Thursday, September 29, 2005

My Chemical Romance.

I watched her happily for some time and faded the discourse to and from one subject or another. I found that she had studied English and Mathematics alongside Music. I told her that her pursuit of Truth was admirable and she denied it. She claimed instead to be a realist, interested in only that which was tangible. I considered that her choice of study was esoteric, or perhaps metaphysical yet she could only tell me that
Love is limited
I fought such sentiment immediately. She encouraged my romance yet denied its truth. I told her that there is no room for realism in love, only in life, and that she should never find happiness if she could not abandon herself to someone. She said that she had been burned too many times before and I told her that she must dream. For what is life without dreams? And this led to a discussion of charity, and utopian impossibilities.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Walking with Angels

Objective morality.
Just consider it.
It's absolutely impossible for any human to define an act as good or evil objectively. It simply cannot be done.
If this is true, which it is, then what are the ramifications for society?
When a man is judged as evil by his peers, are they correct in so doing? If his peers then punish him, on what basis and under what authority do they act?
The answers are easy if you believe in a God. But that's precisely why so many people do, and so I shall ignore that avenue.
It seems that society's judgments are not an act of morality, or 'justice', in an objective sense, but rather acts necessary for the preservation of society. In this sense they are entirely subjective.
Everything so far is fairly obvious. But push the concept further and it becomes very interesting:
We are simply not capable of knowing whether any man in particular acts in a morally correct fashion. It could therefore be that we may completely miss the most moral person of all. S/he could slip straight under the radar. It could be, for example, that a divinity (which is to say, an absolute moral good) walks among us unknown, perhaps even unaware.
Equally, the same could be said of a demon or a True Neutral.
In the circumstances, one might argue that we have no culpability for our actions. I like to believe in free will; I like to believe that I can live as I will and that some day I may find myself walking with an Angel, unawares.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Free Game Download!

I wonder how many Google hits the title will catch. Perhaps I should be more specific:

FREE GREYHOUND RACING GAME!
[Do you think multiple exclamation marks would get more hits?]

Anyhow, this is a great offer by yours truly. Yes, in my murky past I somewhere learnt to program. This may surprise any repeat visitors here as it isn't entirely in accordance with my otherwise entriely non-geeky image. Right?
Here's a screenshot:


But seriously, I programmed this entire game, a little while back, and I'm now giving it away for free. It's worth two minutes of your time most probably, and if anyone really likes it then perhaps I'll work on it a bit longer and make it better.

It was programmed in Visual Basic and I'm happy to show the source code to anyone who's interested.

All comments/criticism/suggestions etc very welcome.

Please note, you MUST extract the files to the folder c:\VB98, because I really am too lazy to work out how to make it self-extracting.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Human Transcendence of Biological Evolution


It's absolutely clear that civilisation has already largely (but not completely) transcended evolution in the biological Darwinist sense. With advances in providing a safe habitat, reliable sources of food and medicine, it is now possible for those who are evolutionarily VERY weak, to survive.
Nowadays, with complex dating websites and enourmous cities of people, it is even possible for those who would not ever usually find 'mates' to do so. Consequently, civilisation now provides a 'creche' in which maladaptive characteristics can flourish (ie. Death worship in fornicating goths!).
The point is that now that we are now unconstrained by biology, a new form of evolution has 'evolved' which is the passing on socially advantageous politics and ideas. This is, however, about large groups acting as 'giant organisms', rather than individuals having a certain evolutionary fitness - that concept is now dead in humans.
It has been suggested somehow that ideas are contained within genetics, this is clearly nonsense.
Biological evolution has taken millions of years, advanced and complex ideas have only really evolved in the last few thousand years. These ideas have advanced at an absolutely explosive rate which is accelerating. They are clearly 'evolving' under a different mechanism to that which evolved our biological self.
It's not so much that humans are no longer 'changing' in a biological sense, because clearly generations are getting taller, and the smart are getting smarter. The difference is, that it is no longer a process of natural selection - the stupid are getting stupider as well, whereas they should be dieing without passing on their weakness.
Those with 'weaknesses' do not necessarily have other desirable traits. I can think of many people with absolutely no redeeming qualities, certainly not sufficient amounts of them to overcome their 'weaknesses' and make them 'worthwhile'.
As for how I define 'weak', I do so on the basis of past experience, and I do so with reference to the traditional (non-transcended) society in mind. Before we created the 'creche', stupidity, ugliness, physical weakness, etc. were evolutionarily 'weak', that is where my defintion comes from. I would argue that my definition is not invalidated should these weak survive, precisely because, as I say, civilisation has 'transcended' Darwinian evolution - the 'weak' CAN now survive.
'Transcendence' is not supernatural or divine in any way. It is a purely scientific development. It is simply the case that natural selection favoured the smart and men capable of advanced thinking evolved. Once this process had occurred, advanced thought began to do two key things:
1) Siginificantly change its environment.
2) Pass on ideas from generation to generation in ways other than genetic, ie through books, word of mouth etc.
Between these two things, ordinary Darwinian evolution became gradually more and more obselete and is still becoming so today.
I do not see that this creates a 'divided persona' per se; the physical and metaphysical are not in opposition. 'Ideas' do not have to have a metaphysical quality to them, they can simply be tools.
Finally, naturalistic evidence for transcendence = # of horribly unfit human beings currently walking the earth (in ase anyone wanted evidence!)
For a hilarious evolution diagram that appears far more interested in worms than humans, go here

