Hermetic Physics

Below you'll find the wholly-remarkable (if only for the curiousity of why I wrote it down in the first place) ramblings of a, well... er, uhm, whatever I am. Yes, there are a lot of quizzes - consider it self-psychoanalysis... but you'll also find some gems of wisdom from yours truly.


Well, "gems of wisdom" a rough phrase meaning "rant against idiocy."


PLEASE NOTE SOME ENTRIES ARE LISTED (unfortunately) "FRIENDS ONLY," as a little more of my life has been spreading around the Academy than I thought was appropriate. ;-) If you think I could be a better person by adding you to my friends list, drop me a line. By doing so, you'll get the juicy, disturbing, frightening, and I'd-frankly-not-like-to-get-fired bits that are left out of the public version. :-)


In any case, remember the rules:
1) Read and comment all you want, but if you start throwing sarcasm my way, make sure you're prepared to drown in it.
2) I'll say some things that will offend you. I use LJ as a way to be honest with the world (one of the few venues I have available to me), and I can't afford to PC my way around the more thorny bits.
3) If you can't handle lots and lots of News from the World of Science - slowly back away now.


Fortunately, I started LJ late enough that I could retrace and add tags. As I add more to the journal, I'll include them here... so feel free to jump directly to what interests you.

As we've spoken of before, in the Eternal battle between The Scientist and The Mystic, The Mystic finds Itself in the infirmary most days of the year. There are a few days, however, where It does come out on top.

Words cannot describe how much The Scientist seethes at that.

To 90% of my friends' list, enjoy the sunshine while we have it. It only gets darker from here out. ;-)
For the remaining 10%, may your feet fall on warm earth this season.

It's been almost two decades since I've truly considered myself among that 10%, but old habits die hard... and damnit, the Scientist can't win all the time - otherwise it wouldn't be called a "battle", now would it? Perhaps it's important to note that this year I didn't hold out for the 23rd to make this announcement (I split the difference between the traditional and technical Solstice this summer).

But perhaps it's also important to note that I made the announcement at all.

It's odd to feel the slow slide into pure rationality, when so much of my life used to be firmly seated in The Mystic's camp - although, upon reflection, the gradient has evened out for the most part: A few months ago, I heard a student describe me as a "Spiritual Atheist," and neither The Scientist nor The Mystic were particularly offended.

Hmm... odd how rambling on LJ brings things to the surface, eh?

Even odder (sue me, I'm a physicist, not a grammaticist!) how I make you wall watch while I do it. ;-P

So, I suppose that I'll continue to pray to the Math Gods and study how/why The Universe do-what-It-does. Hopefully, at the end, It grades on partial credit.

Originally, I was posting this as a reply the gidster... but then I realized that I've been thinking this same thing as a rebuttal to MUCH of what is said about politics as of late.

So, I'll just cross-post the same article he was speaking of, and then just go off on my own tangent. ;-P

Before I get started, however - let me give you my *brief* opinion of the 3 candidates (I normally stay out of this for obvious reasons). I only do this so you don't read any unintentional bias in my commentary at the end of the lj-cut.

Feel free to flame away. :-P

Hillary:
She wouldn't make a ~bad~ President - an excellent "place-keeper", actually. Unfortunately, America is at enough of a cross-road that I want something more than a "place-keeper" in office. It's a shame too, for we are WAY overdue for a woman president. :-/
Her recent Bosnia 'thingy' got my goat though, for reasons described below...

Obama:
I don't necessarily agree with this fiscal views, or many of his other platforms... but frankly I think he is the right guy for the job. The 'job' being pushing so much reform around that *some* of it gets through. I certainly don't see senators and congressmen kowtowing to him - quite the opposite in fact - but the President's job is to set the tone... and let the chips fall where they may. I think Obama will set a fine tone. He has his head on right, and has a nice global perspective.

McCain:
I've actually been a big fan of McCain ~for years~. I have rooted for him whenever possible. I like Mavericks. I especially like Mavericks that generally stand firm when the general opinion is against him - even if I don't like what he is doing. I also think that McCain would make some much needed changes in government (cuz now almost ANY change is a good thing). I've always known he was a devout Christian, and that he followed the same "family values" dogma that GW follows... but up to this campaign he has been very very careful not to let that affect his political career. I respected that. Currently however, his 'moral compass' has been taken out, and frankly, it scares me - as I've had 8 years of someone else's moral compass controlling my country. I'd rather not do that again. ::sigh::

Okay, here we go. If you have read gidster's last post, then feel free to skip the lj-cut.
( Adam McKay tells it like he sees it )

Huh.

