Coyne's entire critique, then, is based upon an unspoken assumption he expects his readers to share, namely, that science is the only legitimate form of knowledge. To Coyne, any deviation from that view is an adulterous contradiction of the sacred scientific vow to exclude any possibility of the spiritual, not just from one's scientific work, but from the entirety of one's philosophical world view.
With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, that is nonsense. One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question, one in which Coyne seems to have no interest. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and if existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering........
Miller
Coyne
Jerry A. Coyne;
Miller raises another argument also used by creationists and theists as proof of celestial design: the so-called "fine tuning of the universe." It turns out that the existence of a universe that permits life as we know it depends heavily on the size of certain constants in the laws of physics. If, for example, the charge of the electron were slightly different, or if the disparity in mass between a proton and a neutron were slightly larger, or if other constants varied by more than a few percent, the universe would differ in important ways. Stars would not live long enough to allow life to emerge and evolve, there would be no solar systems, and the universe would lack the elements and the complex chemistry necessary for building organisms. In other words, we inhabit what is called a "Goldilocks universe," where nature's laws are just right to allow life to evolve and to thrive. This observation is called "the anthropic principle.".........
........Also, scientists have other explanations, ones based on reason rather than on faith. Perhaps some day, when we have a "theory of everything" that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe. Alternatively, there are intriguing "multiverse" theories that invoke the appearance of many universes, each with different physical laws; and we could have evolved only in one whose laws permit life. The physicist Lee Smolin has suggested a fascinating version of multiverse theory. Drawing a parallel with natural selection among organisms, Smolin proposed that physical constants of universes actually evolve by a type of "cosmological selection" among universes. It turns out that each black hole--and there are millions in our universe--might give rise to a new universe, and these new universes could have physical constants different from those of their ancestors. (This is analogous to mutation in biological evolution.) And universes with physical constants close to the ones we see today happen to be better at producing more black holes, which in turn produce more universes. (This resembles natural selection.) Eventually this process yields a population of universes enriched in those having just the right properties to produce stars (the source of black holes), planets, and life. Smolin's theory immensely raises the odds that life could appear.
KENNETH R. MILLER Responds:
For someone so insistent on empirical evidence, Coyne is remarkably quick to invoke faith when it suits his purposes. Realizing that the anthropic principle could indeed be seen as friendly to religion, he knows he just doesn't have enough evidence to reject it. So Coyne dreams that "perhaps some day, when we have a ‘theory of everything' that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe." Indeed. Perhaps we will. But even if we achieve that theory, we will still have to ask where the laws and principles of that theory come from, something that even Coyne at his speculative and hopeful best does not seem to appreciate............
.....Coyne's entire critique, then, is based upon an unspoken assumption he expects his readers to share, namely, that science is the only legitimate form of knowledge. To Coyne, any deviation from that view is an adulterous contradiction of the sacred scientific vow to exclude any possibility of the spiritual, not just from one's scientific work, but from the entirety of one's philosophical world view.
With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, that is nonsense. One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question, one in which Coyne seems to have no interest. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and if existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering........
Miller
Coyne
Hole in my soul.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
I drank a lot last night, I got really intoxicated. Truth is I am not a big fan of alcohol for obvious reasons, but I do believe once in a while it is good to let your deep conscious spill out. We all need a release at times, leave ones overly calculated thought and into the realm of pure self. Some will obviously disagree with me, saying the negative outweighs the positive.
Anyway I got so drunk and then came the sick part. I was throwing up like crazy. It was an amazing experience, pain gives man such perspective. It was a microcosm of life. The issues of life are stifling and I have thus far been unable to resolve it. I just sit and pray that it end. That I be redeemed of what pains me.
I find life to be afflictive; I am searching for something of which I do not know. People throw themselves to learning, some to art, and others to demigods. Those have been temporary simply because I think there is something greater to perceive, of which no one can point the way. I am fooling myself, I have yet to realized that this is it; this is what we have, nothing more and nothing less. What you see is what you get. That is the most depressing thought of all.
