Friday, March 26, 2010

Time Lapse Project


Look what I finally put together. I thought it came out pretty well, barring the few problems I mentioned in the description on YouTube. Now I can finally dump the 25 gigs (9.5 hours) of video I've had sitting on my computer for a month!

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Social Experiment

I've come to a realization that much of the criticisms I have with society concern the many social, mental, and sometimes pointless games we play with each other. Here's an example of one of those:

While finishing up a philosophy lecture where we watched a video of Noam Chomsky talking about Manufacturing Consent, I heard the common class-ending sounds of rustling papers and stowing pens and pencils. You know the situation: the low rumbling of "packing up" which grows and grows until the professor seems to finish, whereupon the decibel level doubles.

Well, little old me decided to try a trick on the class. I fiddled with my metal zipper handles, picked up my backpack and put it back down. Immediately after, the low rumblings amplified to louder zips, snaps, and thuds. Coincidentally or not, the professor came down a few seconds later to dismiss the class. This was only about a minute or so ahead of schedule.

Now, the phenomenon isn't anything new, but the instant confirmation made me chuckle inside. We're always waiting for social cues to proceed. We never want to be the first to do something, but being second is just fine. In some sense it's smart, in another, painfully predictable. This is why sometimes I like to shake it up. Ironically, though, "doing what we're all thinking" and thinking it's novel has started to become annoyingly detectable, as well.

I didn't want to get too deep into this (though I don't know how much more I really have to say about it); I really just wanted to share this amusing event. It's certainly from our ancestral and evolutionary history, though.

Monday, March 15, 2010

12-4AM + 8-11PM =

This is a dump of the philosophy essay I just finished and submitted. I feel like I could have edited it forever, because the topic was a bit hard to understand concretely. Still, there are some moments of brilliance in here (if I do say so myself) and some dull recounts of texts (which I do say so myself). If you're up to conquering a wall of text, be my guest, but after going through it so many times, I can understand shying away. I'm a bit tired of it myself!

In the words of Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, Part 1). Whether the truth lies to that extreme can certainly be questioned, but the intent and meaning is clear: living a life of delusion can be compared to death itself, and release from it may be worth any cost. In some ways this is precisely correct, such as in Huxley’s Brave New World, where the masses (hardly to be called “people”) are divided into classes and programmed to enjoy their position. This shell of a life is strongly related to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which is one of the earliest, simplest, and most powerful examples of this illusion in literature. Along similar lines, Kant's interpretation of the enlightenment delves into the ways in which society can be arranged to fulfill it. Finally, Bloom’s discussion of Tocqueville’s experience in the United States brings the discussion to the familiar turf of American life. In find the strongest and more pervasive form of illusion to be religion, though these texts focus more on aspects of consumer society (Huxley), education (Kant and Bloom), and politics (Tocqueville). The intent behind the illusion I find to rarely be the product of an active, evil "agent", but rather as a byproduct and expansion of hedonistic human wants and needs. Finally, I again see enlightenment as worth practically any cost; in my view, the lives in Huxley's dystopia, for example, are hardly meaningful. I, however, find it possible to free a society from these shackles, unlike Huxley or Plato. No one text is superior to another in all cases in describing this deception, so each must be examined for its strengths and weaknesses.

Plato's cave is likely the best example to begin describing the differing views on the collective idea of "enlightenment". He visualizes an underground lair where people inside are exposed to shadows on a wall from a fire behind them. Eventually, the people acclimate themselves to believe these shadows are all that exist in the world. At some point, an individual is set free and leaves, becoming momentarily blinded by the sunlight of the outside. From here, many "enlightened" individuals choose to live in this state, possibly with other escapees. Some, however, return into the cave, seeing it for what it is, and attempt to help others. In attempting to assist, however, an enlightened individual will find it difficult to convince the cave-dwellers of their narrow mind. Instead, he will fail the test of the meaningless science of shadows and possibly be put to death: "Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to lose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death" (Allegory of the Cave, 3).

