$disanpoter

a tyranny of lines

we have been duped by time. it has asserted in our minds the dominance of the sequential, the consequential, the linear. We write in lines, our speech doesn't double back on itself and our thoughts too, hamstrung by the means we have at our disposal to express them, we experience as linear. But our world is not linear. It is not cartesian; it is fully multi-dimensional, and it is frustrating to me that is a source of frustration for me that it requires such a steely grasp on our minds simply to begin to perceive it in the way it really is and to be able to contemplate that our own experiences of it are beyond our comprehension.

Perhaps all that is a load of crap I can't hope to substantiate. it seems to me that we already know that we do not think linearly, yet, we so often perceive our thought processes as such. We may perceive branches in the the thought process that takes us to a given conclusion but we don't see them occurring sequentially – or at least, if one begins with the observation that languages develop words of distinction for variations that are immediately relevant to the speakers of the language, then we certainly failed to develop sounder methods for expressing correspondence and synchronicity among events.

What's my point. I don't know what my point is. My point is linearity of expression is limiting us. My point is we would not be alive if our brains processed things linearly and we should try to tap that ability for our conscious minds as well as our autonomic systems. My point is if we try can we develop non-linear forms of communication. Can we have computers that are not strings of 0s and 1s or are we imprisoned not only in time but its aftereffect, that no matter how fast a neuron travels, it still is traveling in time across space, that no matter how sophisticated our object oriented programming languages and visual programming languages grow, they still must descend into a realm of tyrannical linearity before fulfilling their tasks.

I want to know. 

why are they called test tube babies

when they're conceived in petrie dishes?

I've been sidetracked today by an article on abortion, specifically the delay tactics put to work against making Plan B available OTC.

Why doesn't someone sponsor a Bill that provides for the government or the father being permitted to veto a woman's choice to abort, only if the party can demonstrate:

1. That it can sustain the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant's life until such a point where the infant is capable of surviving in normal environments on it's own.

2. That it accepts in perpetuity all responsibility for the welfare and upbringing of the child, financial or otherwise.

3. That the transfer of the being in question, may be transfered out of the woman's possession in a way that is no more damaging or invasive than any of the abortive options available at the immediate stage of the pregnancy.

Basically, it's of the logic that anything that depends entirely on a body to survive exists at the descretion of that body. Not that i want to see non-aborted children raised and indoctrinated by the ultra-religious en masse on compounds, but provisions could be made to prevent it become some kind of political scheme. we wouldn't want to see fanatic men running around raping women so that in the event of insemination they could lay a claim for custody on the child. that would be really fucked up.

Also, this kind of legislation would pretty much lay waste to dead-beat parent laws.

It's strange to me, but i not necessarily in agreement with a woman's right to choose, but rather the parents'. If medicine could allow it, i'd be in favor of laws that allowed fathers to take sole possession of maternally unwanted children. This of course would have to be mitigated by proof of intent to provide for and care for the child. A father wouldn't be able to sue for custody and then dump the kid with relatives or someone else. There would have to be punative penalties.

if all that was between you and your right hand

was a brick wall, how hard would you try, how long would your work to retrieve it?

Kara and I disagree about the sex scene between Meredith and McDreamy on the season finale of Grey's Anatomy. Actually, I'm not sure Kara has an opinion at all: Al and I disagree, and Kara might have just wanted to go to bed.

The disagreement is over whether the slow and fluid camera style during the scene is plausible, and by extension 'good'. Al maintains that if they were really going that slow one of them would have stopped it. He also doesn't like Meredith. He thinks she needs to be stronger, but it's a big issue. It determines the course of your life. And I, unfortunately, relate to Meredith. I know what i felt in her position. I find the scene exceptionally realistic, because I know that presented with the same situation, even knowing the entire slowed-down time that it was going to cause trouble and confusion and pain in the future, I wouldn't stop. When you're there and your body knows that its that close to a piece of itself that its been missing, how do you deprive yourself of that. it's like pushing away a meal that's in front of you because you know after it's gone you're going to starve to death.

