Inception

I finally saw inception. The top rated sci-fi movie on Imdb. It was an enjoyable movie to watch, but I found myself not able to get past the notion of a 'dream within a dream'. I try not to let things like that bother me, especially in science fiction movies (because if I did, it would be hard to enjoy almost any Sci-Fi film), but the idea of a dream within a dream seemed so dumb.
Close your eyes (don't really, keep reading!) and imagine yourself sitting in a chair. Then imagine that your imagination self is imagining a train and on that train in your imagined self's imagination there is you, sitting in one of the seats, imaging a buffalo.
Imagining yourself imagining is the same thing as a dream within a dream. It isn't an actual THING distinct from a regular dream. It isn't as if there is an actual dream happening in your dream. A dream within a dream is just a dream about yourself dreaming. Or a dream about a dream. A dream within a dream is the same thing as a dream. (i'm a little tipsy right now. had a few 'key lime' cocktails (which are delicious) at the Chupacabra')

Terms I have seen in comment sections of news sites by conservatives to refer to Obama: Obummer, Obumma, Nobama, Omama, Obamination. The two I have seen most often are 'Obummer' and 'Nobama'
I don't recall any other politician having this many nicknames.

Labels.

I'm not sure if this is a (relatively) recent trend or not, but I feel as if I notice it more than I used to, and that is people who reject the use of labels, particularly in reference to people and even more particularly in reference to themselves. I notice this label rejection most often by people who fancy themselves as 'Freethinkers' or 'Nonconformists', but it seems to have spread amongst the broader population as well. (but then again, seeing oneself as a 'freethinker' and 'non-comformist' seems to have become pretty popular in it's own right. Even car commercials are trying to appeal to a person's sense of non-conformity. Car commercials! It is hard for me to see how buying a mass produced automobile could be an act of rebellion).

I suppose I can understand, somewhat, why a person might feel resistance to the use of labels. After all, labels are reductionistic. Describing someone as a 'surfer' or 'new yorker' doesn't capture the complexity of the individual. It may lead to incorrect assumptions about that person, that because they may fit within a certain category, people might incorrectly conclude they share other common attributes with people in that category.

However, this is a problem with almost all words! All nouns are essentially labels. To say anything about anything we must use labels. And yes, it will be reductionistic and yes it will lead to assumptions some of which are incorrect, but that is the nature of language, it is imperfect.

To deny the use of labels in describing people seems like an unnecessary obstacle, that, if anything, is more inconvenient than helpful.
Of course some descriptive words will conjure biases in people, but most people are able to realize that while a person may be a _____ they also have other attributes as well or that not everyone who is ____ is also _____. (but maybe a lot of them are) And while labels might lead to incorrect assumptions, they can also communicate a lot of information succinctly.
Plus, when people respond to a question by saying they don't like labels, they almost always go one to describe themselves using some other sort of label, albeit one slightly longer and perhaps something they made up. For example you might ask someone 'are you a skater?' to which they would reply 'I don't label myself. I like to think of myself as a person who has fun riding on a skate board'. This is still a label, it just uses more words.

These label rejecters seem to have an unnecessarily large concern with how others perceive them, going so far as to choose the words with which they can be described and thought about. I guess my general feeling about the subject is, lighten up, labels have their drawbacks but are useful as well.

Head

If mild blows to the head were as fatal as depicted in Tv and movies, I think most people would die before they turned 20.

Existence of God

In my opinion, the strongest argument for the existence of God is similar to the common argument for the existence of extra-terrestrial life, ie. even if the probabibility of life emerging at any given time on any given planet is infinitesimal, because there are billions of galaxies with billions of planets that have existed for billions years, the odds of life developing many times over are high.
(I don't think this argument is entirely solid, but it serves it's purpose)
By the same sort of thinking, if life is probably appearing in various places throughout the cosmos, it is likely some beings have evolved, either organically or through their own bio-engineering to have a strong enough understanding and control over the properties of the Universe to be what we might consider a 'God'.
Of course this wouldn't be like the standard conception of God that many religions hold: a being which has existed forever and created the universe. (although if the multi-verse theory is true, perhaps this being, or group of beings come to be in another universe and created our particular one). However, it would would be a God familiar to Latter Day Saints, ie. a being (or group of beings) that through time and work progressed to 'deification', and for whatever reason has taken an interest in our well being, either as creator, or merely observer.
Perhaps these beings would have an interest in helping other creatures become like they are. They may have learned to extend life and capture 'souls' and when we die would take us to a wonderful place where we continue to grow.
Or if we are something like a simulation running on their computers, so that as far as we are concerned, they created us and our Universe, when our virtual selves die we could go to a virtual heaven and exist for as long as they kept their programs running.