I find Plato's allegory to be quite accurate, if pessimistic. The illusion manifests itself as the fire projecting shadows on the wall, but the intent is unclear. Was there an active agent producing the fire? Who released the prisoner? These are open-ended questions, but as a basic example, they leave room for interpretation. I find that a lack of an evil, subduing agent makes the story more plausible. Additionally, active agents would likely attempt to intercept an enlightened individual's attempt at freeing the prisoners. In Plato's story, however, this does not occur, leading to two options, each of which I find lends itself well to certain forms of illusion. First would be that the cave, fire, and shackles are a somewhat natural occurrence, existing normally alongside the life of a human being. This form is analogous to the limitations of our five senses, for example, possibly excluding us from experiencing an aspect of the world. The second would be that the people themselves forced the cave situation upon them, likely accidentally. I find this fits nicely with the adoption and passing down of religious texts or the consumer society. Plato clearly has a negative view on how an attempt at enlightenment would proceed, which is nowhere. He provides little context in which it is plausible.

Immanuel Kant provides another simple basis to view the enlightenment, with a slightly more positive outlook. Instead of creating a vivid image, however, Kant provides several keywords and phrases to guide his interpretation. He defines enlightenment as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage" (On History, 3). "Self-incurred" here implies that the masses police themselves to a degree. He views the opposite of enlightenment as focusing on "statutes and formulas", comparable to the science of the shadows from Plato. Differing from him, however, is the inclusion of "guardians", who protect the status quo and instruct the masses of these statutes and formulas. Finally, there exist "scholars", considered the enlightened ones, who both participate in the superficial education in mainstream society but also engage in intellectual debates amongst other scholars, possibly in the public eye.

Kant's views reflect a more practical view of society and knowledge. Illusion takes the form of statutes and formulas taught by the guardians. It represents a blind application of facts for profit or production, rather than any higher understanding. The intent seems to be a combination of power and control, especially when Kant references princes and clergymen. As for the ability for society to be free, he is more optimistic than most. Kant acknowledges that individual freedom from self-incurred tutelage is extremely difficult. In this situation, the first step is by far the hardest. As scholars grow in number and visibility, though, the likelihood of enlightenment vastly increases. Masses can learn to liberate themselves with scholars' help, all the while maintaining positions as guardians. This is what makes Kant's argument the practical one: he realizes the necessity for both elements in society. The world can hardly function without work but is quite bleak without thought. With contemplation of the equations you are using, however, new, positive meaning stems from your labor.

After reviewing two simple examples of illusion vs. enlightenment, Brave New World reigns in a complicated, cohesive, and not altogether impossible view of a future devoid of free thought. Huxley envisions a society in which people are born into classes and programmed to enjoy their lives: "all conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny" (Brave New World, 16). Soma, sex, and expensive sports all contribute to this control, as well, making it a successful subversive rule instead of a totalitarian one. The worship of Ford is equally as telling of this illusion, amplifying the value of efficiency over any kind of emotion or freedom. The climax of the book revolves around a discussion between two enlightened individuals, one of whom supports the world illusion (Mustapha Mond) while the other is against it (John the Savage). Huxley attempts to show that a society of happy slaves in Brave New World is impossible to change at this stage and that the best option is to adopt Mustapha Mond's position to ensure the well-being of the masses.

Mustapha Mond's role in Brave New World is a "light" version of Kant's scholars: he plays the role of a guardian as a World Controller that still engages in intellectual debate (though not publicly). Evidence for the difficulty of escape from this society can be seen when John attempts to restrict the Deltas' soma, saying "I'll make you be free whether you want to or not" (216). The Deltas are so steeped in their delusion that they hardly consider John's statement. And sadly, much like Plato's example, those who attempt to help the masses or cave-dwellers eventually die. In this case, however, it is John's suicide (or self-punishment), rather than a punishment from society directly. In some sense, however, it still is the society that frustrates him to his end, just not forcefully (in parallel with the rest of the novel). If any such attempt of freedom was actually successful, it is quite likely that much of the population would collapse: much like a machine with oil removed, it eventually would stop working completely. I do not think it would be irreversible damage, however. Much of the criticism of an enlightened Brave New World regards the "Cyprus Experiment", where a group of Alphas were delegated to run a society. Lower-level jobs were still required from the entirely homogenous Alphas, meaning that many were left unsatisfied by their position, eventually leading to chaos. I find that starting this experiment with bottled, cloned Alphas is the first fault. An enlightened society would likely understand the value of diversity in human beings over the hollow shells of Alphas, Betas, etc. With this in mind, the society could properly structure itself around the abilities, wants, and needs of its people in a freer, more natural sense.