I am angry at the world for what it has to offer. Maybe I hate the world because I hate myself; there are just too many theories to verify.
Anyway I got so drunk and then came the sick part. I was throwing up like crazy. It was an amazing experience, pain gives man such perspective. It was a microcosm of life. The issues of life are stifling and I have thus far been unable to resolve it. I just sit and pray that it end. That I be redeemed of what pains me.
I find life to be afflictive; I am searching for something of which I do not know. People throw themselves to learning, some to art, and others to demigods. Those have been temporary simply because I think there is something greater to perceive, of which no one can point the way. I am fooling myself, I have yet to realized that this is it; this is what we have, nothing more and nothing less. What you see is what you get. That is the most depressing thought of all.
I am angry at the world for what it has to offer. Maybe I hate the world because I hate myself; there are just too many theories to verify.
Chof Beis Shvat
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Since I am a football fan I am going to start off with a football analogy and go from there.
There are times in a game when a player does something mediocre; say he makes a nice tackle, no biggie. Then he starts celebrating like he won the lottery, he does this whole dance and he makes this whole hoopla, sometimes they fake pantsing themselves, sometimes it is just weird what they do. Well when I see this type of stuff it annoys me. When people make a big deal out of nothing it pisses me off. I guess it just shows that we are idiots for blowing things out of proportion.
Chof Beis Shvat is one of those things we make a mountain out of a molehill. The reality is that a miniscule of people spoke to her, and even less had anything remotely called a relationship with her. She did nothing publicly for the sake of Lubavitch, that is to say no one spoke to her on public matters, she had nothing to do with community affairs period, and we go and make a big deal out of it like she was G-D’s gift to mankind.
Now if there was a precedent for it, celebrating the memory of our leader’s wives, I would understand. But we never did, even the wives of Rabbaim that Chassidim used to visit, and ones that sacrificed their lives for their husbands no one says peep, why?
I think the aristocratic people of Chabad created the holiday to parade their “amazing” relationship that they had with the Rebbatzin, as if they are elite. I am whining.
There are times in a game when a player does something mediocre; say he makes a nice tackle, no biggie. Then he starts celebrating like he won the lottery, he does this whole dance and he makes this whole hoopla, sometimes they fake pantsing themselves, sometimes it is just weird what they do. Well when I see this type of stuff it annoys me. When people make a big deal out of nothing it pisses me off. I guess it just shows that we are idiots for blowing things out of proportion.
Chof Beis Shvat is one of those things we make a mountain out of a molehill. The reality is that a miniscule of people spoke to her, and even less had anything remotely called a relationship with her. She did nothing publicly for the sake of Lubavitch, that is to say no one spoke to her on public matters, she had nothing to do with community affairs period, and we go and make a big deal out of it like she was G-D’s gift to mankind.
Now if there was a precedent for it, celebrating the memory of our leader’s wives, I would understand. But we never did, even the wives of Rabbaim that Chassidim used to visit, and ones that sacrificed their lives for their husbands no one says peep, why?
I think the aristocratic people of Chabad created the holiday to parade their “amazing” relationship that they had with the Rebbatzin, as if they are elite. I am whining.
About me
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Due to popular demand (yeah right like I am Mr. popular) I was asked to write 25 things about myself (who do I tag? I barley know anybody) okay TRS is up next then;
1. I enjoy snowboarding. It is an expensive sports, but once you get the gear, and hit the slopes, wind in your face, the thrill, it is an amazing experience
2. I enjoy watching football/baseball. Jets, Yankees are the teams I root for. Watching the immense capabilities of pro athletes is quite a wonder.
3. I love playing sports. I truly enjoy a well fought game; competition brings out the best or worst of me, depending on who you ask.
