The difference between apathy and giving a damn is art. Apathetic persons, apathists, if you will, do not see aesthetics like those who give a damn, and couldn't care less for the beauty of the world that moves those who give a damn.
If apathy is opposite from art, then apathists are opposite from artists, those who give a damn. This completely turns on its ear the definition of art. Art is, in following with this line of thought, anything that defies apathy. Artists, then, are those who do anything that defies apathy.
Apathists vastly outnumber artists. Their disinterest plagues the world, and will end it, unless we artists do something about them. Apathy needs to either be cured or destroyed.
A war on apathy would be as effective as a war on terror. A campaign for art, however, would achieve the same ends.
every time that I feel a very strong and specific emotion, an elvis costello song that perfectly matches that feeling gets stuck in my head. even if it's just one part of it that I remember that's stuck, the entire meaning of the song conveys my emotion. it's an awesome barometer.
I wish I had some examples at the moment. as they come to me I'll write them down.
I wish I had some examples at the moment. as they come to me I'll write them down.
Once upon a time, in Long There, I went around the Corner Haven because there was some really hot, huge girl. Her thighs had silky skin, cry and weep! Valentine’s day is a scream. So why do I never have to give a hand-job with wonderful tiny hands? I don’t hope what do find engrish and run away for their lives? Steve kissed Sally for money then left after he kissed her. My dog ate a pig that was extremely large? Eat many pigs so that he cannot see!
I've never seen "Night at the Roxbury." I won't ever see "Night at the Roxbury." The two characters in this film, whose names I'd rather not know, are hilarious in the Saturday Night Live sketches that lended the movie its concept, characters, and principal actors. The problem that I have with this particular film is that it betrays the very concept of the sketches. The sketches were meant to convey the caricature of two assholes at a nightclub bopping way too hard, trying way too hard, and aspiring to womanize but failing at it miserably. As soon as these characters break free of the caricature and begin speaking, as I'm sure they do in this movie, the appeal is lost to me, as is the funny.
During the most recent Super Bowl, a commercial came on tacitly parodying the sketches, and it was funny. It was funny becuase there was no dialogue;
it was a metajoke in the spirit of the original joke. For this, I
applaud the Pepsi Corporation's marketing people.
During the most recent Super Bowl, a commercial came on tacitly parodying the sketches, and it was funny. It was funny becuase there was no dialogue;
it was a metajoke in the spirit of the original joke. For this, I
applaud the Pepsi Corporation's marketing people.
college writing frustrations expressed through AIM
(9:42:01 PM) Jake: just started the writing class one
(9:42:16 PM) Jake: ought to be able to bang out a decent draft by the end of the night
(9:42:46 PM) Nathalie: very nice
(10:04:18 PM) Jake: the concept is that we take an object and describe ourselves through and with respect to that object
(10:04:52 PM) Nathalie: ... "I am tall. wine bottles are tall. I am also alcoholic."
(10:04:54 PM) Nathalie: the end.
(10:04:59 PM) Jake: generally.
(10:05:16 PM) Jake: I'm using the house I lived in in portland
(10:05:32 PM) Jake: not sure yet how I'm gonna make it work, though
(10:06:10 PM) Nathalie: go for it
(10:06:24 PM) Jake: already wrote like half a page of one-sentence paragraphs
(10:06:30 PM) Jake: nothing's really coming out
(10:06:32 PM) Jake: :(
(10:06:47 PM) Nathalie: you can do it
(10:07:27 PM) Jake: nahh
(10:07:50 PM) Jake: way too much shit happened in that house that can't really be described in terms of the house without sounding cliche
(10:08:03 PM) Nathalie: hm.. what else then?