Maybe McCain's wife *was* a C-word.
Doesn't make it quite as bad now, does it. ;-P

For the most part, I agree with everything that was written above... but we need to be careful not to play the "righteous indignation card" when combating irrational behavior - esp. since righteous indignation ~is~ irrational behavior.

Picking on McCain for using "the c-word" in public is akin to bitching about Clinton for getting a blowjob. It has nearly NOTHING to do with the job either man applied for, and is merely moral relativism gone horribly awry. :-(

And fighting moral relativism with moral relativism is what got us in this global mess in the first place. >,<

I hear and see people every day who do things that I find mildly offensive (and sometimes not-so-mildly) - it doesn't mean that they can't do their jobs competently.

I wish America would focus on ~ethics~ and not ~morals~. For myself, I'd rather have an HONEST necrophiliac in the oval office than a church-going, dayschool-running, cookie-baking liar. Hell, I'd pay extra taxes to make sure he/she had a constant supply of corpses to relieve the tension.

If you can schmooze foreign dignitaries and balance a budget, but really like teddy bears (and I mean ~really like~ teddy bears!), more power to you. Do you kick puppies, but are a great leader? Fantastic. I'd ask you not to kick puppies while in office though, it makes me angry. >,<

I don't have to *like* a politician, I just want them to do a good job. It's their *ethics* that make the difference. For the most part, ethics are universal (i.e. most cultures will agree on ethics), morals are so persnickety that *everything* will be offensive to *someone*.

i.e. Banging Marilyn Monroe, or getting a blow job, or swearing in public, is an 'immoral' act, because it is offensive to specific moral codes.. Hurting others non-consensually (whether by lying, or stealing, or vandalism, etc), for instance, is 'unethical.'

((EDIT: for the record: I'd have banged Marilyn if I had the chance, and the other immoral items listed above are certainly NOT on my *avoid* list.))

It is sad that I *can* be unbiased here, since members from both parties can be attacked (and defended) on ethical grounds. Both parties have had recent personalities that have lied. Both have personalities that have been attacked solely on 'moral' grounds.

It'd be nice if the powers-that-be would just stick to the facts that are ~truly~ relevant. Frankly, I don't care what a guy's pastor said, or how many Playboys he kept under his bed, or how many one-night-stands she had in college.

I want a President, not a guidance counselor.

A friend of mine (yes, snowfinite, you heard me) posted this a few days back...

i know who i am today
working on precision tomorrow

...and my poor brain won't let it go.

'kay... I've tried to hold all this in, but LJ (unfortunately for you) gives me a space to vent without the constant threat of the secret service wrestling me to the ground.


forward: This is gonna be on terrorism. If that squicks you out, skip out now. It's also going to make a few folks mad at me. If you want to continue thinking that I'm Jesus-Christ-on-a-Bicycle, skip out now. ;-) Ooh, ooh! I can practice the lj-cut so as not to otherwise annoy innocent (as if any of YOU are innocent) bystanders.
<tr>
Please click below to proceed... oh, and please forgive typos... this is a rant, not a thesis. ;-):
( Read more... )


This has been a public service announcement.
And remember kids, never eat a live wolverine. REMEMBER: STOP THINK AND PAUSE, BEFORE EATING ANYTHING LIVE, WITH CLAWS.

I normally don't spout politics very often. Not because I don't keep up with it, nor because I don't care... but mainly because there is no way of winning an argument with it. Politics have nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with opinion - and two different ppl from different sub-cultures can have vastly different opinions about the same fact.
Having said this, Cloris made an entry this morning that got me thinking...

Bush's speech last night held zero surprises for anyone who was interested. Bush has a war going on. Bush wants the public to support the war. Bush has an agenda (not a bad word in itself) that he believes will win it.

Bush also says things that most of MY sub-culture recognizes as complete and utter garbage: thinly veiled spin-doctoring, mis-representation of statistics, small omissions, etc. Does he expect us (i.e. my subculture) to fall for his version that easily?

I don't think he (or rather his speech writers) does. I do think he (or his speech writers) thinks that the same folks that elected him will, however... and that has been his aim from the beginning. He won with the barest smidgen over 50% in 2004 in one of the largest voter turn-out years in modern history, yet he called it a "mandate from the people" from day 1. He *had* to call it that, or he'd lose credibility from even his own people. Folks like to think they are in the majority, and certainly don't like to think they are nearly outnumbered. From G.W.'s position (and think about it, there is a logic there), if he keeps talking to HIS people, it doesn't matter if the rest of us recognize what is going on... America is a democracy, and majority rules.