4. I hate eating. It is such a waste of time. Same foods over and over again. And it cost an arm and a leg.
5. I sleep too much. I do not sleep well; I don’t know what it is. My mind finds it hard to power down.
6. I enjoy having a deep conversation about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness.
7. I enjoy watching a good film or TV series. Bleak house was the latest I watched, amazing depiction of 19 century England.
8. I enjoy reading classic literature. I find it fascinating while reading their insight into what makes us tick. Hamlet was the latest; the inconsistency of hamlet and the tragic ending makes no sense. But that is the beauty.
9. I hate wasting money due to a lack of basic planning.
10. I think way too much, and talk even more. One should think but not over-think, talk but not over-talk; life is about balance.
11. I think marriage is stupid, but we all do it for no apparent- valid reason. Blogging about that next.
12. I detest the ultra-extreme-orthodox (any other adjectives you use?)education, allowing your child to be ignorant of how the basic functions of the world works in the name of religion, is a crime against humanity.
13. I am told I am too intense, that I live life full throttle.
14. I always feel/realize that I am alone. Do all people feel this way?
15. I am a bit lazy. I am not a doer I am a thinker. I hesitate and feel self conscious.
16. I like really tall girls.
17. I treasure when people are genuine and truthful even when it hurts and burns.
18. I love losing myself in thought, forgetting my idiotic existence and just appreciate the logic and reasons behind laws.
19. I hate social classes, maybe I just hate money; I think I am a socialist.
20. I would like to study my whole life, just sit and learn new things. Sit and figure it all out.
21. I am not writer; quite frankly I am terrible at it. I guess that I why people start a blog.
22. I find it odd that few religious people play piano or write poetry, why do we squash the creative thinking of our youth?
23. I enjoy listening to classical music, the effect on thought and emotion is unparalleled in today’s music world.
24. “24” is pretty cool.
25. Tex Baby!
As you can see I ran out of things in the end.
Wow these mishathingies Nemo are made for perpetually bored people. But so are blogs so who are we to judge?
1. I enjoy snowboarding. It is an expensive sports, but once you get the gear, and hit the slopes, wind in your face, the thrill, it is an amazing experience
2. I enjoy watching football/baseball. Jets, Yankees are the teams I root for. Watching the immense capabilities of pro athletes is quite a wonder.
3. I love playing sports. I truly enjoy a well fought game; competition brings out the best or worst of me, depending on who you ask.
4. I hate eating. It is such a waste of time. Same foods over and over again. And it cost an arm and a leg.
5. I sleep too much. I do not sleep well; I don’t know what it is. My mind finds it hard to power down.
6. I enjoy having a deep conversation about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness.
7. I enjoy watching a good film or TV series. Bleak house was the latest I watched, amazing depiction of 19 century England.
8. I enjoy reading classic literature. I find it fascinating while reading their insight into what makes us tick. Hamlet was the latest; the inconsistency of hamlet and the tragic ending makes no sense. But that is the beauty.
9. I hate wasting money due to a lack of basic planning.
10. I think way too much, and talk even more. One should think but not over-think, talk but not over-talk; life is about balance.
11. I think marriage is stupid, but we all do it for no apparent- valid reason. Blogging about that next.
12. I detest the ultra-extreme-orthodox (any other adjectives you use?)education, allowing your child to be ignorant of how the basic functions of the world works in the name of religion, is a crime against humanity.
13. I am told I am too intense, that I live life full throttle.
14. I always feel/realize that I am alone. Do all people feel this way?
15. I am a bit lazy. I am not a doer I am a thinker. I hesitate and feel self conscious.
16. I like really tall girls.
17. I treasure when people are genuine and truthful even when it hurts and burns.
18. I love losing myself in thought, forgetting my idiotic existence and just appreciate the logic and reasons behind laws.
19. I hate social classes, maybe I just hate money; I think I am a socialist.
20. I would like to study my whole life, just sit and learn new things. Sit and figure it all out.
21. I am not writer; quite frankly I am terrible at it. I guess that I why people start a blog.
22. I find it odd that few religious people play piano or write poetry, why do we squash the creative thinking of our youth?