This is why the debate on love rages on over millenia. This is why it causes hatred and war and murder and rage and agony and grief and ecstacy and amazement and bliss, because it feels like our own lives and having it wrenched out of us, that feels like death and danger. Love invokes the ferocity of self-preservation in its defence.  This why our stories hold so many variations on the theme of pschological links being represented as physical interdependence.

[intellectual property] mysteries

i need to return to this later today...

art or artifact?

there is a profusion of little tan tags hanging from the pipes in columbus circle station this morning. is this some existential installation piece a la the bold deflationary statements on the cross beams of the 42nd St tunnel? or are they merely evidence of the overlap in two trasit workers jobs, messages left in a public space because out of necessity or insignificance? i'm intrigued.

also, looking at the massive blank advertising space on the subways this morning, i returned again to the idea that as a monopoly so integral to the livelihood of every less than affluent worker in this metro area, the MTA has a moral obligation to minimize the costs incured by each rider. Consequently, their failure to fully utilize alternative revenue sources is gross negligence.

furthermore, all this construction under the auspices of "digging for the next century" or whatever it is is ridiculous. there's nothing at all effecient in long term development where any new extension requires the removal of and accomodation for such substantial physical barriers as solid earth and rock. The subterranian system is bad in so many ways. It traps heat. It channels noise, jeopardizing the hearing of every person forced to rely upon the system. It's more vulnerable to weather conditions. It vastly increases the surface area of the infrastructure requiring regular maintenance. and it makes it nearly impossible to modify the system to more effectively handle the flow of passengers.

which brings me to economics. i did well in what economics classes i took. it was all fairly simple. cause, effect. variable, constant, ratio, scarcity, yada, yada, yoda. i'm not so sure this monopoly principle still stands in information economies. in fact, i'm not so sure it's all that great in the physical space of information economies. i think bloomberg should reevaluate the longstanding belief that monopolies are the best business model for utilities and the like. the MTA needs some competition. why? because i said so. that's why. 

Huh?

How do you think more than other people!? I know I use the phrase colloquially, but it struck me on the subway this morning is that really possible. Everybody thinks. (don't even think about getting stuck in my head, song!) Even stupid people think. Anyway. I just mean that it doesn't connect for me. I've gotten used to saying I think alot more than most people of feedback over the years from people who find my thinking excessive.

Well, and yes it's true, there have been times when i've desperately wanted blankness and have been almost hyperaware of the nature of my thinking - not in comparison to others, but just the motion of the thoughts, or their dynamic, their shape within my head. obviously it's complete malarkie to talk like that - but on a less literal level, i do feel my thoughts. Like you feel a fever or a rattle in your chest, or fatigue. How else could they exhaust me sometimes if they didn't have their own properties and behaviors?

Anyway, I just don't really get the idea of people really not thinking as much as I do. How would one go about that, anyhow?

Can someone please explain to me

how it is i manage to lose things in less than 60 seconds in a one room space? I can't count the number of times i go to get something or put something away (yes, i do actually put things away occassionally) and lose track of something else in the process. it took one trip across the living room to the sink to lose my glass of water last night and 5 minutes to find it again on the table in the middle of the room. what's up with that?

it's the screwed up offshot of mechanical multi-tasking, i think (or at least like to think), because i know there are times where i realize i've orchestrated a pleasantly complex series of efficiencies while thinking about something else entirely. still, but for the irritation of perpetually losing things in the most ridiculous fashion, it's almost fascinating this penchant for setting things down without any conscious decision about it.

do the requirements for citizenship priviledges adequately provide for the needed capabilities of a citizen?

which is a greater injustice: for it to be legal for minors to bear and retain custody of minors or for it to be illegal for minors to be borne by and entrusted to the custody of minors?

why does it take my tea kettle two minutes to boil water it takes my pot a solid ten minutes to get going?