Monday, September 19, 2005

Results Day


So everything’s fine. You’re chilling out enjoying your day when suddenly you remember. How could you really forget? I guess you never did. Today, is results day. Quickly you dress, your heartbeat has increased. Suddenly you realise that all the stagnant waiting is over. Something approaching excitement but which is really fear builds up inside you. It seems everything hangs upon the moments that are shortly to follow.

You emerge onto the street. Everyone around has their daily lives. Nothing significant is happening to them. You are probably pale now, your mouth is very dry. You know from your psychology exam that this is a natural reaction to fear. Since you know so much about psychology, you were probably fine. Your breathing increases and you start to sweat, but this is no doubt a side effect of walking quickly. There is so little between you and that white board with figures and letters. A short walk, a short tube journey and one more short walk.

A man and a woman approach you, smiling as though angels walk amongst us. Truly enough they are South African missionaries advertising their latest music and dance celebrations of god at Wembley stadium. Stern faced at first you force a smile and say you will think about it. They smile and nod, blessing you.

On the tube you ponder god and the influence he may exert over your fate. Considering that the results are up there waiting for you to simply see them, you know that he is irrelevant. You know you are desperate when you pray for something impossible from someone you don’t believe in…

Down the street now, nothing but concrete and steps between you and it. You consider that if there were a league dictating the most stressed people on the planet then you would have risen into the top area after spending forever at the other end. Strangely you cannot place any confidence in this result, one way or the other. You have done well and worked, but you feel oddly as if there might be a surprise ahead.

Up the final flight of stairs, you can hardly breath. You feel truly sick. Around the corner looms the notice board. You could turn now and never look. Life could go on and nothing would change, in the end though, you are more scared not to look. Momentarily you cannot find your number in the display. You find it, but hope it is another’s.
- I wrote this just over two years ago and since then I have turned failure into success on a fantastic scale. This weekend I experienced another set back of the kind, yet I feel I can rise from the ashes once again, a glorious Phoenix burning more brightly and brilliantly than ever before... If one never fails in life, how can one ever know when one is truly succeeding?

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Superbly Weird Neutral Cult

Whilst doing some Neutral research for a book I was writing, I came across officially the weirdest site I have ever EVER found on the net:

[Complete with bizarro sound effects]
I should, perhaps, worship this site. But I'm not sure, because I don't understand most of what the hell it's trying to say. For example:
"The ontological position of the norm of neutrality is not different from that of the norm of inclusivity. The principles of which the norms of neutrality and inclusivity are interpretations are both (non-meta-)doctrinal and nonpropositional. Thus in the first instance both norms belong to a first-order normative doctrine, that is, a normative doctrine about the ground-world. We have seen how in this ground-world the principle of relevance of which the norm of inclusivity is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of truth. Truth in isolation is not worth anything, for truth always needs relevance in the end. Similarly, the principle of neutrality of which the norm of neutrality is an interpretation is supplementary to the principle of relevance. Relevance in isolation is not worth anything either, for also relevance needs a focus of relevancy in the end. It is the principle of neutrality which ultimately furnishes this determinant."
Now, when I read this, I conclude that one of four things is happening:
  1. I'm a lot stupider than I thought.
  2. Whoever wrote this shit is really really smart and has come up with his own philosophy near enough from scratch.
  3. The person who wrote this is insane and it really does make no sense.
  4. The person who wrote this is very good at writing stuff that sounds clever but means nothing.