Bloom's opinions and writings on Tocqueville conclude the four examples. In vividly describing the benefits of the university and higher education as a place for philosophical musings, he sets the stage for some issues that strike quite close to our reality. In his view, even as public opinion sways from one way to another on issues of historical context and scientific merit, the university ignores this, maintaining tradition for its value to critical thinking. Bloom then tells of Tocqueville, who travelled to the United States in the 1830s and provided many insights into the average American's mind. He found that, while each man viewed himself and individual, most had the same frame of mind. He cites the difficulties of having all men created equal, saying "although every man in democracy thinks himself individually the equal of every other man, this makes it difficult to resist the collectivity of equal men" (The Closing of the American Mind, 247). Being an aristocrat himself, Tocqueville believes a higher class is necessary to do the thinking for others, who simply do not have the time. These thoughts could be philosophical, political, religious, or artistic in nature; much of which would not be appreciated by the population in Tocqueville's mind. Without these elite, however, guidance is filled by the malleable public opinion, which he views as dangerous.

Both Bloom and Tocqueville have excellent points with which I partially agree and disagree. It is likely quite true that the superficial items of importance in our country today (sports, cars, clothes, money) represent and illusion hiding real, important concerns. Idle speculation is seen as wasted time that could be better spent consuming or producing. Even during elections when great decisions must be made, complicated issues are simplified to the trivially mundane and the yes/no or Left/Right. I do not, however, view the intent as a unified, conscious effort. Tocqueville states that "the most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities" (249). His views closely mirror Huxley's, and my response is to recall my second possibility of Plato's cave intent: the accidental or self-imprisonment. As for an escape from this illusion, the most obvious solution to Tocqueville is to reinstate the aristocracy and remove purely democratic rule. Instead of looking to celebrities, the people would hopefully respect the aristocratic elite's position on issues. Also, hopefully, the elite will actually provide valuable knowledge, morals, and artistic appreciation and talent to make this structure work as intended. In my mind, such a warping of the American mindset would be a task wrought with difficulties, but not nearly as difficult as fixing the Brave New World. The benefits are a stable society focused on supposedly higher goals, but I must wonder if this would simply turn out to be the "Ireland Experiment" in BNW, where those given more leisure time spent it doped on drugs, defeating this entire purpose. On Bloom's side, a return to the traditional university ideals would be a successful (and not altogether difficult) venture, changing young people's mind not only to build things, but to think independently. I would assume, in Bloom's mind, that this slow dissemination of freethinking individuals ("scholars?") would permeate and improve society over time.

Popular media can probably be found to be soliciting a certain agenda, but just what that agenda is and how it came about can be a complicated issue. I find it unlikely that a few masterminds (BNW) control what people see and, therefore, want. More probable, in my opinion, are many companies, groups, and officials working for their own ends, but colluding on methodology for what appears to be a cohesive whole. Certain techniques clearly work for advertising products, such as repetition, and they are adopted, traded, and copied for other purposes. Simplification of messages appeals to voters and can similarly work for commercial or religious matters. Products themselves appeal to inner sensibilities to encourage purchases, again replicated with religious guilt, for example. So in all likelihood, these illusionary structures built themselves up, tied to one another and potentially aware of the ongoing processes, but to say they are all in a secret partnership is a stretch in my mind.

Combining these many methods of describing illusion, intent, and freedom from them, I find Plato and Kant provide a significant basis for more specific and broader examples. Plato's visualization of the situation excellent introduces the concept and wisely removes intent. Kant provides important diction that solidifies the concepts, alongside adding the intent in the form of the "guardians." Huxley's interpretation is a powerful prediction of the future that seems harder to escape than it may be. Bloom and Tocqueville describe more of the present-day concerns, choosing to rely on the university or aristocracy for guidance. I feel we can afford enlightenment in all of these cases, and that the costs are at worst accurate and at best overestimated. As for which account is best, each has both merits worth understanding and flaws worth examining.