Let me say that again. Majority Rules. Personally, I think that is a strength of America... as it keeps the government from falling out of the mainstream. In most administrations, it's a blessing, as the majority is often just that: a majority. Unfortunately for Mr. Prez, *his* majority is just 2 microns over 50%. Normally when a minority gets marginalized, there's some steaming and complaining and WAITING for the next administration (remember the Clinton years?), but here we have a different animal. We have 2 microns shy of 50% steaming and complaining and feeding their own frustration with popular support.

What G.W. is doing is following the age-old wisdom passed down from Prez to Prez. Talk to the people (read: majority of people) and you'll avoid most of the bumps. As a member of the populace, I suspect that its pretty damn cool when you are a member of the majority. :-) Unfortunately, my particular sub-group (and most of you will resonate with this one) is often stuck down in the dregs of political awareness.

::sigh:: It's way too early and my brain isn't thinking properly. Ramble ramble ramble.
The nutshell:
Cloris, he doesn't expect us to believe him. Frankly, I don't think he cares if WE believe him. Half of the country does, however, and that is important (both for true stability and for his continued political future).
The bright spot is that although 50% voted for him last year, in reality I think it was 50% voting *against* Kerry. The majority that Bush sees isn't what he (again, or his speech writers) thinks it is. More people see through the haze than he suspects - including generals, senators, congressmen, etc. Note that over 80% of his initiatives have been falling through. Every day the news brings reports of how 'disappointed' the administration is with some republican official for not "toeing the line." Take hope, little trooper - the more he spouts off, the less likely a bush-clone will make it into the White House in 2008. Just 1 year into his presidency has proven that he probably won't have the political muscle to do much damage at home. Our only worry is keeping the global damage to a manageable crisis.

There are worse people to have in office - although for the life of me I can't remember their names at the moment. lol
So I suppose that means that there isn't MUCH worse of a person to have. ;-)
"We the People" elected the sad little man, though. "We the People" will have to think a bit harder next time around before doing this again.

The post I made earlier has kept rattling around in my head... so I figured putting it down here would let me get to more relevant notes. What follows is a train of thought that has been stewing for 19 years, so before you start throwing stones at me, think about it for a bit - as I've gotten pretty good at catching them and winging them back. lol
Having said that, flame away - please! A hypothesis can only be improved with repeated attempts to discredit it.

The Nature of Love - the beginning
Let us picture two cave-persons (we'll get the PC crap out of the way now! :-)): Dik and Jan (extraneous letters having not been invented yet). Nature being what She is (a bitch), it was crucially important that she at least give these poor bastards a chance to make it in the world (having tricked them into evolving w/o the benefit of big teeth at all). So, here were her choices:
1) Make Dik the protector
2) Make Jan the protector
3) Have them share the duty equally
Not being an idiot, Nature pretty much figured out that a shortage of Diks wouldn't nearly be as much trouble as a shortage of Jans. After all, one Dik can impregnate several Jans, whereas its a bit trickier to have each Jan produce a child to each Dik that screws her.

So, Dik drew the short straw. "Poof," Nature said (she always liked the word "poof"), and Dik gained the glory that was Testosterone. It put a lot of stress on the body, causing extra wear'n'tear on the heart, etc, but boy did it work wonders against bears. Spacial Perception was augmented (quickly keeping track of where allies are and where enemies are), reflexes were boosted (dodge that swipe!), and musculature was increased (new improved Spear 2.0, with larger stone tip!).
The price for this new found power? Dik dies. Early and Often. Even if Dik survives the bears and clashes with other tribes, his later descendants won't live much past 70 because of heart-attacks and strokes. This is okay though... because:
1) primitive Dik won't make it to his 60s... by the time is reflexes slow a bit (30s), he'll be bear-food.
2) the few Diks that make it back to the tribe can impregnate all the Jans. Hooray!

Where is Jan during all this warfare? Doing the real job(s): maintaining the tribe, feeding the tribe, raising the tribe, etc. In doing this, Jan needs heightened social perception (seeing lines of interpersonal connectivity) and innate language skills (for assuaging conflict). On top of this, Nature gives her better fine motor control (detail work) and an increased resistance to infection (childbirth isn't pretty).
The price Jan has to pay for all this is pretty self-explanatory: she has to put up with Dik. At first, this was probably easily done, especially with all the bears around. Later generations won't have it so easy.

