May 31st, 2010 by Jeremy

Only settle for things that last!

May 28th, 2010 by Jeremy

History: More than a year ago, I read “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill for the first time. By the time I got to chapter three, I knew that I had to start a business and make goals to measure its success. Though I don’t know where in the book I was, on January 15, 2009, I filed the Articles of Incorporation for my company with the state. In almost every matter since, I let that book guide me. It is to this that I accredit my present successes, though I haven’t come even close to achieving my first goal.

Why?

My day job, according to my instincts. I’ve held this thought for some time, knowing that I can make what I earn in one week with only one or two design fees. But it’s the stability; the guaranteed weekly sum of over 40 hours of work that keeps me employed.

Yesterday

I began reading “The 4 Hour Workweek” by Timothy Ferriss. I’m close to finishing Chapter Four, and am ready to take action to recover 8 hours of my day which are currently spoken for. 40 hours a week that I could use to get on top of my debts, financial obligations and the costs of my dreams.

Here’s the scenario. In two weeks from Monday, I will have quit my day job. Because I now live 16 hour days, I will find no clients and receive no work from the businesses I currently serve. I will exhaust my financial reserves within two weeks time and lose power in my apartment in three. I will get my eviction notice on July 3rd, 2010 and lose my Jeep the following week due to repossession. In this time, my credit will score ZERO, the lowest credit any man has ever achieved. Thus, with only the possessions that I can carry on my back, I will walk many miles to Derek’s house in Marietta, provided that I don’t die of hunger, starvation, due to a wild animal attack, or by the impact of a semi truck along the way. Once there, I will ask him if I can sleep on his couch; to which request he will refuse because of the added population of girls that Craig picked up the previous weekend. At that time, I will be so hungry that I will willfully eat the meat of my left arm and die of bloodloss.

Yet before I take the first bite, something magical would happen. An alien would come from the heavens and, using hyper-telepathy, would tell me that my business partner got the lease on the new office in Buckhead. Though I would have no strength to walk twice the distance to Buckhead, as compared to the distance from here to Marietta, I would somehow make it to that office. I would be working again; facilitated with all the tools I would need to contact clients and have them come to the office for consultations which would lead to design fees. I would have access to my email accounts and website again, which have nine or ten jobs from my business clients waiting for me. At night, I could sleep under my desk. In a matter of two weeks, I could afford another apartment and the deposits on my utilities. So wait… two weeks after all that? Could I really have my life in order in only two weeks? Do I really need the office to do that? Really- what is the likelihood of my worst-case scenario truly taking place?

Instead of waiting for my electricity to get turned off, I could spend 40 hours a week looking for new clients and promoting my services. The days won’t get shorter if I quit my day job. I just need to take that dive. Will it truly be worth it if I am dedicated to the task of finding those treasured few who recognize the innate nature of adorning oneself with jewelry that they find valuable- even in the midst of an economic crisis?

I will give myself the weekend to reflect on this matter. After which, I should have the balls to hand in my two-weeks notice.

May 27th, 2010 by Jeremy

I’ve spoken of war and balance… from the seemingly chaotic clockwork of the Universe down to the ever-finite construction of an atom’s nucleus. Everything is the way it is because of a necessity which we cannot understand.
What science doesn’t explain, along with the presence of an extra 7 senses, is the dichotomy of the human spirit. This might sound familiar: The Ego versus the Self. I explain it in my blog a little, viz:

There is something else that plays a role in this effort- the war between the Self and the Ego. The Self is everything with which we come into this world. We innately know the difference between right and wrong. We know what our strengths are. We each know what we can and cannot do. It is the discipling of the Self that makes a virtuous person. Then there is the Ego. It is a manifestation of our Separateness from the rest of the world. It is the false sense of individuality and selfish agendas. By analyzing the Self and the Ego side-by-side, we come to realize that a person who lives by the virtues of the Self will naturally contribute good things to the Human Race. Those that embrace the Ego will only further destroy our True Humanity. Don’t get me wrong- individuality is essential- as is the knowing of yourself and who you are. Yet, the worship and mercenary homage to one’s own individuality will almost always cause harm.

To expand on this: The Self realizes its connection to everything. It sees the true function of things, like the fact that Humans are “pack animals” made to exist on a tribal level. Furthermore, it sees that, without the connection to a group of people in which a “contributing function” is made available to each person, it cannot exist. It sees that people will labor for recognition and sustenance, which are far more valuable than money. It believes in the harmony of all systems in which it participates and will propagate itself to lend to the balancing of the whole equation, even though the equation itself is not readily understood.

