Memory

What is memory? When you take account of how small your head is and how much information it can contain, the validity of this information is suspect. A newly recalled memory is often like recalling a dream.

After all, what would our dreams be without memory? This land that is our own private land that we charge up with symbols and feelings during the day. But this does not say what memory is.

So again, what is memory? Do we really save memories in these long detailed accounts? Do we have scribes in our brains?

I think the answer can be discovered easy enough. The act of remembering should reveal what happens if you examine it close enough. Most often memory starts with a pang. This is a flash of something. It is a beginning, or more accurately, a point.

This point is brought out of memory. We think about that point in the present using our minds to logically create a story. To draw the memory out. We don't store anything but this point in our head. We don't need to. All we need is the beginning and we fill it in afterwards.

Our memories depend on our thinking like math equations are. The answer to the equation does not need to be stored. To save space, all we need are some clues and then since we contain the ability to do math, we solve the puzzle with some time. Variables are not constant. We can adjust when something becomes different.

Or memories are often shifting. Things from childhood must be recalculated. Memories would be no good to us if we could not shape them in the present. They would be like wearing clothes we wore in childhood. They'd be too small and out of style and capable of tearing apart so they can't be worn.

Devided Government

Americans are often depicted as being suspicious of government. One way Americans medicate this itch is to slow down the government by creating competition between the two dominant parties.

Republicans and Democrats behave as in a sporting event. Each legislation passed is like a point. Regardless of what the legislation is or what it was proposed to do, the two parties aim to score the maximum amount of points themselves while keeping their opponent at a minimum.

When Americans want to render the powers of government impotent, they vote the parties in power so each has about equal representation. The government is rushed into inaction by the parties vehemently competing with each other.

But fierce competition is not the only way to cause inaction. It is probably the least desirable cause of inaction because it creates low quality agendas and legislation.

But what are the alternatives? How can we slow down an eager government without wasting so much energy creating needless opposition? How do we avoid parties opposing legislation that itself was proposed by the other party to be oppositional?

I will propose one method. It is a time honored tradition used by the countless intellectual beings through out human history. Thought. Thinking is the thief of action. If we want government to slow down, why not structure the government so that the intensity of thought needed to pass legislation is raised. The result of this would create laws that were enacted slowly yet well thought out. It seems to me an infinitely more advantageous way than laws enacted when two parties scratch at each other's jugular, only to pass laws when one party loses focus while finding a new ways to maim their opponent.

Why don't we as a collective society choose laws of intellect rather than laws of base, competitive tomfoolery?

Pots, Pans, Plato

I think that one thing that can be over looked in Platonic dialogues is time they were written in. At this time Greece was falling apart and there was lots of corruption. It is almost helpful to think of Socrates as a Mr. Rogers like character; instead of going to the factory to see how crayons are made, he goes to talk to the rhetoricians who maim the political process and create corruption. Blaming Plato for some of the unsavory discussions is a lot like blaming an investigative reporter for the unsavory news story reported on.

Another thing I've realized that is a plus for Platonic dialogues is how they are philosophy laid bare. A lot of philosophic writing now-a-days are in the form of treatises. In a treatise, the thinker lays down his ideas in a matter-of-fact way. The thinker also abstracts the questions being ask as if it is taken for granted that all the answers being given have come from a question. However, Platonic dialogues expose the question as an integral part of the process. I think much injury has been done to philosophy due to modern writing styles. It has changed the roll of a philosopher to the state of a fortune teller rather than an inquirer. And this leads to philosophers focusing on interesting answers when really the important part is the question. Or it is insightful questioning that leads to insightful philosophy. Once questioning is removed from philosophy, the result is not much more than rhetorical wizardry.

Many people I've spoken with who are interested in philosophy will say Plato is pretty good but at the same time pretty basic. That to get to the meat of philosophy you have to step it up to more recent thinkers because their philosophy is more complex, as if Plato is a writer of children stories. Yet I am not persuaded by this. They think philosophy is a sport to one up each other with ideas, or trying to make something so complicated only an elite few can spend the time to have intimate knowledge of it. Much of the complications of modern philosophy have not so much to do with the ideas but with the language. Often creating words to replace commonly used words as an encryption. People spend lots of time trying to figure out what the basic meaning of the words are. Since they spend so much time just decoding, they feel something intellectual must have taken place in the time span they spent or else it would have been a waste of time. So anything that is takes a long time to decipher can be passed off as philosophy now-a-days.