The Nature of Love - the point of the above rambling
Dik's job is pretty stressful. Dik needs reassurance that throwing himself against bears every day is worthwhile. Dik needs to *believe* that he can kill bears (Heinlein: "Some Delusions are functional"). What Dik needs, basically, is motivation.
Jan's job isn't apple-pie either. The day-to-day business of not only training the next generation of cave-persons, but the stress of keeping all those testosterone-laced Diks occupied and out-of-trouble when the bears aren't prowling was probably pretty damn grueling. There was another problem: Jan was, by the very nature of her biology, pretty much stuck with the kids. Nature (being the bitch that she is) made it pretty clear that once those babies were born, hormones would lock poor Jan's brain around them. Nature (remember: bitch) also made it pretty clear to the bears that the squealing sound babies made meant (in the bear-tongue) "free-food." Jan quickly realized that having a Dik around was pretty damn useful. Preferably a big Dik. More preferably a big Dik that wouldn't leave when a prettier, younger, friendlier (etcetera etcetera ad nauseum) Jan came around.
Back to Dik. Dik needed motivation, remember? Having a girl to come home to after a long tour of having spears thrown at oneself is pretty damn good motivation to do a good job. The problem is that other Diks are constantly vying for each others Jan. So Dik is left with a conundrum (and most Diks aren't terribly good at conundrums that don't involving strategy, tactics and/or brute-force): Go to war to impress her and then lose her to another dastardly Dik, or stay and keep tabs on her and lose her to a more impressive Dik. The solution (what little of a solution there is... but Dik is pretty simple this way) is that Dik really needs to get laid. Sex is fun. Preferably lots of it very, very often. Nature made sure to instill a healthy sex-drive in Dik, just in case a lot of other Diks didn't come back from that last raid (lots and lots of lonely Jans). Another important point: Killing bears is scary. Very scary in fact. Facing down other just-as-large Diks with strange face-paint is pretty damn scary too. Dik needs his ego stroked. A lot. Dik needs to *believe* that he is Nature's Gift to Bear-Killing... so much so that his Jan back home wouldn't dream of leaving for another Dik as soon as his side of the bear-fur rug has cooled down.
Back to Jan. Remember Jan? You know, the Jan who really can't take time out of gathering food for the little ones to exercise 4x a day and practice with the spear? Yep, that's the one. She's also the one who doesn't want to wait for months for her Dik to come home, only to get eaten because her Dik found another Jan across the cave-condo lot. So she needs to know that her Dik is effective, and nothing says "I can kill bears" better than, well... a pile of dead bears. Jan likes piles of dead bears, preferably properly skinned, tanned, and lining her cave. She also needs to be confident that her Dik isn't going to leave her and her squealing bear-foo... er, I mean, babies high and dry... although her Dik might have a harder time proving this one to her, let us assume that it can be done.

Nature needs a way to make sure that these two stick together. The solution: Love

The Nature of Love - the point (part 2)... really! this time I mean it!!
Men fall in love because of Sex and Ego
Women fall in love because of Trust and Security

I don't care what guy you find. If a girl puts out and makes him feel like a god, he will, despite himself, fall in love. Have you ever seen a guy with a girl that that makes you wonder 'why the hell is he with her??' Odds are, she makes him feel good about himself (or at one point did so) and has sex with him on a relatively routine basis (or at one point did so). I strongly suspect (this part of the theory is pretty loose still!), that if our random girl maintains just ONE of these qualities, she can KEEP a guy in love with her, or at least can until another girl promises (or provides) both again. Stop doing both and Mr. Random Guy will start looking on his own.

I also don't care what girl you find. If she finds that she feels secure around a guy (whether it be his skill, cash, fame, prowess, stature, etc.), and if she feels that she can trust him, she's hooked - and most likely will be hooked before she knows it herself. Again, I strongly suspect that if Mr. Dik maintains just one of them, she won't leave (battered wife syndrome), but if he loses both... she's outta there.

The Nature of Love - Conclusion
I don't think this belittles the concept of Love whatsoever. It's just a tool, to be used for good or evil.
Unfortunately, I feel that its been used for evil far more often. Diks and Jans have been using it for evil purposes for far longer than they picked up the "c" and "e" in their names... we all know the man who showers a girl with money, tells some pretty lies to get her to trust him, and get BAM... he gets what he wants and is outta there. We also know the woman who will stroke a man's ego and give him subtle (and not so subtle) promises of sex and thus milk him dry of everything he owns.
If we keep the Nature of Love to heart however, we can help our relationships grow far more easily than we would if we kept fumbling in the dark... as many of us do.

Guys? When was the last time you *consciously* tried to make your woman feel secure? When last did you make a small, subtle promise just so you could keep it?
Girls? When did you last tell your guy how strong/smart/skilled/etc he was? How long has it been since you winked at him just the right way?
Both: I don't care if you did that last year (or eight years ago) till you were blue... do it again today. And again next week - maybe twice.

Read the above bold-faced section again.