23. I enjoy listening to classical music, the effect on thought and emotion is unparalleled in today’s music world.
24. “24” is pretty cool.
25. Tex Baby!
As you can see I ran out of things in the end.
Wow these mishathingies Nemo are made for perpetually bored people. But so are blogs so who are we to judge?
Comfortably Numb
Friday, February 6, 2009
I always said either I am the dumbest person in the world or I am brilliant. Either way it seems I don’t connect with society very well. I am bored with people. There is no fun in just sitting around doing zilch, talking about idiotic things, or hearing someone talk that everyone thinks is the second coming of Winston Churchill say things I could care less about. I hate when people are so fake. They parrot things they don’t mean, and they ask questions about things that they could care less about. How humanity has progressed in spite of society is beyond me. But I think it’s a miracle.
That is the problem with Ultra-orthodox Judaism. It’s hard to change people when they think their ideology is divine script. It’s becomes difficult to progress when people keep aping the same foolishness.
Uhhhhhh if I hear one more story or tidbit about the LR I think I am going to shoot myself.
When are they going to run out of ammo already? I feel like a man taking cover and the chamber of these monster gunners does not seem to empty.
I get it. He was a monumental figure, but why don’t they talk about things that actually mean something?
This guy was talking about the Yeshivah administration. Saying that kids complain they are not getting more love, and that is why they move on to greener pastures. He said you have to be your own man. Forget the past and live today.
Gee brilliant. But what got me the most is these people don’t get it. They are to blame because they don’t teach. They are to blame because they left their students destitute of any intellectual prowess. They left the kids without structure without skills to think and process information.
Kids don’t care about how teachers feel. Sure it is nice that they have a sweet teacher. Teachers are not there to give love; they are there to teach how to learn.
This was said by one of the leaders of chabad. Damn were screwed.
That is the problem with Ultra-orthodox Judaism. It’s hard to change people when they think their ideology is divine script. It’s becomes difficult to progress when people keep aping the same foolishness.
Uhhhhhh if I hear one more story or tidbit about the LR I think I am going to shoot myself.
When are they going to run out of ammo already? I feel like a man taking cover and the chamber of these monster gunners does not seem to empty.
I get it. He was a monumental figure, but why don’t they talk about things that actually mean something?
This guy was talking about the Yeshivah administration. Saying that kids complain they are not getting more love, and that is why they move on to greener pastures. He said you have to be your own man. Forget the past and live today.
Gee brilliant. But what got me the most is these people don’t get it. They are to blame because they don’t teach. They are to blame because they left their students destitute of any intellectual prowess. They left the kids without structure without skills to think and process information.
Kids don’t care about how teachers feel. Sure it is nice that they have a sweet teacher. Teachers are not there to give love; they are there to teach how to learn.
This was said by one of the leaders of chabad. Damn were screwed.
In your head
Thursday, February 5, 2009
If I had to answer why I believe in a supreme being it would be conundrum. We don’t choose to believe in something from a purely rational perspective, nor from a purely emotional perspective. I think it all comes together. Some of it is biological, our hard wired neurological system that demands a cause for all events better known as the principle of sufficient reason, Some of it is sociological, some of it is pure rational reason, some of it is because we fear change unless an equal or greater force pushes us to the other side, some of it is because it gives us emotional support, and I think there are countless other reasons why we believe. Sure in economic form there is a utility factor, what we prize, which the majority of it is comprised by material or emotional advantages. I still think there is a rational factor in it too in that there are questions in one’s head that are difficult to answer. I am not advocating in G-D of the gaps, but nevertheless there are deep riveting philosophical questions that every man faces, and he feels the need to sooth it with religion.
I will be stating famous philosophical reasons as well as quoting from a book I do appreciate called “G-D, rationality and mysticism” by Irving Block.
