Ah... Another post, preceded by another (previously sworn against) lack of activity. I make, as always, sincerest apologies, and likely need not explain the circumstances of the pause. And though the effort required to write at all is insignificant, I should only like to post with - indeed - significance. Thus, no promise will be made concerning the next post; but with hope, it will find existence sometime in the tangible future.
The post of now, however, is one of great significance - to me, at any rate. It may become, in the process of its creation, something blasphemous. But please understand that this is only for intellectual criticism; I've no intention of disposing my faith! Let us delve into the ultimate significance of life.
How might a Christian respond to this question? "The significance of life is to understand and appreciate God's creation and love for that creation, and to prepare it for eternal Heaven." A Hindi? "We live to achieve Brahman, through reincarnation along the Wheel of Life." An atheist? "There is no significance in life. We live and die; that is all." Many place life's ultimate meaning in religion (or lack of it), yet facts: what logically we have deduced and determined to be correct - tell us that such vague uncertainties cannot exist, that there must only be one ultimate purpose for our existence.
It is irrefutable that everything about us here, on Earth, is composed of matter. That things beyond Earth are composed of matter. That all we know of tangible is matter. We have even placed laws and comprehension on non-matter: energy, physics, and time itself. We have determined that our universe began from super-compression of matter, which, becoming so dense, violently exploded outward, quickly expanding. For us, this is the beginning of 'life'. From the Big Bang, the sun would form, followed by our solar system, the Earth within it. Single-cellular life, over millenia, would become cooperative, and these alliances would diversify: the land-dweller, the fish, the bird, the reptile. Soon, then, would come the human. And here we are.
And yet, this incredible matter - the basis of the universe - must have come from somewhere before the Big Bang. Surely it simply wasn't 'in existance'. And too, scientists have attempted to explain this; yet, no cause theorized by them is self-propagating, and all-encompassing. We've still no absolute idea from whence existance itself derived. However, even if this is answered, the (arguably more important) question persists: what was the reason for this creation?
Douglas Adams, a brilliant author, has stated that because humans evolved with purpose and logic foremost in their minds - essentialy that everything does something, and that all things have a reason for being done - they apply this pathway of thought to things beyond their comprehension. It could be that we haven't come across the meaning of life because we are incabable of understanding it, cognating as we do. But the prevalent theory is that of God. That it was his design that led us to be created. Persistantly, it seems, a similar question lingers: what was God's design? What is God's aim in this? And if God doesn't exist, then why exist at all?
And here we arrive at a stumbling block. I've no authority to pass any deeper into the topic. Yet, I shall. Lately I have considered the 'scalablity' of organizational levels of life. (Organizational levels denote levels of existance - the sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, cellular, organism, ecosystem, ecosphere, universal, etc...) Maybe it is that there is infinate scalability in these levels. That we, as multi-cellular organisms, are acting as cells for something greater than us, just as our cells exist for us, and their organelles for them, etc. And that what encompasses us is in turn encompassed by something else, and that in turn, for infinity; in both directions. If this is true, than, just as we have control of our cells, this 'infinitely largest level of existance' would have control of us, indeed all below it in this heirarchy. Therefore, this could be God. Perhaps all existance is working in harmony, to achieve what we have titled, God. Yet, boldly, still, the question: what is the purpose of 'God'?
I am quite determined that there is only one reason, ultimately, for this life. But as of yet, what that reason - that purpose - is, remains secluded.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
More Ranting!
As it's been longer than anticipated since the previous post until now (the next post), I'll write something uncreative simply to compromise any reader's spare time, much like the post two before this, and in effect continuing with the closing topic. That was, by the way, exploring phrases in English that make no sense if taken literally. So - let us begin!
**
The next phrase - here's a good one - 'it's raining cats and dogs'. If it happens to be raining at the moment, when you're reading this, go and look outside. Look for cats and dogs falling from the clouds. I can quite assure you that you won't find any, no matter how hard you search for the query. Scientifically, then, it can be stated with much confidence that particles of water do not contain the protiens and other organic materials necessary to create life as we know it. Water isn't even living itself. So how did we come to use the phrase?
This I did research, and found that (like much in English), it was borne more out of old things than logic. It can be traced to the 1700s, when torrential rains would cause rapid flooding, carrying the corpses of dogs and cats through the streets. Thus, heavy rains come with the implication that they also rain - not living - but dead household pets, which we've all come to love. I can't determine if the picture evoked by that is more grim or comedic... Perhaps a better phrase (one to replace 'it's raining cats and dogs') would be, 'it's raining hard enough to disturb the dead', because the rain would have transported corpses of the cats and dogs, thus 'disturbing' them. And if that were true, there would likely be a terrible series of horror movies about flood rains that create zombies; so perhaps the phrase is indeed best as it is?