Would this final option actually be the ultimate irony I wonder?

Check out the site's short stories, it's all quite fascinating in a truly surreal way.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

A Tree Falls in the Desert...

... If nobody is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

So is the variation I heard today on the classic philosophical poser.

1) What bloody tree? This is a goddamn desert! Deserts have sand, not trees!

[Except this one]

2) Of course it does...

3) ... Unless of course you actually believe that the world only exists in so far as humans are there to perceive it. For me, if you're going to go this far, you should really say 'If I am not there to hear it, does it make any sound?'

I find it easier to conceive of everything being a figment of my personal imagination rather than everything being a figment of humanity's imagination. But imagine the reverse! One massive inconceivable self-deception - humanity believes in sound, but 'sound' does not exist!

Rock on! (Although I suppose it's rather hard to 'rock on' without sound...)

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Guest Cartoon


This cartoon has been written, designed and scripted specially for A Neutral World? by Nick James, of World of Why?

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Is Judas actually Neutral?


It is said that Judas betrayed Jesus. Most people would consider him evil.
However, what if Judas had actually 'betrayed' Jesus so as to spur him into leading the Christian revolution? What if Judas decided to sacrifice his very soul and his place in heaven for the greater good?
Many acts of evil have some virtuous component. Murder, for example, comprises bravery.
Betrayal, in the ordinary sense, has no virtuous component, so Judas might fully have realised that his actions were about to deny him any forgiveness or mercy. In this way, Judas appears to have condemned himself, knowingly, to burn in hell. That he could do this to his soul simply for the greater good shows a noble element to his character.
So, by balancing an ultimately evil act (betrayal of the son of God), with an ultimately good higher aim (revolutionising the modern world and bringing in the new world order of Christianity), is Judas in fact neutral?
On the other hand, this argument rather rests on the presumption that the Christian God is actually Good himself. If He is not, then Judas is arguably Evil again, (evil act of betrayal to promote and evil God)!
What do you think? Judas, Good, Evil or Neutral?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Hattrick

A quick plug for an awesomely good game:

Hattrick


It's basically an online football management game, but it's the very best I've come across. One amazing feature is its truly international nature. There's literally some guy out in Malaysia somewhere who pulls some kid out of their youth system and then you, in England, can buy the guy. Everyplayer in the game comes from somebody's squad. It's sweet.

Is it neutral? Hmmm... Well, currently around 600,000 people play it worldwide. That number seems consistenly on the increase.

n = # of people playing hattrick.
p= world population.

I hypothesise that as n ---> p, hattrick -----> neutral.

In other words, there would be an even spread of hattrick globally. It would become an alternate reality and then it would cease to possess and value, but would instead play host to a set of internal values (the players.)

A bit 'Brave New World', I know, but you've gotta spice up a basic plug somehow eh?

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Google Advertise Poker Cheat!

About a month ago I was surfing Google when I found a 'sponsored link' to a page that promised the key to guaranteed online poker winnings. I decided to take a look, since I like poker, and I like money. I was also curious because I faced two conflicting things:
  1. My opinion that one never gets anything for free.
  2. My trust for Google.

The link opened up and gave a massive spiel about making money online, with loads of '3rd part testimonials', the usual. Then it showed a screen shot which suggested that with this software one might be able to see all the cards one's opponents were holding. Underneath this picture it explained, quite correctly, that if you can see everyone's cards, how can you lose? A little further down it insisted that all the program (selling for $60) did was legal.

Now, being a lawyer, I concluded fairly quickly that looking at other people's cards and thereby winning was most definately obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (stealing). On the other hand, I knew this was a Google-sponsored link, and I thought, surely Google wouldn't advertise something illegal?