Most importantly a lot of people bored with Plato are bored with questions and are bored therefore with philosophy. The intellectual stigma that comes with philosophy has enticed many people who detest it but like being seen as smart. Often since these people are bored with the practice, they become bullies. They push out the people who like philosophy and gain attention because they are persuasive. It has almost gotten to the point where if one wants to philosophize, they shouldn't take advice from modern philosophy because a lot of it is no more that what a used car salesman does.

Beginings of 'How To Think"

I think it is important that people with aspergers get involved with philosophy. It provides insight to why people who don't have aspergers do things like flirt all the time or do many things we find fake and superficial.

Flirting is just a game from socializing; almost as if it were socializing for the sake of socializing. Flirting is not boring to people who enjoy it because it involves them abstracting and heightening skills that come naturally to them. They don't have to toss and turn over doing these things because they lean towards them without having to choose it (much unlike people who do not have innate social skills). Take athletic people who innately lean towards sports. They excel at these things because they don't have to convince themselves constantly to do them; they can concentrate more wholly to the task at hand and not have to constantly remind themselves why they are doing it.

Much to other people's dismay, people with aspergers are innate thinkers. Being a thinker doesn't mean they are geniuses, but that they lean towards thinking. The sad truth is that this goes unrecognized and often discouraged as a mental illness. Many thinkers think themselves into black-holes and self-destruct. People who do not lean towards thinking use this as cannon fodder and try to cattle the person who has made himself fragile from thoughts into a cat carrier; they will probably encourage the thinker to take on the thing they lean towards because they think its the way every human achieves happiness.

But this does not help the thinker. It could distract the thinker for a time if he gets interested in task the person hands down, but ultimately after the task is intellectually exhausted, it loses it fun. The thinker suddenly drops the activity and people who don't understand this type of person view it as a sign of depression. The thinker feels depressed and just assumes this emptiness is caused by "depression". After this the aspie ping-pongs around desperately trying to medicate this emptiness with either chemicals or trying to emulate other people who appear happy/content. It does not dawn on the aspie that he lacks thinking fitness. Friends and guardians will generally advise this person to not think so much. Asking a thinker to stop thinking is like taking away a football from an athlete and making him take piano lessons (when he has no interest in music at all). This is when the aspie has to soul search and recognize bad advice, and not to abandon thinking, but take the mind for a jog to keep it fit.

Philosophy is a good exercise for the mind. It is like those who flirt for the sake of flirting. Philosophy is thinking for the sake of thinking. Chiefly it trains it how to fan out an idea and not get stuck at a mental road block (a very painful experience for any thinker). Often reality for a thinker is only as real as the thoughts he props it up with. Without coherent thinking, things begin to get scary. It is like losing a sense and it is easy to bump into mental things and hurt yourself. So if someone is looking at the sun and complain about their eyes hurting, it wouldn't be effective to tell this person to quit opening their eyes so much. The better advice would be to quit looking at the sun and focus on less luminous things.

Philosophy is a tool to the mind much like the neck is to the eyes. When an idea appears so heavy that it freaks you out, philosophy can come to spread it out. It wont solve the thought but it allows thinking for long durations with out retreading on the same thought. When a thinker gets stuck on a particular thought and cannot move on to other thoughts, it feels like drowning or that time has stopped. Just avoiding these thought traps can make a thinker's life infinitely more sane.

The problem is that philosophy is not taught in primary and secondary schools. The thinker can struggle throughout education without getting schooled in how to effectively use their skills unless a wise teacher interferes and gives this person instructions. Once the thinker is old enough to independently make choices, he if often tied to the responsibility of adulthood and cannot devote as much time and routine to the fitness of the mind as he could in school. This is true especially if the thinker has to start at square one. The thinker may also not have knowledge of what to pursue and what books to read because he hasn't developed friends with a similar temperament to share with. It is a miracle if any of these thinkers land on their feet. Especially since people who do not naturally lean towards thinking try to stifle it and derive enjoyment in doing so.

