In case you were wondering:
The French word, "blague," is pronounced almost identically to the English word, "blog." Translated, it means "joke."
__________
And now, a pseudo-confession:
The truth is, I frequently plagiarize. In fact, everything I ever do or say is plagiarism. I simply can't think a truly unique thought. It's rather unfortunate, but I'm afraid that's just the way my mind works. I mean, all I have to go on are my sensory inputs from the world around me, which are hardly original. Further, they're all filtered through a complex system of language that defines the world I perceive. Add on top of that the rich cultural tradition I am descended from--all the literature, music, art, science and ephemera that a hundred generations past have built, and which fundamentally inform my worldview. It's really no surprise that nothing I ever think is original.
Nonetheless, I do resent the implication that I lift material from Cliff's notes.
__________
And now some pseudo-philosophical ramblings:
Karma
It's just cause and effect. There's no personal identification, although many incorrectly understand it to mean exactly that. There's no such thing as 'the universe taking revenge' on you or anything in that vein. The reason a bad action results in bad karma is simply because it hurts other. It's as simple as that--the cycle never necessarily affects the individual causing the harm. "This is what people mean when they say 'The world isn't fair." Often, people committing 'bad' actions get away without ever feeling the harm they cause. Perhaps they even reap some benefit from of it.
People also sometimes say that whatever harm or good you do will come back tenfold. This is also misinterpreted--the harm or good doesn't come directly back to the person causing it. But the energy, positive or negative, that is created whenever an action is taken, does spread. A person who has something stolen from them is more likely to become a thief. A person hurt often proceeds to cause pain himself. However, an enlightened person will be conscious of the pain cause them, and will avoid continuing the effect.
Some schools of thought hold that the ultimate goal is to completely end all karma--to halt it in its tracks and exist in a state of non-action. That's a little too metaphysical for me, and makes me wonder what point is. It seems to me that one should always attempt to halt the negative karma they encounter, but reciprocate, even multiply, the positive.
But maybe I just haven't acquired a taste for entropy yet.
In this vein, here's a hypo: You see a coat on television, worn by a character on one of your favorite shows. You immediately want it. You look in stores, online, you find it in different places for various prices, but all more than you can reasonably afford at the moment. You decide that once you have the necessary cash, you'll buy it.
The next day, it is out of your mind. You meet a couple of friends. One of them seems to wearing a new coat, similar to the one you wanted to purchase. He shows it to you, tells you he 'found' it in an open car. He didn't break into the car, but the window had been smashed--someone had broken in previously. And in the car, the coat, which he took. He shows you the tag. it is a designer label. It is, in fact, the precise coat you were looking at just a day before.
Later, hanging out as a group, your friend buttons the coat. Some of the other people you are with start laughing a bit--it is far too large for him. He asks you to try it on. You hesitate a moment, but ultimately don the garment. It fits perfectly. He offers to give it to you.
What would you do?
__________
And now some pseudo-US Foreign Policy: We owe it to the world. We must lead by example--we are proponents of a democratic society with a market economy. Our message is, and one which almost all Americans believe, is that it is possible to have an open and free society where people are able to contract for their labor and still live meaningful lives. If we are to take that message seriously, we must lead by example. We have the most money by far, and also the most helpful conditions in general. If we cannot succeed, no nation can. The alternative is a return to the dark ages--fascist rule and the vast majority as peons serving those who brainwashed them. We need to immediately improve our education and healthcare services. No more bullshit elections. A truly progressive tax that requires those benefitting the most from the system to pay something back to those who labor so that they may live extravagant lives. And fundamental respect for life and the right of individuals to live free from oppression.
It's all in the preamble. Seriously.
__________
Point:
It's all about planting a seed.
Counterpoint:
“When you think about it from a native plant perspective,” Oyster says, “Johnny Appleseed was a fucking biological terrorist.”
(From Lullaby, by Chuck Palahniuk)
Friday, July 20, 2007
Trivial Trivialities Trivially Tinkering With Teh Thoughts
Labels:
counterpoint,
karma,
philosophy,
plagiarism,
point,
policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Muah ha ha, I planted a seed of plagarism that has matured into a fully developed thought! Now, to the point that everything is plagerized:
OF FUCKING COURSE> Has anyone done anything truly unique? Is every new patent filed coming from an earlier patent? Is technology based on preexisting technology? The idea that you are plagerizing is based in the notion that you lift direct ideas and claim them as your own, similarry to when at U of O I attempted to pass off Gabe's term paper as mine for a grade. Or worse, money and professional recognition.
Fact is, all "original thoughts" are the result of basing on existing conclusion. Again, this is called technology, and is not mutually exclusive to it's inventor. That's like saying a Ferrari is a plagerized Ford Model T.
Still, I got in your head and festered. Cliffs notes! Ha! Jennifer has the Cliffs notes to international economics as a part of her 400 level undergrad international political economy classes, while I was in the midst of my top tier Finance studies. This was the basis for my jibe. It's actually a play on it's own existance: How can "Cliff" put a 30 page notation together on how the international economy works? It's like a existenial crisis for .pdf.... chew on that!
The only thing more ludicrous than the ownership of ideas are the laws garnering them. I love me a good temporary monopoly over exclusive rights. All for the sake of innovation, too. I also love how this supposedly egalitarian system of exclusivity only acts as further trappings for those who can exercise exclusion to do so (e.g. those who can afford a lengthy court battle)
I think your karmic ideas on development make a lot of sense. The way one Marxist theorist puts it (yeah, I know, I'm a dependency theory snob) the way hegemony is held is through a combination of consent and coercion.
Although sometimes the line drawn between the two extremes can be incredibly difficult to identify. An example of the difficulty is consumption. When you buy food, you act in your best interests; your compulsions. But which brand you buy is developed through a methodical system, the manufacture of demand by producers.
Even more bewildering is the famous postmodern question of, "who exactly wields the power?" Does the state force people to act beyond their nature, or does it infiltrate every ego in society?
Supposing that power is exercised by all, and that the power is coercion and consent -- does the exercise rely upon parties consenting to rule? Or do parties consent to themselves exercising rule?
Voluntary exercise of power is in opposition to the voluntary discard of power. Being good means disavowing power and using it. Yet, in politics decision making is key, not non-decisionmaking. Leading the world in good example is all good, but it's political suicide.
In coming full circle, there is a gap between what we can find theoretically, and the theory's praxis politically and legally (both disciplines being dialogical, but that's a thesis to be examined later).
And this is what I learned from Harry Potter.
(oh, and sorry for the confusion. neither Harry Potter, nor J.K. Rowling are Marxist theorists. I was referring to Antonio "The Hunchback of Turin" Gramsci)
This article was extremely interesting.
Good Afternoon
Looking forward to your next post
how are you?
Awesome blog, great write up, thank you!
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]online casino[/url] coincide the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]free casino games[/url] autonomous no deposit reward at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino.com
[/url].
Post a Comment