(10:08:31 PM) Jake: it's a generally materialistic exercise
(10:08:44 PM) Jake: and I'm not a very materialistic person
(10:08:53 PM) Jake: actually, I'm kinda not at all
(10:09:12 PM) Jake: if I drop something and don't immediately see where it went, I honestly doubt that it ever existed at all
(10:09:34 PM) Jake: then I find it and that feeling passes
(10:09:45 PM) Jake: but if I don't find it, it never existed
(10:10:02 PM) Jake: and must have been part of my imagination
(10:10:39 PM) Nathalie: you are so trippy
(10:10:46 PM) Jake: :) I know
(10:11:03 PM) Jake: but that's really what I feel
(10:11:13 PM) Jake: so I kinda don't know how to do this assignment
(10:11:19 PM) Jake: screw kinda
(10:11:26 PM) Jake: I don't know how to do this assignment
(10:11:36 PM) Jake: I don't and can't define myself in terms of objects
(10:11:57 PM) Jake: there've been no constant objects in my life
(10:12:21 PM) Nathalie: look at it more simply
(10:12:27 PM) Nathalie: you think too much
(10:12:32 PM) Nathalie: and thus are mulling
(10:12:34 PM) Jake: :) ok
(10:12:42 PM) Jake: how?
(10:13:13 PM) Jake: less is more, right?
(10:13:44 PM) Jake: so I can describe a pack of cards while detailing playing gin rummy as a little kid with my mother and NEVER winning
(10:13:57 PM) Nathalie: sure
(10:14:14 PM) Jake: kicking my 2-week girlfriend's ass at strip poker freshman year
(10:14:27 PM) Jake: stuff like that
(10:14:32 PM) Jake: but that's kinda lame
(10:15:08 PM) Nathalie: psh lame is better than nothing
(10:15:16 PM) Jake: indeed.
(10:15:22 PM) Jake: but not lame is also better than nothing
(10:15:39 PM) Jake: and a rough draft is due on tuesday, so I'm not worried in the least
(10:15:54 PM) Jake: like, I could pass in what I've already got on tuesday
(10:15:59 PM) Nathalie: yeah
(10:16:20 PM) Jake: and the actual thing is due the following thursday
(10:16:35 PM) Jake: the 21st
(10:16:43 PM) Jake: so I have time to mull, I think
(10:16:49 PM) Nathalie: very nice :)
(9:42:16 PM) Jake: ought to be able to bang out a decent draft by the end of the night
(9:42:46 PM) Nathalie: very nice
(10:04:18 PM) Jake: the concept is that we take an object and describe ourselves through and with respect to that object
(10:04:52 PM) Nathalie: ... "I am tall. wine bottles are tall. I am also alcoholic."
(10:04:54 PM) Nathalie: the end.
(10:04:59 PM) Jake: generally.
(10:05:16 PM) Jake: I'm using the house I lived in in portland
(10:05:32 PM) Jake: not sure yet how I'm gonna make it work, though
(10:06:10 PM) Nathalie: go for it
(10:06:24 PM) Jake: already wrote like half a page of one-sentence paragraphs
(10:06:30 PM) Jake: nothing's really coming out
(10:06:32 PM) Jake: :(
(10:06:47 PM) Nathalie: you can do it
(10:07:27 PM) Jake: nahh
(10:07:50 PM) Jake: way too much shit happened in that house that can't really be described in terms of the house without sounding cliche
(10:08:03 PM) Nathalie: hm.. what else then?
(10:08:31 PM) Jake: it's a generally materialistic exercise
(10:08:44 PM) Jake: and I'm not a very materialistic person
(10:08:53 PM) Jake: actually, I'm kinda not at all
(10:09:12 PM) Jake: if I drop something and don't immediately see where it went, I honestly doubt that it ever existed at all
(10:09:34 PM) Jake: then I find it and that feeling passes
(10:09:45 PM) Jake: but if I don't find it, it never existed
(10:10:02 PM) Jake: and must have been part of my imagination
(10:10:39 PM) Nathalie: you are so trippy
(10:10:46 PM) Jake: :) I know
(10:11:03 PM) Jake: but that's really what I feel
(10:11:13 PM) Jake: so I kinda don't know how to do this assignment
(10:11:19 PM) Jake: screw kinda
(10:11:26 PM) Jake: I don't know how to do this assignment
(10:11:36 PM) Jake: I don't and can't define myself in terms of objects
(10:11:57 PM) Jake: there've been no constant objects in my life
(10:12:21 PM) Nathalie: look at it more simply
(10:12:27 PM) Nathalie: you think too much
(10:12:32 PM) Nathalie: and thus are mulling
(10:12:34 PM) Jake: :) ok
(10:12:42 PM) Jake: how?