I did some research into it and discovered, quite unsurprisingly, that it was all a big scam. In order to use the program 'legally' you first have to get all the players around the table to agree to installing your program and letting you use it! HAHAHAHA! Seriously! Yeah.

So basically this is all about cheating, stealing and scamming. As my friend said, if he could do all that legally why did he want $60 from us, why didn't he just win an infinite amount with his strategies?

Anyway, I wrote to Google about it, complaining and suggesting it was harming their reputation (had already in my mind). They wrote back saying they would investigate and yet today the site is still a sponsored link: http://www.cheat-at-poker.com/

Shocking. Have a look and laugh.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

The Dice Man

Have any of you read this 70s cult classic? If not, then you should. It should appeal to anyone with half a brain (except children - it's far to corrupting and lewd for them).

The basic concept of the book is that the author allows a die to take control of every facet of his life. The only control he retains is that of choosing the options he gives the die. I offer two immediate observations:
1) In the book the author aspires to become The Random Man. (Personally I think this is an oxymoron, since 'The' is a definite article, and 'Random' is an indefinite concept.) If he followed his plan to the letter, would he also become 'A Neutral Man'?
If man's actions were entirely determined by a force beyond his control, does that make his actions 'valueless', in the sense of morality? To take this further, many philosophers in the past have subscribed to determinism (in which they say every action is pre-determined by fate; choice is an illusion. For example, you think you have a choice of whether to raise your right hand or you left, but once you have risen your left (say) then the determinists would state that any other option was impossible.) If we accept that life is governed by fate, then wherein lies morality? This leads us to the key question:


"Is free will a pre-requisite of morality?"
I personally think that it clearly must be, for in free will lies responsbility, and blame (or praise) requires responsibility to have any meaning.
Consequently, I would say the truly random man (if true randomness is a valid concept at all) would be morally Neutral. The problem in The Dice Man is that he chooses his own options, and so places inherent 'value' into any roll. To achieve Neutrality in this sense, he would have to have an infinite die to represent the infinite possibilities of life. What a concept eh?
Hmmm, after that magnificent analysis, I've forgotten point 2.... Ah yes:
2) Wouldn't "The Dice Man Blog" be pretty much the damned sweetest thing you ever saw? It could approach a level of greater randomness (and therefore greater(?) neutrality) by having the audience of the blog pick the options for the die for each day. The Dice Man would then report back on the outcome of the roll and seek another set of options. Seriously, if any of you are mad enough to do this you WILL become pretty damned famous pretty damned fast. The only drawback would be you'd also end up with no life, no friends, no money, no job and a prison sentence within not too long at all. Perhaps a variation on the idea might be more possible, but would entirely lack the force. (you could, for example, request 2 good options, 2 neutral options and 2 evil options for each roll, then at least disaster might hold off a little longer... etc.) Oh hell, when one of you becomes famous off this, at least link me. I'd do it myself but it's taken years of training to become a barrister and I'm fucked if I'm giving that up!

Monday, September 05, 2005

Pleasure!

A brief and elementary philosophic note:

A student of Plato (and foreshadow of Euclid's geometry books) called Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good. His reasoning for this was that all living things seek it.

Plato once said that pleasure + intelligence = something better than pleasure.

Aristotle used this argument to say that pleasure can be surpassed by addition of another 'good' and so it was not supreme of itself.

For once I'm briefly going to dare to criticise Aristotle's reasoning: the result of Plato's equation, though it may be greater than its parts, is still a form of pleasure (as, for example, where cold water is placed in a fridge, it gets colder, but it is still cold water). Clearly when Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good, he intended that his definintion of 'pleasure' should include all degrees of pleasure.