Another big problem is philosophy has been infiltrated by those who hate thought and use the prestige of philosophy to earn accolades and social advancement. Since non-thinkers are unaware of what philosophy is, they will accept the definition from anyone who seems credible and gives the appearance of a thinker. How ever these fake philosophers choose to display their philosophy, it will be easily marketable since non-thinkers will take to it more readily. So the market is saturated with crap and you need to know how to find the good stuff and to find the right people.

Although it's very hard to keep the mind fit in today's culture, thinkers must figure it out (sadly for a large part on their own). They will have to go through a large gauntlet of people telling them they are mentally ill and that they serve no purpose in society. Their talents will be treated as childish. But as much as these things are true, the thinker must figure these things out or they will self-destruct.

Digesting Philosophy

Synopsis of Nietzsche's
On The Genealogy Of Morality
First Treatise: "Good and Evil", "Good and Bad"

Nietzsche does two things to disqualify morality as something to take seriously. First, he remarks about the idea that morality came from functional habits of which later became part of culture (even when the function was lost). This is lambasted as false and foolish.

He refutes the idea by announcing that morals are set by those with authority. The words noble/good stem back from class distinctions and not functionality. The bad is associated with commoners. Words that are used to express 'bad' are interchangeable with words used to denote activities for common folk. So it does not come about by function but by declaring things so arbitrarily.

He associates nobility with a can-do attitude. They use their sense of right or wrong not to avoid things entirely, but to make themselves more effective (a functional version of morality). They treat opponents not as evil counterparts but more like an opponent in a board game. He makes a comparison to predators hunting prey. They do not hate the things they hunt. It is actually quite the opposite. They love the way they taste.

The morality used by common folk is used to denote who is doing harm. One who is violent is seen as evil. The action is then made into an object that is resented as an idea of the action. But this resentment is seen as impotent. Morality is used to identify evil and dislike it, but that does not make it go away. Morality causes inaction because instead of acting on one's impulses, it requires one to be less active. Or actively being inactive.

Personally Nietzsche is displeased by the consequence a moral carries. It quiets the human spirit and domesticates it. He is not attached to morality by idealism or function. He sees little in it but a way that 'weaker' people try to hold the stronger back. He views morality as a regression. It causes people to fall into nihilism because they are bored with man. Since a moral man is neutered, they get the same respect as a house cat.

The punchline of his polemic and second point against morality is that morality does not remove the desire for revenge or pleasure. It doesn't even eradicate that these acts will happen. Since the weak are to feeble to take matters into their own hands, they design the concept of a spirit that will eventually take care of their problems. While it would be immoral for a person to take revenge or seek pleasure, there is no problem with having a god to take care of the dirty work. So these moral beings are not doing something that is functional and neither are they avoiding unjust behavior in the long run; they are just not willing/able enough to take care of their own problems or deal with them in a way that can still be pleasurable and free of resentment.

So the overall feeling is that Good/Evil is used to support passiveness and to kick problems down the road with the feeling that this behavior will be rewarded. The good/bad mindset is used to promote action and not to assign guilt or fault to individuals. And it seems that the people who assume the good/bad view point will easily manipulate those with the Good/Evil viewpoint chiefly because the Good/Evil people prize inaction and retaliate with internal ideas they keep to themselves.

This is a park by my house. There are lots of soccer fields, but you can't use them unless you have a scheduled game. The soccer area is about the size of a neighborhood. Most of the time these fields are completely empty and if you try to practice on them a guy from the city shows up in a truck and tells you to leave. Although the birds make good use of the fields.


Gah. This building is ugly. Not to be negative or anything but it's just a fact. I wish they would cover it with some trees. It's surrounded by a large field and you can see it from very far away.


This is my middle school. this building has a common ornament used in many buildings now a days which is the oddly placed windows. I don't know how that will be treated in the future. I think it might bother people like they are like god the window thing! I get it! Oh god!



This is an interesting crop of my house. All the foliage gives this false sense of place. I didn't even recognize this as my house when I saw the photo.