(10:13:13 PM) Jake: less is more, right?
(10:13:44 PM) Jake: so I can describe a pack of cards while detailing playing gin rummy as a little kid with my mother and NEVER winning
(10:13:57 PM) Nathalie: sure
(10:14:14 PM) Jake: kicking my 2-week girlfriend's ass at strip poker freshman year
(10:14:27 PM) Jake: stuff like that
(10:14:32 PM) Jake: but that's kinda lame
(10:15:08 PM) Nathalie: psh lame is better than nothing
(10:15:16 PM) Jake: indeed.
(10:15:22 PM) Jake: but not lame is also better than nothing
(10:15:39 PM) Jake: and a rough draft is due on tuesday, so I'm not worried in the least
(10:15:54 PM) Jake: like, I could pass in what I've already got on tuesday
(10:15:59 PM) Nathalie: yeah
(10:16:20 PM) Jake: and the actual thing is due the following thursday
(10:16:35 PM) Jake: the 21st
(10:16:43 PM) Jake: so I have time to mull, I think
(10:16:49 PM) Nathalie: very nice :)
my first paper of the semester, written for my conceptual quantum physics class
There are three tenets that form the basis of classical mechanics, which is derived from macroscopic observation. The first is realism, the tenet that systems are independent, that systems exist without and independent of measurement. For example, if you’re a baby and Mommy leaves the room, she doesn’t, as you may assume, disappear forever. This doesn’t mean you should hide your surprise upon her return; she’ll love it.
The second is determinism, which states that if enough is known about a system then accurate and precise predictions can be made about its future as well as the outcomes of any experiments done upon said system. For example, if you are running very fast and happen to encounter a cliff, you will fall at a parabolic trajectory instead of continuing in a straight line. The normal force of the ground and the friction which kept you in motion, both forces in addition to gravity in the beginning of the scenario, were removed by your running off of the cliff’s edge, but gravity remains. Good luck.
The third tenet is that of locality. Despite Rowling’s magical world and Newton’s original theory of gravity, action cannot be done at a distance without an intermediary, and that intermediary cannot exceed the speed of light. Rowling’s magical world in the Harry Potter novels has special human beings waving wands and achieving instantaneous effects, a concept which defies locality. Newton’s original theory of gravity, which he urged people not to believe, stated that gravity’s effects are instantaneous, a nonlocal effect that defies the speed of gravity. Classical mechanics is built on local interactions, hence “Action = Reaction.”
Brilliantly, none of these three tenets hold true in quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, which claims to describe the world more clearly and accurately than the classical variety, defies the seemingly indispensable tenets of realism, determinism and locality.
At the quantum perspective, if you take an object, such as a single elementary particle which is massive at rest, such as a proton, and isolate it entirely from all outside influences, leaving it completely alone and don’t look at it in any way, then the existence of that proton is undefined. It doesn’t stop there; if you cordon off a section of the universe and set its boundaries in an arbitrary fashion and put said proton within these boundaries and proceed to not look for that proton, the location of the proton within that cordoned-off area is undefined, along with its very existence. On top of that, other particles may suddenly appear next to our happy little proton and disappear before we look again. Quantum mechanics, specifically through the aforementioned paradox, known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, defies realism in this fashion.
This Uncertainty Principle has another application that helps with the understanding of the structure of the Atom, which is not, as Bohr originally suggested, analogous to a solar system. The valence spheres in which electrons exist are essentially nonrealist, in that each of them contains either two or eight electrons, but we don’t know where they are or what they’re doing aside from the fact that they must be in these zones. They might be happily orbiting, or they might all be rushed to one side or any other or any configuration in between; we can’t know. The best way to represent this uncertainty is to state that all the electrons in any given valence shell are in, simultaneously, all available space and none of the available space. I, myself, find this more fascinating as demonstrative nonrealism than a fictional cat in a box.