As a final note, in synthesizing these various interpretations of freedom from illusion to enlightenment, I find the actual description of "enlightenment" extremely lacking. What is it, really, and what makes it so special? With Huxley in mind, I can see how enlightenment provides more meaning to life than mass production of materials to epitomize overall happiness. Simply maximizing the carrying capacity of humans in order to create the optimal amount of worldly pleasures does not truly constitute humanity or life in any worthwhile sense. The endless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, while being closely tied to improvements to quality of life, is of a higher importance than its byproduct in these philosopher's minds. Today, the Internet makes access to information the easiest it has been in history. But what makes learning "for learning's sake" (specifically not for improving the quality of life) so important? Does it not give the same emotional high and sense of pride that buying a new car would? Who is to say that understanding the culture of a distant land is superior to knowing statistics for the players of your favorite sports team?

There really isn't an easy answer to this question. The best reason I feel enlightenment should be valued goes back to the original line from Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." While I don't take it to that extreme, I recognize that human beings exist apart from other species based on their utilization of tools, knowledge, and technology. The understanding of the world around us, including philosophical study (I consider religious examination to be a red herring), is largely the reason we exist in this capacity today. To halt the progress of discovery is to pause the continuation and development of denizens of the world. Why is the enlightenment important? Because to prohibit enlightenment is to remove humanity from humans, and preventing this is worth virtually any cost.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Playing in a Travelin' Band

I've gotten used to travelling a few times a year. It's not an addiction, per say, because I feel that's an overused word, but I certainly notice when I haven't moved about in awhile. I suppose it began with those group trips to the western US or outside of the country, followed by regular high school football away games, band trips, and the occasional educational and immersive foray into Spain. College continued this with football and basketball trips, alongside New York in 2008 and Orlando recently.

One unusual aspect that I enjoy as much as the locale or event itself is the time spent travelling. A to B, you know? I've probably touched on this before (years ago), but I still don't know if I've quite expressed the feeling. It's the suspension of expectations: the pause of all else in place of being idle for an extended period of time. It's a strangely freeing sensation to me.

What to do with all that time? Much of it is watching movies or eating time with one form of media or another. What I enjoy, however, are those extended conversations with people: those times where you connect with someone else beyond the normal realms of conversation. In my experience, this almost only happens when we're forced empty or recreational time and don't always know what to do with it.

But one further aspect of travel is this heightened sense of possibilities. It's only enhanced by sensationalist movies to and fro that add to the potentially surreal nature of the trip. It sounds silly, but that longing for a perfect love story, amazingly good party, or thrilling adventure becomes palpable when you're so far away from the known. And so is, all-too-often, my experience on holiday.

I remember these situations often in more detail than the roller coaster rides or the tall, old buildings. I remember missing a 3:1 gender ratio in my favor in Europe. I remember my head against the cool glass of a charter bus late at night when a girl takes the time to pity me and have a meaningful conversation. I remember offering my jacket to someone whom I knew was interested in someone else outside a Hard Rock Cafe. I remember discussing at length for hours many topics concerning gods, society, and more in Hawaii. I remember being flirted with on a school bus on the way back from an away high school football game. I remember spending every waking moment with someone in Spain, possibly being closer to someone than I ever have been. I remember (hearing of) mischief at every turn.

Some of these I remember fondly. Others I know would not have amounted to anything permanent today (much less as picturesque as imagined), but it's those experiences I never had that irk me. It's often a waste to consider petty "what if"s, but did I miss something important back there? Something I won't be able to get again?

I'm certainly most reflective away from home. It's far from the humdrum and the norm, liberating both physically and mentally. But it swings both ways.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Busy day, worth remembering

See title.

After going through the usual routine of ECE 4175 and PHYS 2022, I go get lunch in the student center at noon. The lines are the longest I've ever seen them... ever. After waiting an extremely long time for both food and the ability to pay for said food, I take a seat at the long window table. Next to me are two girls who look like they could be a part of this big group that is undoubtedly causing the long lines. I get up the nerve to ask (1), and it's exactly the case. I talk with them a bit about what the group's all about (all-female Connect-with-Tech, essentially) and try my best to not come off as annoying. The girl who talked more said she was looking more for the "college experience" and was more impressed by Clemson. I'm just happy to give them a perspective, though they didn't have much to ask.