Further, Plato's equation is subjective. For many people pleasure + intelligence <= pleasure. It rather depends upon the drives of the individual. As for me, I would also argue against Eudoxus on this basis: he defines pleasure as something all creatures seek, with reason, or without. To seek pleasure without reason is to succumb to impulsive short term desires. As anyone can see, short term goals desires (shagging you girlfriend's best friend) can very easily lead to long term disasters (being dumped by both girls and living a life of lonely infamy). In other words, pleasure without reason is not necessarily good in any proper sense, either ethically or practically. To say all creatures seek it and so it is good is a patently silly argument.
Finally: is pleasure neutral?

a) Pleasure gives people happiness (sometimes short term, sometimes long term).

b) Pleasure causes pain and suffering (Eating ---> Obesity ----> Death). [see diagram on left]

Conclusion: pleasure has many drawbacks, but what is life without it? It can give life and death. I therefore conclude that it is not neutral but a variation on neutral - ambivalent.

Perhaps I should rename the site An Ambivalent World? ... On the other hand, not enough people really know what the word ambivalence means.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Neutrality in the 40s...

No, honey, ah suspect you-all
Of bein' intellectual
And so, instead of gushin' on,
Let's have a big discussion on
Timidity, stupidity, solidity, frigidity,
Avidity, turbidity, Manhattan, and viscidity,
Fatality, morality, legality, finality,
Neutrality, reality, or Southern hospitality,
Pomposity, verbosity,
You're losing your velocity,
But let's not talk about love.

- Let's Not Talk About Love - Cole Porter

Friday, September 02, 2005

Original Intergrity...

Borges. He himself questioned his originality, recognising himself as a reader, primarily. I try to write (some of which appears/will appear here.) One problem I face in my writing is an almost compulsive need to be original in what I write.

Jorge Luis Borges, in his short story "The Immortal", claims that, given immortality, all men would write all things. Hence, when he meets Homer in an African desert and discovers that he is so old he can barely remember writing the Odyssey, he concludes that it would be more amazing for man not to have written the Odyssey than for him to have written it.
Borges is full of these wonderful fragile and unreal images. But what if there is something in it? Many many people have postulated the 'only seven stories have ever been told' theory, or a version of it. I prefer to think that this is not the case, and that a story can be different to any before it in a number of ways.
Sometimes I find it frustrating to see a brilliant film, or read a work of genius. It makes me realise that I've now lost the chance to write it myself. But yesterday I thought up the most amazing plot for a short story and I have written most of it joyously already.
But is it nothing more than an illusion? Am I only happy because I haven't read the story I have written yet? It would be so easy to surrender to duplicity, to re-write the greatest works.
Even in originality we stand on the shoulders of the giants that have preceded us. We can hope for nothing more than to form a link in the infinite chain of humanity...

Thursday, September 01, 2005

The Best 'Best'.

Can you carry a part of yourself to infinity?Isn't it a requirement of really living to want to be the best at something?