Let’s say, for instance, that you have in your possession a lump of Carbon-14, in the form of an unimaginatively valuable diamond, and an impossibly long life. Over the course of the next 6000 years, about half of that Carbon-14 will decay into Nitrogen-14, a gas, and your C-14 diamond will get lighter, seeming to slowly evaporate as you carry it around. On the Quantum level, it’s much weirder than that. Each and every one of those C-14 atoms, over the next 5730 years, has a 1 in 2 chance of decaying into N-14. There is no rule saying that any one atom is or is not going to decay over this time period; it’s simply a matter of chance. This flies in the face of classical determinism.
A deterministic theory would state that there must be some underlying logic to which Carbon atoms decay, but this assumption would be wrong. There is an underlying uncertainty in the universe, and even knowing everything about a system doesn’t tell you what it will do in the future. This is not to say that anything can happen; some things are more likely to happen than others. The reality is that the probabilistic nature of the quantum world balances out to the seemingly deterministic world we see around us to the point where we can accurately predict the macroscopic world, provided we have omniscience. However, experiments on the microscopic scale can only be predicted to the probabilities of several possible results.
The third aspect of classical mechanics that is utterly defied by the reality of quantum mechanics is that of locality. Let’s say that a stranger walking down the street isn’t looking where he’s going and his shoulder bumps yours. The impact of his shoulder exerts a force upon your own shoulder and your momentum is momentarily changed. This is a local interaction. Now, let’s say you’re the vengeful type and you take out your trusty green laser and call to him, telling him to come back and then shine it into his eyes. The laser interacts locally, though indirectly, as it creates a beam of concentrated photons moving at the speed of light from your pointer to his retinas. The photons act as a messenger between the pointer and his soon-to-be-blinded eyes. Since this messenger doesn’t exceed the speed of light, the whole interaction is local. Where quantum mechanics defers from this is that sometimes, at the very basic level, there are instantaneous interactions.
This is tantamount to saying that our universe of local interactions is governed by nonlocal interactions. If none of the other ideas of quantum mechanics are weird, then this one certainly is. It allows such things as instantaneous electron valence jumping, instantaneous proton interaction over long distances and more. However, it seems that this may have no practical application other than being part of the foundation for all mechanics. Because of the nondeterministic nature of quantum mechanics, a nonlocal interaction can’t be predicted in its effects, period. If such a thing were possible, it would allow instantaneous communication. However, this science fiction probably will never come to reality, because we can’t control randomness, only observe it.
In governing the existence that we perceive, the tiny world of quantum mechanics defies all of our common perceptions. The very tip of the iceberg was covered here; this simply serves as a primer to put one in the right mindset to understand such a bizarre world. Locality, realism and determinism have no place in this world, though they’re convenient. The most accurate and precise definitions of real systems are neither accurate nor precise.
The second is determinism, which states that if enough is known about a system then accurate and precise predictions can be made about its future as well as the outcomes of any experiments done upon said system. For example, if you are running very fast and happen to encounter a cliff, you will fall at a parabolic trajectory instead of continuing in a straight line. The normal force of the ground and the friction which kept you in motion, both forces in addition to gravity in the beginning of the scenario, were removed by your running off of the cliff’s edge, but gravity remains. Good luck.
The third tenet is that of locality. Despite Rowling’s magical world and Newton’s original theory of gravity, action cannot be done at a distance without an intermediary, and that intermediary cannot exceed the speed of light. Rowling’s magical world in the Harry Potter novels has special human beings waving wands and achieving instantaneous effects, a concept which defies locality. Newton’s original theory of gravity, which he urged people not to believe, stated that gravity’s effects are instantaneous, a nonlocal effect that defies the speed of gravity. Classical mechanics is built on local interactions, hence “Action = Reaction.”
Brilliantly, none of these three tenets hold true in quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, which claims to describe the world more clearly and accurately than the classical variety, defies the seemingly indispensable tenets of realism, determinism and locality.
At the quantum perspective, if you take an object, such as a single elementary particle which is massive at rest, such as a proton, and isolate it entirely from all outside influences, leaving it completely alone and don’t look at it in any way, then the existence of that proton is undefined. It doesn’t stop there; if you cordon off a section of the universe and set its boundaries in an arbitrary fashion and put said proton within these boundaries and proceed to not look for that proton, the location of the proton within that cordoned-off area is undefined, along with its very existence. On top of that, other particles may suddenly appear next to our happy little proton and disappear before we look again. Quantum mechanics, specifically through the aforementioned paradox, known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, defies realism in this fashion.