The Ego is that which questions and gives animation to ‘ideology’. It is the Separatist portion of humanity that removes the person from the tribal level and creates an Individual. It is through the Ego that we idealize circumstances in search for such a circumstance’s perfection. It is the thirst to make life better for the person and the creator of the ideal conditions in which that betterment can incubate.

Let’s put them together. The Atlatl, Bow and Arrow, and the gun were created by the Ego. The Self determines that these are tools by which one may hunt for the provisions of a person’s tribe; as well as the ability to protect the tribe. The Ego created money and business to answer Equal Trade and Sustenance. The Self realizes that in order for one to better himself using these tools, he must better the whole tribe. The Ego created Government. The Self recognized that this exists to define a society in which his people may live and better themselves as a whole.

Too much Self, and you have an animal. Too much Ego, and you have Totalitarianism.

The General Population is drinking from an unbalanced pool, which is heavily Ego. We are taught dissatisfaction and individual greed through all forms of media, including colleges. We are divided by a razor that cuts a society into its individual units, and then kept separate. This is the cancer you see. This is why those rich men and women referred to as ‘The Elite’ continue to be dissatisfied. Those who have power have a diseased vision: one that would be only temporarily satisfied to see himself as the last one standing on the whole planet, so that he may govern himself and be the sole user of all the commodities his (and other) society generated. Yet, even at this proverbial end, he would still find himself wholly empty. What you see, friend, is the Ego putting that theory to the test.

True Evil is the absolute denial of Self. True Good is the denial of the Ego. We humans were charged  with balancing this equation- to be True Neutral. To be as all other forces in the Universe- completely balanced and in harmony while continuing to improve and sustain the whole of the race.

May 12th, 2010 by Jeremy

Over the weekend, I got into a small debate about Immigration Reform, which I am highly against.

The person with whom I was debating brought up points such as the founding of our country- how we, ourselves, were immigrants and have very little in difference with those who are coming across our borders (through the back doors or the walls) now. It was then mentioned that people who make intangible laws to this effect, determining who can and cannot come here, do not have a right to do so.

It is on these points that I would first like to address my position. The issue is not about the land. It is about the society that controls that land. All over history, man has sought to be in possession of property that best fit his needs. This is true on all levels of society: Individual, tribal, states, nations and countries. Furthermore, the right to be in those societies also came with a price. A family hailing from the Cherokee tribe, seeking to live amongst the Sioux, would possibly be killed outright or enslaved without proving to be an asset to that tribe.

Entering into a society with the intent of taking residence and the ability to participate in that society comes with essential costs. Not everyone is subject to these costs, but everyone who comes to that society must observe the customs and laws while inside the borders which have been claimed by that society. Merchants and tradesmen, who come from many different cultures and customs, must follow a series of guidelines while in controlled territories. The observation of all applicable laws, which protect the individuals within that society, is required. The rent for the hotel in which these tradesmen are staying must be paid. Meanwhile, if those tradesmen were replaced with people who wanted to join the society, the costs would be different.

The costs to participate in a society in which one finds greater personal gain (which is the ‘why’ behind such a choice) are many, but assumed to be understood from a ‘common sense’ point of view. Think about this from a tribal vantage point. You, with your own beliefs, traditions and customs, have found a tribe that appears to provide benefits that outweigh those of your own. You then decide to move there. At some point, either through research or personal experience within that tribe, you will learn that customs are different. You might even learn that the tribe to which you’re moving is at unease with your own tribe.

Already, the equation comes into focus. In order to participate in any society, which includes the simple act of taking residence, you must offer your allegiance to that society. The threat of war or a skirmish is always there. It makes no sense to have enemies, who can attack from within when the same enemy attacks the border, living within that society. A society will not knowingly tolerate parasitic residence. If a person has tapeworms, the last thing this person will feel is gratitude that those worms have a home. Societies must determine what use you will have within their borders, and in trade for your participation within the environment they created for themselves. In other words, in what way do you help that society prosper?

Therefore, the two most important aspects of immigration are Allegiance and Service. As the tribe becomes a nation, service becomes more indirect. The leaders of that nation cannot know your name or your trade, yet they need your help to carry out their basic functions: to protect the people of that nation, as well as the systems the people find a beneficial proponent to continue their citizenship. This comes in the form of taxes (to fund these systems) and the service to a person or business (to contribute to the society).

Now that I have adequately outlined the basics to demonstrate how societies view immigration at any size, it is important to note that this foundation is still applicable- despite the size of the United States of America. Furthermore, the ignoring of these foundations poses problems that could be catastrophic in many ways.