Random Addendum
Try it. Oh, and I'm assuming gays and lesbians are generally smart enough to configure the above advice to fit them. I haven't forgotten about hermaphrodites either (Nature knows they're marginalized enough)... although I suppose you'd either need all four factors (sex, ego, trust, and security) or find which gender they lean towards. I strongly suspect that TVs fall under their birth gender, whereas TSs fall under the augmented gender, although I haven't put nearly as much thought behind it. Also, please notice I haven't mentioned anything about being attractive. Attractive equates in the primitive mind as "healthy" and "good genes for my offspring" and has nearly *everything* to do with lust, and nearly nothing to do with love. Sure it helps get the relationship started... but nothing will grow out of the infatuation (lust based) unless our four factors are present.

Although I strongly suspect that the creator of this test, if they knew me, would say AACk! ITS WRONG ITS WRONG!, it hits pretty close to home.

The Keys to Your Heart

Let us see how close these keys actually are, shall we?

You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free.

Well, "free to be my slave" I suppose. Unbridled and untrammeled aren't bad traits, however. :-)

In love, you feel the most alive when things are straight-forward, and you're told that you're loved.

Fair 'nuff.

You'd like to your lover to think you are loyal and faithful... that you'll never change.

I'm not quite sure if this is complementary... but its true, for better or worse. I could go on a giant spiel about ethical dominants and the psychology of behavior modification - but the above statement wraps up 30 minutes of typing in one concise sentence.

You would be forced to break up with someone who was ruthless, cold-blooded, and sarcastic.

Well, ruthless, cold-blooded, and sarcrastic ALL AT THE SAME TIME, maybe. Each trait by itself I sort of find endearing. :-P

Your ideal relationship is open. Both of you can talk about everything... no secrets.

DING

Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment.

Well, my risk of cheating is as close to zero as a physicist should be allowed to say. I have my weaknesses just like everyone else does... but is it cheating when your mate is trying to set it up for you??
And sure I care about morality and society in the BIG scheme of things. I care about what makes society work (the genetic/evolutionary cause for what people do, etc.), although I'd greatly prefer the test to have stated ETHICS as opposed to MORALITY, but most folks can't tell the difference between them anyway - which is sad. Remember, "Ethics are the rules of the game. Morals are why you play."
I haven't broken a promise in my adult life, and although I'm sure it had to have happened at least once, I can't remember a promise in childhood that I broke either. Read "ethics" above.

You think of marriage something you've always wanted... though you haven't really thought about it.

Hmm. Considering this test was probably written by yet another sheep, its not bad. What they were thinking about when they said "Marriage" was probably "stable relationship," which hits it on the head. From my perspective, a marriage is nothing more than a formalized union that a government can recognize, with the appropriate amount of paperwork, etcetera that keeps ppl from abusing the system. The fact that a government recognizes the 'state of marriage' at all is a fact that should be left for another entry... no point in going into it here. :-)
However, I have *always* thought about wanting to be in a stable relationship. Hell, I still do! More than one, in fact. lol

In this moment, you think of love as something you thirst for. You'll do anything for love, but you won't fall for it easily.

Amen, brother. Although I fall for it easily enough. lol
I put a great deal of effort NOT to fall in love with every pretty face that talks to me - although now that I have finally figured out what causes it in the first place has made that one hell of a lot easier.



You want the real keys to my heart?
1) Be pretty and/or submissive. ;-)
Remember that I am human, and thus particularly shallow. lol. The male in me wants pretty. The dominant in me wants submissive. An average girl who genuinely wants to make me happy will trigger me just as quickly as a *gorgeous* girl who incorrectly thinks submissives are doormats. Be both pretty *and* submissive and I'll be clamping down on my baser insticts so hard you'll hear the metal grinding.
2) Be intelligent.
I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain without the advantage of big teeth just to avoid having a conversation w/ you so I won't fall asleep in my soup. I don't mind having idle chit-chat. I don't even mind having insane chit-chat. I just mind having inane chit-chat. You don't need to be a genius, you just have to be able to talk to one ;-). If you *really* want to get my attention, be smarter than I am - just be prepared to have me asking YOU all kinds of questions!
Also remember that intelligence and education are two very, very different things. I'm not looking for a PhD - I'm looking for someone *smart*.
3) Flirt.
I did mention I was male, right?
Take advantage of my fragile male ego... hell, take advantage of my fragile dominant ego! Make me feel wanted and I'll pull down the moon for you. Any moon. Your choice. :-P

If you hit each of these keys simultaneously... You Have Been Warned
Warn your friends, too. Especially your lonely, pretty, submissive, intelligent, flirtatious friends!