To preface we need to gather some understanding of what is rational and what is meant by “proof”.
Rational in it simple meaning means;” A justification for something existing or happening” Plainly speaking with have a database of empirically proven causes that cause certain effects; when we see the cause we can/do predict the effect. There are causes that are not empirically proven and/or the effects have many variables. What makes those that accept those cause/effect rational or irrational?
G-D is not a mathematical theorem nor can he be empirically proven. He is like the black hole. So we collect a few arguments, put them together and there seems to be a convincing argument for the belief in G-D. No one argument is sufficient. We humans think with collective proof. How does a pretty girl know she is pretty, because one person told her? She collects over time what a sense of pretty is; and she collects statements from many different walks of life. She then comes to the conclusion she is attractive. Now that might change, and the standards might change, but she assumes it to be true based on inductive reasoning. The value is there until there is information to dispute it.
Which comes to the philosophical question of inductive reasoning; how do we know that the future will be like the past? How do we know tomorrow that the fork is not the food but that the eggs are?
Hume said this cannot be solved. So is it rational or irrational? How about the principle of sufficient reason? Hume replied that we have rational intuition. We have to accept certain a priori arguments, for negating it seems irrational. Now does that apply to the rational of G-D ,Does denying it make one irrational I don’t think so.
I do think that atheism is rational, so is the belief in a supreme being. Why do I choose in one versus the other? Like I said in the beginning it is a very hard question to answer. Maybe the argument for G-D seems more rational. Are certain people more susceptible to “confirmation bias” then others?
On to proof, what I mean by proof is that all I try to prove to myself is that belief In G-D is rational. Denying the rationality is being irrational. One can choose atheism due to it being more rational in their mind, but you cannot deny that a belief in a G-D is rational.
I am not a positivist. I am not a pure empiricist, because I don’t think G-D can be proven as such. I don’t think it rational to deny all metaphysical propositions like the “Vienna circle”. Biology would never have been studied if we accepted only the empirically proven and only universal laws. There are many soft sciences.
Next up; the arguments for and against.
I will be stating famous philosophical reasons as well as quoting from a book I do appreciate called “G-D, rationality and mysticism” by Irving Block.
To preface we need to gather some understanding of what is rational and what is meant by “proof”.
Rational in it simple meaning means;” A justification for something existing or happening” Plainly speaking with have a database of empirically proven causes that cause certain effects; when we see the cause we can/do predict the effect. There are causes that are not empirically proven and/or the effects have many variables. What makes those that accept those cause/effect rational or irrational?
G-D is not a mathematical theorem nor can he be empirically proven. He is like the black hole. So we collect a few arguments, put them together and there seems to be a convincing argument for the belief in G-D. No one argument is sufficient. We humans think with collective proof. How does a pretty girl know she is pretty, because one person told her? She collects over time what a sense of pretty is; and she collects statements from many different walks of life. She then comes to the conclusion she is attractive. Now that might change, and the standards might change, but she assumes it to be true based on inductive reasoning. The value is there until there is information to dispute it.
Which comes to the philosophical question of inductive reasoning; how do we know that the future will be like the past? How do we know tomorrow that the fork is not the food but that the eggs are?
Hume said this cannot be solved. So is it rational or irrational? How about the principle of sufficient reason? Hume replied that we have rational intuition. We have to accept certain a priori arguments, for negating it seems irrational. Now does that apply to the rational of G-D ,Does denying it make one irrational I don’t think so.
I do think that atheism is rational, so is the belief in a supreme being. Why do I choose in one versus the other? Like I said in the beginning it is a very hard question to answer. Maybe the argument for G-D seems more rational. Are certain people more susceptible to “confirmation bias” then others?
On to proof, what I mean by proof is that all I try to prove to myself is that belief In G-D is rational. Denying the rationality is being irrational. One can choose atheism due to it being more rational in their mind, but you cannot deny that a belief in a G-D is rational.