*
'The whole nine yards'. This phrase is used to describe something that is utterly complete. For instance, one might say, 'Leonardo da Vinci really went the whole nine yards in painting The Last Supper.' Research says that the definate origins of the phrase are unknown, but are assumed to be sometime from the late 1930s to the 1970s. The explanation I like best describes the phrase as deriving from World War II combat pilots, because to 'go the full nine yards' (as they would say), was to use up all twenty-seven feet (nine yards) of the aircraft's machine gun ammunition belt. But of course, because the origins of the phrase are uncertain, many explanations have been offered, besides the one above, no one able to comprehensively prove nor disprove any theory. So that takes care of that.
*
And finally, 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'. I used to have a very hard time understanding this phrase, but truthfully it is much more a proverb than phrase. It means, essentailly, that something assured is better than something uncertain - a small, but certain, portion of food is better than than a larger portion that can only questionably be gained (as with hunting.) My explanations of such things are terrible, and as such I offer my apologies. The proverb teaches a valuable lesson, but literally does not add up. A bird in your hand is worth the same as a bird in the bush (the forest), assuming both are the same type of bird. You can't fairly say that just because you touched it you should receive extra for it. That doesn't work. But the proverb is good.
**
And to close the post, I'd like to rant about animal rights. I am aware of animal activists who believe that all animals should be given human rights, and that humans have no right to kill and consume them. Surely the activists wouldn't mind a bear consuming a fish, or a fish consuming plankton. It's all part of nature's food chain. As it is, humans top the food chain currently. Humans, too are animals, and thus have just as much right to eat a fish (or a bear) as a bear does.
It could also be argued that if animals are to be given rights, then why not plants and trees? Surely these too are living, and don't deserve to be killed against their own will. But again, consumption is all part of nature's food chain, and plants play an active role in it, just as other animals do. So that answers that, I think.
**
FIN
**
The next phrase - here's a good one - 'it's raining cats and dogs'. If it happens to be raining at the moment, when you're reading this, go and look outside. Look for cats and dogs falling from the clouds. I can quite assure you that you won't find any, no matter how hard you search for the query. Scientifically, then, it can be stated with much confidence that particles of water do not contain the protiens and other organic materials necessary to create life as we know it. Water isn't even living itself. So how did we come to use the phrase?
This I did research, and found that (like much in English), it was borne more out of old things than logic. It can be traced to the 1700s, when torrential rains would cause rapid flooding, carrying the corpses of dogs and cats through the streets. Thus, heavy rains come with the implication that they also rain - not living - but dead household pets, which we've all come to love. I can't determine if the picture evoked by that is more grim or comedic... Perhaps a better phrase (one to replace 'it's raining cats and dogs') would be, 'it's raining hard enough to disturb the dead', because the rain would have transported corpses of the cats and dogs, thus 'disturbing' them. And if that were true, there would likely be a terrible series of horror movies about flood rains that create zombies; so perhaps the phrase is indeed best as it is?
*
'The whole nine yards'. This phrase is used to describe something that is utterly complete. For instance, one might say, 'Leonardo da Vinci really went the whole nine yards in painting The Last Supper.' Research says that the definate origins of the phrase are unknown, but are assumed to be sometime from the late 1930s to the 1970s. The explanation I like best describes the phrase as deriving from World War II combat pilots, because to 'go the full nine yards' (as they would say), was to use up all twenty-seven feet (nine yards) of the aircraft's machine gun ammunition belt. But of course, because the origins of the phrase are uncertain, many explanations have been offered, besides the one above, no one able to comprehensively prove nor disprove any theory. So that takes care of that.
*
And finally, 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'. I used to have a very hard time understanding this phrase, but truthfully it is much more a proverb than phrase. It means, essentailly, that something assured is better than something uncertain - a small, but certain, portion of food is better than than a larger portion that can only questionably be gained (as with hunting.) My explanations of such things are terrible, and as such I offer my apologies. The proverb teaches a valuable lesson, but literally does not add up. A bird in your hand is worth the same as a bird in the bush (the forest), assuming both are the same type of bird. You can't fairly say that just because you touched it you should receive extra for it. That doesn't work. But the proverb is good.
**
And to close the post, I'd like to rant about animal rights. I am aware of animal activists who believe that all animals should be given human rights, and that humans have no right to kill and consume them. Surely the activists wouldn't mind a bear consuming a fish, or a fish consuming plankton. It's all part of nature's food chain. As it is, humans top the food chain currently. Humans, too are animals, and thus have just as much right to eat a fish (or a bear) as a bear does.
It could also be argued that if animals are to be given rights, then why not plants and trees? Surely these too are living, and don't deserve to be killed against their own will. But again, consumption is all part of nature's food chain, and plants play an active role in it, just as other animals do. So that answers that, I think.
**
FIN
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Ranting, Decanting, Panting?