This Uncertainty Principle has another application that helps with the understanding of the structure of the Atom, which is not, as Bohr originally suggested, analogous to a solar system. The valence spheres in which electrons exist are essentially nonrealist, in that each of them contains either two or eight electrons, but we don’t know where they are or what they’re doing aside from the fact that they must be in these zones. They might be happily orbiting, or they might all be rushed to one side or any other or any configuration in between; we can’t know. The best way to represent this uncertainty is to state that all the electrons in any given valence shell are in, simultaneously, all available space and none of the available space. I, myself, find this more fascinating as demonstrative nonrealism than a fictional cat in a box.
Let’s say, for instance, that you have in your possession a lump of Carbon-14, in the form of an unimaginatively valuable diamond, and an impossibly long life. Over the course of the next 6000 years, about half of that Carbon-14 will decay into Nitrogen-14, a gas, and your C-14 diamond will get lighter, seeming to slowly evaporate as you carry it around. On the Quantum level, it’s much weirder than that. Each and every one of those C-14 atoms, over the next 5730 years, has a 1 in 2 chance of decaying into N-14. There is no rule saying that any one atom is or is not going to decay over this time period; it’s simply a matter of chance. This flies in the face of classical determinism.
A deterministic theory would state that there must be some underlying logic to which Carbon atoms decay, but this assumption would be wrong. There is an underlying uncertainty in the universe, and even knowing everything about a system doesn’t tell you what it will do in the future. This is not to say that anything can happen; some things are more likely to happen than others. The reality is that the probabilistic nature of the quantum world balances out to the seemingly deterministic world we see around us to the point where we can accurately predict the macroscopic world, provided we have omniscience. However, experiments on the microscopic scale can only be predicted to the probabilities of several possible results.
The third aspect of classical mechanics that is utterly defied by the reality of quantum mechanics is that of locality. Let’s say that a stranger walking down the street isn’t looking where he’s going and his shoulder bumps yours. The impact of his shoulder exerts a force upon your own shoulder and your momentum is momentarily changed. This is a local interaction. Now, let’s say you’re the vengeful type and you take out your trusty green laser and call to him, telling him to come back and then shine it into his eyes. The laser interacts locally, though indirectly, as it creates a beam of concentrated photons moving at the speed of light from your pointer to his retinas. The photons act as a messenger between the pointer and his soon-to-be-blinded eyes. Since this messenger doesn’t exceed the speed of light, the whole interaction is local. Where quantum mechanics defers from this is that sometimes, at the very basic level, there are instantaneous interactions.
This is tantamount to saying that our universe of local interactions is governed by nonlocal interactions. If none of the other ideas of quantum mechanics are weird, then this one certainly is. It allows such things as instantaneous electron valence jumping, instantaneous proton interaction over long distances and more. However, it seems that this may have no practical application other than being part of the foundation for all mechanics. Because of the nondeterministic nature of quantum mechanics, a nonlocal interaction can’t be predicted in its effects, period. If such a thing were possible, it would allow instantaneous communication. However, this science fiction probably will never come to reality, because we can’t control randomness, only observe it.
In governing the existence that we perceive, the tiny world of quantum mechanics defies all of our common perceptions. The very tip of the iceberg was covered here; this simply serves as a primer to put one in the right mindset to understand such a bizarre world. Locality, realism and determinism have no place in this world, though they’re convenient. The most accurate and precise definitions of real systems are neither accurate nor precise.
bonaventure
I can't stand people who can't tell the difference between being high and being happy, becuase it means that they don't know what either means. But that's not exactly what I want to write about.
I came home to Cambridge, MA vote today, and made enough mistakes on the way home that the entire experience has turned into a debacle, which is what people who don't love the journey but love the destination call an adventure. I, however, feel that all there is to life is love and the journey, so I'm simply making the best of it.
My mistakes were twofold. First, I left my housekeys in my dorm. Second, I checked the bus schedule for Amherst departures,
but not Boston return departures.