I am not a positivist. I am not a pure empiricist, because I don’t think G-D can be proven as such. I don’t think it rational to deny all metaphysical propositions like the “Vienna circle”. Biology would never have been studied if we accepted only the empirically proven and only universal laws. There are many soft sciences.
Next up; the arguments for and against.
Question.
Here is the question of the day.
“Christian doctrine holds that all of us were implicated in the guilt of Calvary and were, in a mystic sense, present for it.”
Christopher Hitchens
Why do atheist Jews consider themselves Jewish? Regarding Hitchens, He was born in England. He is anti-religion. So what gives? Does he believe his mother makes him Jewish? Is that not itself based on believing in religion?
“Christian doctrine holds that all of us were implicated in the guilt of Calvary and were, in a mystic sense, present for it.”
Christopher Hitchens
Why do atheist Jews consider themselves Jewish? Regarding Hitchens, He was born in England. He is anti-religion. So what gives? Does he believe his mother makes him Jewish? Is that not itself based on believing in religion?
Fakin' it (part one)
Monday, February 2, 2009
As the report came out the other day about welfare statistics and that Kiryas Yoel has the highest rates of consumption and percentage of people on welfare, the conversation has turned to those that sit and learn Torah as their livelihood and take the governments monies. Are they ethical? Should it be this way? What does the Torah itself say? And then the question becomes well then how should it be?
Part one;
I have to preface this conversation by writing about my experiences in my Yeshivah life, and from what I hear I suspect it is the same throughout the ultra-orthodox world.
There are two aspects to Judaism. One is the aspect of conduct; there are strict laws on how to act and with whom to interact. There was and there always will be differing opinions on exactly what that code is. Some a lenient some are more strict. Most people try and stay somewhere in the middle. We adapt to our environment and stay true to our heritage. Then there is a level above that; the extreme way; where every possible “Chumra” is taken upon oneself. Every possible “Hiddur” must be done. Where the people in the community are pressured and harassed to accept a very harsh and difficult religion and creed. Where when in the SA there is ambiguity; E.g Tznius (there is no Hilchos Tznius) they fix that section up in a hurry, and pile the extreme version of every paragraph, refusing to even recognize a rational opinion, or even compromise on their interpretations. And then they call this “Yiras Shomaim”. (Unfortunately when some kids from this community are faced with compromise, in their mind they tell themselves that since this is basic and I must violate them; might as well throw the whole yolk off my back)
Then there is the Torah learning aspect of our community. Throughout our history we have honored and revered the ones who are able and capable to sit and learn. We gave them respect and gave them means to survive. We put a high value on Torah learning. In our history we had little means and we needed the young ones to help out financially. This led to a sort of self selecting group of children who were consensually acute and precocious, to be sent off to learn. Thank the almighty democracy was born, and the standard of living and the education standards has skyrocketed. We have not yet adapted to this phenomenon and till this day; we refuse to abide by the basic ideals of education; which is a universal test, a way of measuring objectively who is bright and who is not. This has led to the reality that every parent can afford to tell his kid that he will be the next Chaim Volozihner or the next Ktzos.
In our school system we know very well and what I mean by “we” I mean the teachers and the students themselves realize that there are elite learners. The elite divide into the conduct categories I stated above. Either they are extreme or they are not so extreme. Or maybe they are even contemplating intellectual freedom. Either way what has happened is this; it has paid off to lie, for the teachers and for the parents and for the kids themselves. Due to our history and the Torah putting such a high premium on learning, who is willing to say that he cannot learn? Which parent will tell a Shadchan that his kid is an “am haaretz”? Which teacher is going to tell the wealthy donor his kid is an ignoramus? None of them will.