Even if you're only the best at something really irrelevant, like collecting stuffed frogs, everyone wants to have their place.
But what's the best thing to be the best at?
(In fact, as a side note, isn't the phrase 'the best' rather tortological?)
Here's a few possibilities (in no particular order): science, painting, music, writing, religion, orating (policitics), parenting, medicine, philosophy...
Of course (and very thankfully) the answer is different for each individual, but is one career, or calling, objectively better than any other?
In order to answer this question I need to define 'best', which is of course impossible, and will defeat the question by self-defining the answer. But that is only because I am inherently subjective.
Perhaps one way to objectivise the question is to consider the natural state of these positions in society. For example, consider it in terms of evolution (that is to say: evolution of culture and civilisation rather than biological evolution).
[I preface further argument by quickly dealing with fame. I argue that fame is not in of itself survival in the sense I seek. The survival I seek is linked intrinsically with the calling that is to propogate it.]
Science constantly evolves and survives in improved forms from generation to generation. In fact, science has arguably (definitely) allowed human civilsation to 'transcend' natural selection, so it clearly has great power. Where a good scientific idea is created it is then used as a foundation for further science to develop upon its back. Hence scientific ideas survive well. In terms of the classic evolution value for 'best', being survival, science is strong.
Painting has its similarities. Certainly it has developed over the centuries, with technique being refined. But painting is subject to popularity and trends of fashion. Modern Art, for example is so substantially different to what has gone before, in some cases, that it might be considered original, in other words, that which has gone before it has not survived within it. (And it may well be that much Modern Art will not survive long (in terms of centuries). We can only hope so!) Painting therefore appears weaker than science.
Music can be argued in the same vein as painting, perhaps it is even a more extreme example. Musical trends change so fast that one can scarcely rely upon even some of the most successful music surviving even a couple of decades. (Unless of course you subscribe to the School of Rock and believe all modern music is derived from classical riffs!)
Writing I would like to argue is stronger than painting and music. I would argue this on the basis that it communicates ideas in a more fundamental way which strikes to the heart of all human experience and therefore is lasting. Of course, writing coincides with many of these other options, so really I should redefine and state it as 'fictional writing'. Even then it can sometimes be hard to separate from philosophy, politics and religion.
Religion? Tricky one. I could cite Pascal's razor here, but I'd rather cover that another time. The point is, in terms of the survival (of one man's contribution) it could quite possibly fall down as very weak. Most religions look down upon pride, and so a man successful in religion ought to shun the fame (and therefore survival) that might otherwise follow. There are of course excpetions (such as some popes, Buddha, Joan of Arc, St Thomas Aquinas, Jesus) but they too conflict with other discliplines such as philosophy and/or are massively aberrant (unusual) people. My only conclusion here is that many men have no doubt been highly highly successful people have simply not survived (probably even in the Darwin sense given vows of chastity!).
Oratorship is a different thing to politics, as can be seen by contrasting Hitler and Churchill with Bush and Pol Pot. (Notice the balance and unbalance there... Wonderful neutrality...) What I'm thinking of is the ability to lead men and/or revolutionise social policy. I could cite Marx but again I'd be moving into philosophy. One question must be answered, does a politician's personal contribution survive if 1) his fame survives; or 2) his policies (or evolved versions of them) survive. It all depends on the politician's goals in existence one supposes, but I shall try hard to make an objective decision and call the second the worthier of a politician's goals. Looked at in this way, politics can be very weak. It follows only the winner, and since even the winner eventually loses in politics, it appears to be a dangerous career to approach for survival. On the other hand, the influences of Rome (and the individual emperors) could be said to reach to today, as could the invasions of England the American Civil War. Who knows how long the work of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln will influence and develop society? A little like Religion, I imagine many very very successful politicians will not, however, have survived.
Parenting? I find it very hard to be objective about this as I am too consumed with irritation at endless mommy blogs. Still: indubitably parenting is essential and quite unarguably succesful parenting will survive to the next generation. However, its long term survival (which is all that really matters) is perhaps limited. It relies too heavily on the personailities and wills of those generations which succeed, which are the children. One might argue against that, of course, that the best parenting will yield a child who will be both successful (in the sense of this discussion) and capable of passing on the parenting experience s/he has had. The actual art of parenting, while important, seems weak in a survival sense.
Medicine is an example of practical science (a commonly considered metaphysical divide). I would argue that this makes it inherently weaker than science itself in the sense within which I conduct this argument, namely that as an individual contribution it does not survive. Interestingly Chekhov considers this point, in Ward 6 his doctor begins to treat randomly when he realises the grand insignificance of his contribution, whereas in The Grasshopper his doctor nobly gives his own life for one of his patients and one cannot help but be impressed by the inherent value of this action. One might further argue the practice would survive by virtue of allowing another man to live who would then have a lasting effect himself. This is, however, obviously a subordinate survival, the medical act itself is extinguished completely in the annals of history. In a survival sense, therefore, medicine is not a good choice (though of course it has other immediately practical and/or moral advantages).
Philosophy is perhaps the killer. Naturally my personal admiration for the subject may bias me, but as I've found through discussing the other options, it lies behind everything man does and is. It is the very thing which separates man from beast. It's very definition, 'love of wisdom', comprises science, religion (in the sense of truth), writing and politics quite clearly. The others, I would argue, are mere derivatives. The natural conclusion is that to be truly the 'best' philosopher truly fulfils the requirements of survival in that it gets behind and within all that follows it.
[My friend would have me consider sports. I dismiss it (though I love it) in one question: how does the strike of a golf ball, the volley of a football or the dunk of a basketball survive?]
This subject requires books and books to cover, so much of my argument is flawed by being improperly introduced or incompletely presented, but I seek to provoke thought.