The first made it quite difficult for me to get into my house to unload my purposefully heavy backpack (if I bring stuff home incrementally, I have to carry less stuff back when I finally return home at the end of the semester) but not impossible, as my mom works right by the Central Square T stop, which I get off at to go home. I borrowed her keys to get into my house, after voting for Ron Paul (an utterly painless process that took literally 2 minutes) after picking up my check from the Border Cafe, my summer- and wintertime job in Harvard Square.
After entertaining my ex-girlfriend for a number of hours, I returned to South Station after returning to my mother her keys. I arrived and checked the schedule to find that I was mistaken in thinking that there would be an 8pm returning bus, and the last bus to leave had already arrived in Amherst.
I pondered my options.
My sense of adventure was first to kick in, so my first thoughts were, "well, I'm screwed anyway, so I might as well keep this whole thing going. why not go to New York?" I then called my father, who lives in Brooklyn, and he told me precisely why not to go to New York. He told me to instead call my mom and borrow her keys again.
Well, the adventurous part of my brain wouldn't give in so easily. I instead called my friend Matt, who is currently bored at Harvard. I write this from his couch at the end of one of the most practically educational days of my life, surrounded by Harvard kids who think they've made it to the destination but are only on one more step of the journey.
I came home to Cambridge, MA vote today, and made enough mistakes on the way home that the entire experience has turned into a debacle, which is what people who don't love the journey but love the destination call an adventure. I, however, feel that all there is to life is love and the journey, so I'm simply making the best of it.
My mistakes were twofold. First, I left my housekeys in my dorm. Second, I checked the bus schedule for Amherst departures,
but not Boston return departures.
The first made it quite difficult for me to get into my house to unload my purposefully heavy backpack (if I bring stuff home incrementally, I have to carry less stuff back when I finally return home at the end of the semester) but not impossible, as my mom works right by the Central Square T stop, which I get off at to go home. I borrowed her keys to get into my house, after voting for Ron Paul (an utterly painless process that took literally 2 minutes) after picking up my check from the Border Cafe, my summer- and wintertime job in Harvard Square.
After entertaining my ex-girlfriend for a number of hours, I returned to South Station after returning to my mother her keys. I arrived and checked the schedule to find that I was mistaken in thinking that there would be an 8pm returning bus, and the last bus to leave had already arrived in Amherst.
I pondered my options.
My sense of adventure was first to kick in, so my first thoughts were, "well, I'm screwed anyway, so I might as well keep this whole thing going. why not go to New York?" I then called my father, who lives in Brooklyn, and he told me precisely why not to go to New York. He told me to instead call my mom and borrow her keys again.
Well, the adventurous part of my brain wouldn't give in so easily. I instead called my friend Matt, who is currently bored at Harvard. I write this from his couch at the end of one of the most practically educational days of my life, surrounded by Harvard kids who think they've made it to the destination but are only on one more step of the journey.
belligerence
about a year ago, I attended a baseball game in brooklyn, new york, my hometown, and watched the Brooklyn Cyclones, the New York Mets' farm team, be completely demolished by the Staten Island Yankees. The final score was somewhere in the double-digits for the yankees, and close to zero for the cyclones. after the game, hanging out on coney island with much of my extended family who had all come up from New Jersey for the game, I took a picture of the top of the parachute tower. it was nighttime, and they had rigged it so that there were flashing lights and it emitted a slight glow. I got the idea to take a picture with a long exposure with a tripod, and got quite a nice picture. however, it was slightly empty, it needed a bit of brooklyn attitude, especially in reaction to that night's baseball whomping. so I, having not eaten anything yet today because I was hit with such a flash of inspiration, created this picture from it in the style of all those real and fake inspirational posters. enjoy.
it's official
for the last five weeks, I have been playing the bass guitar nearly nonstop during what time I've had to myself. today, specifically, tonight, I had a breakthrough. I created my own bass line. then I did it again. and from that moment, everything I've been playing has been improvised, and tailored to make musical sense. six weeks ago, I had never played an instrument before. today, I'm one step closer to being a fully fledged musician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)