So we made up this big lie; “he is not a “Yiras Shomaim”. First it helps the teacher because he does not have to teach, since there is no way in measuring if he is actually teaching. It helps most of the parents; because let’s face it the percentage of elite minds in history in not more than ten percent, and here is the crux of the issue; it helps the kids; because one; it is not possible to change biology but possible to change conduct, and two; it gives them an excuse to sit for years and not work with the added benefit of an excuse; why should that bright “fryak” learn when I am a Tzaddik?
So it boils down to our perspective, our lack of measuring tools, and more so to our laziness. And above all our willingness to live a lie rather than faces reality. That is the world we live in today. And from this comes all ailments in our society; If the idiots don’t know or refuse to recognize the bright ones. Then who has to follow whom? Maybe I am the smart one and you are the foolish one? In OT terms; how do you know? …….Who has to respect whom? Your Smicha paper is just like mine! “ver bizt du”?
Part one;
I have to preface this conversation by writing about my experiences in my Yeshivah life, and from what I hear I suspect it is the same throughout the ultra-orthodox world.
There are two aspects to Judaism. One is the aspect of conduct; there are strict laws on how to act and with whom to interact. There was and there always will be differing opinions on exactly what that code is. Some a lenient some are more strict. Most people try and stay somewhere in the middle. We adapt to our environment and stay true to our heritage. Then there is a level above that; the extreme way; where every possible “Chumra” is taken upon oneself. Every possible “Hiddur” must be done. Where the people in the community are pressured and harassed to accept a very harsh and difficult religion and creed. Where when in the SA there is ambiguity; E.g Tznius (there is no Hilchos Tznius) they fix that section up in a hurry, and pile the extreme version of every paragraph, refusing to even recognize a rational opinion, or even compromise on their interpretations. And then they call this “Yiras Shomaim”. (Unfortunately when some kids from this community are faced with compromise, in their mind they tell themselves that since this is basic and I must violate them; might as well throw the whole yolk off my back)
Then there is the Torah learning aspect of our community. Throughout our history we have honored and revered the ones who are able and capable to sit and learn. We gave them respect and gave them means to survive. We put a high value on Torah learning. In our history we had little means and we needed the young ones to help out financially. This led to a sort of self selecting group of children who were consensually acute and precocious, to be sent off to learn. Thank the almighty democracy was born, and the standard of living and the education standards has skyrocketed. We have not yet adapted to this phenomenon and till this day; we refuse to abide by the basic ideals of education; which is a universal test, a way of measuring objectively who is bright and who is not. This has led to the reality that every parent can afford to tell his kid that he will be the next Chaim Volozihner or the next Ktzos.
In our school system we know very well and what I mean by “we” I mean the teachers and the students themselves realize that there are elite learners. The elite divide into the conduct categories I stated above. Either they are extreme or they are not so extreme. Or maybe they are even contemplating intellectual freedom. Either way what has happened is this; it has paid off to lie, for the teachers and for the parents and for the kids themselves. Due to our history and the Torah putting such a high premium on learning, who is willing to say that he cannot learn? Which parent will tell a Shadchan that his kid is an “am haaretz”? Which teacher is going to tell the wealthy donor his kid is an ignoramus? None of them will.
So we made up this big lie; “he is not a “Yiras Shomaim”. First it helps the teacher because he does not have to teach, since there is no way in measuring if he is actually teaching. It helps most of the parents; because let’s face it the percentage of elite minds in history in not more than ten percent, and here is the crux of the issue; it helps the kids; because one; it is not possible to change biology but possible to change conduct, and two; it gives them an excuse to sit for years and not work with the added benefit of an excuse; why should that bright “fryak” learn when I am a Tzaddik?
So it boils down to our perspective, our lack of measuring tools, and more so to our laziness. And above all our willingness to live a lie rather than faces reality. That is the world we live in today. And from this comes all ailments in our society; If the idiots don’t know or refuse to recognize the bright ones. Then who has to follow whom? Maybe I am the smart one and you are the foolish one? In OT terms; how do you know? …….Who has to respect whom? Your Smicha paper is just like mine! “ver bizt du”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