Even if such beings did exist, there is no saying what their nature would be like. They might be empathetic and loving, malicious and brutal, or indifferent.
Of course, perhaps the ways our universe can be manipulated are far more limited and no being, even in theory could ever achieve enough power to be anything close to what we would consider a God.

Seasonal brain fog.

I've noticed that I seem to have a yearly cycle in terms of mental states. My mind seems to go through regular phases that correlate with the seasons. Each fall I find my mind getting foggy. I find it more difficult to think and speak clearly. It is not that it is a symptom of seasonal depression, because I really enjoy the fall and find that I am generally happier during this time. But a haze seems to cover my mind. Perhaps it is the lack of sunlight. Perhaps it is just part of a natural rhythm my body follows and it happens to occur as the days get shorter. Perhaps something else entirely.
I've begun numerous blog entries that I quite after only a few lines because I have trouble clearly thinking about and articulating what I have in mind.

I seem to experience this every year around the same time and it usually lasts a couple months.

I make a great deal of effort to communicate clearly. Clear communication is something I value a great deal. When the fog descends on my brain I can sometimes struggle with expressing even simple ideas. Because clear thinking and communication something important to me, it can be frustrating when it becomes a struggle. Even now as I am writing this I am struggling to find the correct words to explain myself and feel i am falling short. Hopefully my seasonal brain fog doesn't last too long this year or I can figure a way out of it.

an overheard conversation.

Marissa and I went to a cafe for lunch today and sitting beside us were two guys who seemed like they might be on a second 'date'. The reason it did not seem like a first date is because while they didn't seem to know each other well, they weren't asking first date sort of questions.

The cafe was fairly crowded, so although we were sitting about 1 foot away, i only heard occasional excerpts of their conversation.



Shortly after their sandwiches were brought out I heard guy A say, seemingly in response to something I didn't hear 'Well, I'm going to be drunk all weekend so don't bother contacting me'
to which guy B replied 'then maybe you shouldn't have made out with me then.'
Causing Guy A to defensively respond 'I get really friendly when I'm drunk.'

This was then followed by a very long, uncomfortable silence.
Since this happened at about the same time their food was brought out, I imagine their meal together was fairly painful. Marissa and I left shortly after, so I didn't get to see how it turned out.

follow up

To follow up with my last post.
I do think conservatism, within limits, does have value. While it is often what keeps societies from progressing, it can also serve to keep progress in check. If there is not a group which fights change, a culture may progress too rapidly. And by too rapidly I mean seeking change that is untested and may be harmful.
If everyone in the USA had been ultra liberal, perhaps we would have embraced Communism at some point last century, which history has shown can be a disaster.

The Universal Application of Conservatism

I think one good measure of an ideology is how well it can be universally applied.
If an ideology can't easily be universally applied, then that is likely to merely be self serving to those who advocate it.

I think this is one problem with conservative ideology (by conservative, I mean, wanting to preserve traditional values), is that it can't easily be universally applied. A conservative from one culture, wouldn't want people from other cultures to be conservative, that is, to try and preserve their traditional beliefs. Conservatives often wish for individuals from other cultures to adopt their values, which would make those people progressives or liberals.

People who are the conservative within one culture are often those most at odds with conservative individuals from other cultures. Members of the Taliban are considered extremely conservative and their greatest enemies are conservatives of western culture. I would imagine that many of those who most oppose the Taliban in the US are those who would most likely be among it's ranks had they been raised in an Arab country.

Progressive/Liberal ideology doesn't have this problem. It can easily be Universally applied. Progressives from one culture will often relate most to progressives from other cultures.

(this entry used the word 'most' 4 times. 5 counting the last sentence. I tried to think of another word to use, so I would sound repetitive, but didn't think of one quickly so gave up)

Other people's opinions.

One attribute I admire in other people is the ability to be comfortable with other people's beliefs/opinions/values, particularly those with which they disagree. Plus being comfortable with those beliefs/opinions/values being expressed. This is a surprisingly rare attribute. For some reason most of us have a need for others to share our thoughts and opinions.
If I get the motivation I will flesh out more of my thinking on this subject.

A question for people who say Obama is a Socialist.

If holding traditional Democratic Party beliefs makes Obama a socialist, does that mean George W. Bush is a Libertarian or an Anarchist? (no, of course not. Obama isn't a Socialist)

Boyd K Packer

As unfortunate as the Boyd K Packer talk was, I think the situation surrounding it contains a hopefully element.

It is significant that his talk caused an uproar and was national news. This is the same guy who once advised people to punch their mission companion if they were gay. That was far more offensive than his recent talk and it didn't receive any sort of negative publicity in the mainstream media, that I am aware of.
As few as 5 years ago, I would be surprised if Boyd K packers talk would have received any media attention at all, but now, in 2010, it is a huge news story.
The backlash to his talk illustrated how far our culture as come in just the past decade in not only accepting homosexuality, but also in understanding it's biological origins.