Yet, as we take Immigration Reform into consideration, even the foundations upon which any sane society operates are violated. Our borders become, by law, permeable. The people who are allowed to live here without being interviewed and sworn in (as well as all the paperwork that is required) can now do so without promising allegiance to the United States. They can become a portion of a government system for which lawful citizens pay- not only for food and property, but also for medical upkeep. It is much like letting three random people stay in your home without ever speaking to you. Despite the fact that these people could be harmful to you and your family, as well as live off of the food that you’re buying to feed your family, you will be lawfully required to consent.

It’s that terrible.

To be continued…

May 11th, 2010 by Jeremy

I am fascinated of what I found today, via Stumbleupon. Here is a page among those that were recommended to me this month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_problem

Yes, this is a wikipedia page. When I first landed on it, I felt a little apathetic; yet my curiosity leads me to that which was being questioned. Upon my discovery, I realized that these were things that I think about quite often. Thus, I wish to pose my answers with the appropriate matter in question. Viz.

Plato suggests in his Theaetetus, Meno, and other dialogues that ‘knowledge’ may be defined as justified true belief. For over two millennia this definition of knowledge has been reinforced and accepted by subsequent philosophers, who accepted justifiability, truth, and belief as the necessary criteria for information to earn the special designation of being “knowledge”.

In 1963, however, Edmund Gettier published an article in the periodical Analysis entitled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, offering instances of justified true belief, which do not conform to the generally understood meaning of “knowledge.” Gettier’s examples hinged on instances of epistemic luck: cases where a person appears to have sound evidence for a proposition, and that proposition is in fact true, but the apparent evidence is not causally related to the proposition’s truth.

Numerous subsequent philosophers have offered modified criteria for “knowledge”, in response to Gettier’s article. There is no general consensus to adopt any of the modified definitions yet proposed.

To which I respond: I agree with Plato, providing that “Justified True Belief” may be defined as information which a person has come to realize as truth by using both their innate senses to understand as well as other ‘knowledge’ gained by that person to facilitate the method of examination.

I must, however, specify that personal knowledge is a product of perception which is infinitely built upon itself. We, as individuals are concerned, gain knowledge through two media: Other people (which includes Direct Contact, as in the sharing of information from one person to another, and Indirect Contact, which is inherited through other media, such as books, television, etc.) and personal experience (the circumstantial ‘if/then’ product of one’s abilities at problem-solving, concerning interactions with anything other than a person or his/her/their media of communicating any message. This includes Intuition.)

General (or ‘common’) knowledge is the same that is shared by a society of notable size in which the matter in question has reached a point of accepting by consensus, notwithstanding any measure of any individual’s personal evaluation of the matter in question.

***
For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of “luck”.

A related case is resultant moral luck, for instance when two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving recklessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers’ intentional actions; yet most observers ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed.

The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control.

To which I respond: Morality is not defined solely by one’s actions, but rather in concert with the methods by which he pursues that action. In the above example concerning the act of reckless driving, the term is too broad to generate proper results. Perhaps the driver who caused no death was, by some people’s opinion, driving recklessly; whereas, he may have maintained full awareness of the road and his surroundings yet without regard to the speed at which he was traveling.

It was the first example, as well as the last line of this excerpt, that struck home for me. A proper philosopher would not measure solely one’s status without giving appropriate attention to the circumstances of  either individual. ‘At what level of poverty does the stealing of food become a justified act of survival rather than sheer lawlessness’ is a more appropriate question. Let me answer this.

A person who has no immediate availability of exposure nor ability to participate to ‘civilized living’, who is also without a food source, is acting in a way that reflects a justified act of survival. Yet, given the presence of generous provision, to any extent, or the ability/responsibility to participate in a lawful society, stealing then becomes an act that is unlawful. The primary motivation behind this belief is the presence of choice within the environment in which the person in question exists. Reducing one’s environment to a state in which one is forced to denounce the responsibility to coexist within any human society peacefully adequately removes the subject from any lawful measure, which only exists in established societies.

In other words, if a person accepts the option to exist/participate within an established society of people, in which acceptable methods of survival are present, they are responsible to adhere to that society’s guidelines, customs and or laws in regard to survival. For example, any physically/mentally capable person who lives in America and, of his or her own methods, uses the resources made available to Americans, cannot steal food legally. Most simply, I could more generously evaluate one who is outright homeless for the lawful measure of his actions, in comparison to one who lives in ‘government assisted housing’ or by any similar program.

***
I quite enjoyed this reflection, Stumbleupon. Thank you.