After lunch, I check my PO box to kill time. I see the same guy sitting at his desk across the post office as he has since my freshman year (and likely longer). I've said to myself that I really must see what this "student beliefs survey" is all about, since I've been passing it by for years. At best, it's a progressive, open-minded guy like me who rejects a lot of the bullshit around today. At worst, he's a young Earth creationist. Turns out, after taking his survey (very obviously a Christian asking a more secular college base about their beliefs), that he's a very respectful man. Respectful, if not long-winded. I was hoping to have a bit of back and forth with him on some of his common arguments, but he talked the vast majority of the time until I had class to go to. Really, though, I felt like a made a bit of my case and heard him out; it was one of the more pleasant conversations I've had on the subject. Of course, that's probably his goal, anyway, and I'm not as bothered by that. Still, another person I got the nerve to talk to out of the blue (2). Oh, and it was nice to see some friends pass by that I don't normally see during those times.

PST 3127 and ECE 4001 pass by with little interesting beyond me now knowing that the Kuwait War was somewhat justified on a lie. During my last class I goof off on Reddit and CA while "absorbing" the lecture on accounting. Ever since watching FMA: Brotherhood 46 (which I was posting about), I've been thinking a lot on the primary romantic relationship in the series between Ed and Winry. Well, "thinking" is a nice way of saying "longing". I guess this is how all those females feel about Twilight. Should I feel bad about this? Well, it's generally regarded that FMA is a good series, and I'm not gushing over this stuff publicly and annoying people. Psh, I'm avoiding the point: I'm including this because it's been the center of my attention of late. It's a visible relationship growing and changing over time that I find both interesting and engaging.

So after all my classes, I try to get my design notebook for my project class from my professor, but he's not around. When I finally do meet him later, he doesn't have it, anyway. No big loss. So, instead of going back home, I decide to make my microcontroller for ECE 4175. Over about 2 hours I solder all the parts in, asking tons of questions from helpful people (3) who really assisted me in understanding this stuff more. After it's all together, I turn it on... and... the LCD doesn't work. Oh! I remember. "I have to adjust the contrast!" Bingo. Worked on the first try. Awesome. I get it checked off, but utterly fail at cleaning the damn thing. I'll work on that later. I almost forget to go back to the apartment and get ready for pep band practice!

Another win: no playing. The meeting is short and sweet, and I have enough time to visit the observatory for astronomy class. It was quite hard to find, but once I got up there, I knew I would love it. Now would be a good time to mention the weather and how awesome it was today. That reached its peak enjoyment while enjoying the cool air on top of one of the tallest buildings around. Beautiful view, both naked and scoped: I looked at the Orion Nebula, Mars, the Beehive Cluster, and the Orion Nebula again. In some downtime I asked the professor (4) about Carl Sagan (something I'd been meaning to do for a long while). He responded with some praise and criticism, which was different from what I expected, but refreshing. Then, after most people had left, the small group that remained looked at Saturn. It was very, very cool.

After leaving Howey, a reporter (local news) waved me down and wanted to ask me about the concealed carry stuff going around the city and campus. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, which I told her, but I felt a bit bad for leaving her with nothing. I tried to direct her to central campus, where there would naturally be more people. So, no, I won't be on TV tonight, but it was a bit of a surprise.

Finally, just a bit ago I sent five emails to five of my professors about the classes I'll be missing for the Men's ACC Tournament. Crazy, eh?

So, to summarize and synthesize this day, I'm glad I took the time to talk to people when I was unsure or perhaps uncomfortable. I'm really proud of my new microcontroller. I really liked seeing Saturn with my own eyes. I'm going to be missing a lot when I leave on Wednesday.

Thanks for toughing that one out (if you did). This entry is a lot like my old high school diatribe, but thankfully less cryptic. I'd like to think that this is all just for myself and permanent posterity, but it's also a substitute for sharing it all directly with someone who'd care.