In making fair attempts to float, at the least, on my promise, I'm updating; that is, if you can consider a series of (at best) loosely connected, unintellectual thoughts an update. There's a first for everything, I suppose.
Let me begin with an argument about why, in my opinion, many complex board games - like Risk, War of the Ring, Settlers of Catan, etc., are better in all degrees than the average video game. A 'complex board game' is one that prerequisites a fair amount of thought, and whose mechanics do not lay entirely in luck; such games are not War (a card game in which the objective is to gain the entire deck by comparing randomly selected cards), Candy Land (no explanation necessary), or Chutes and Ladders (see latter explanation), to name a few.
I do not mean to be an advocate of the dissolution of video games, and am myself a rather frequent player. I do mean to say, though, that I think many people should give board gaming more credit. It is difficult to replace the unique pleasure of sitting at a table with friends (who have become temporary sworn nemeses), and uncovering a dominating strategy that only deepens their (temporary) lust for your (in-game) punishment. For wargames, what is more gratifying than physically removing enemies' units from the board, having been trumped by your own? What can replace the release of a handful of dice, the anticipation of the roll's result, the weighted clicking of dice-against-table-against-dice?
Beyond the physical advantages board games have, one must also consider the mental. With many video games, the mind is only being used to process images, a menial task that we have been doing since a few weeks after birth. Board games, however, are far more complex: one must not only initiate some form of strategy himself, but must also acclimate to the varying strategy of his opponents, no matter the degree. The depth of a video game goes only as far as any computer may go; and need it be stated that, at its base, a computer is simply many logic gates that either turn on or off.
And here's one for the Green Party: after having been created, board games use no additional environmental resources! (Reader: 'huzzah' now, please.) Again, video games are great, and are great wasters of time. I simply believe that board games are being under credited, and overlooked with the advent of so much new technology.
**
My next series of thoughts will be devoted to trying to understand why some phrases are used in English, though nonsensical if taken literally.
'Cool'. I believe it was first used to describe temperature.
"How's the weather today, lad?"
"It's very moderate today, sir. Not so warm, nor cold either."
"Hmm... 'Cool' isn't it?"
Maybe that's how it came about, though I think it more likely derived from the same word from which we get 'cold', employed to a lesser degree. But how did 'cool' come to be synonymous with such wonderful words as 'awesome' or 'wicked', or even (the phrase) 'wicked awesome'? Perhaps an English-speaking population living in a temperature-unstable location (like Indiana...) found that the temperature was best between hot and cold. It was 'awesome' or even 'wicked awesome' at such times. And so this temperature level began to be substituted in spoken sentences in place of words with such positive connotations; then, over time, its meaning officially became multi-faceted. Who knows?
Oh! A 'pair' of pants. I've labored over this one for some time, and still haven't overcome laziness enough to simply find a credible answer. The question that arises with pants, is why they must be purchased in pairs: one can buy a single t-shirt, but cannot buy a single pant(?). However, he can purchase a single pair of pants. I'm pretty sure that a 'pant' used to mean the clothing that covers a leg, or for simpler terms, a leg-sleeve. Because these 'leg-sleeves' used to be made independently, and only attached once both were prepared, it was more conventional to title their bonded state a 'pair' of 'pants'. And, actually, the term 'pant-leg' is still used commonly today, to refer to one leg of a pair of pants. I'm confident that the above explanation is fairly close to the truth.
**
Though my opinions on the entertainment value of this post likely cannot be applied to the readers, I entertained considerable pleasure while writing this, and hope (if the readers are not overly disgruntled) to do more similar to this in the future. My attempts at comedy were thus, and creativity in writing marginal at best; but these are the flaws of thoughtless writing. Many thanks!
Let me begin with an argument about why, in my opinion, many complex board games - like Risk, War of the Ring, Settlers of Catan, etc., are better in all degrees than the average video game. A 'complex board game' is one that prerequisites a fair amount of thought, and whose mechanics do not lay entirely in luck; such games are not War (a card game in which the objective is to gain the entire deck by comparing randomly selected cards), Candy Land (no explanation necessary), or Chutes and Ladders (see latter explanation), to name a few.
I do not mean to be an advocate of the dissolution of video games, and am myself a rather frequent player. I do mean to say, though, that I think many people should give board gaming more credit. It is difficult to replace the unique pleasure of sitting at a table with friends (who have become temporary sworn nemeses), and uncovering a dominating strategy that only deepens their (temporary) lust for your (in-game) punishment. For wargames, what is more gratifying than physically removing enemies' units from the board, having been trumped by your own? What can replace the release of a handful of dice, the anticipation of the roll's result, the weighted clicking of dice-against-table-against-dice?
Beyond the physical advantages board games have, one must also consider the mental. With many video games, the mind is only being used to process images, a menial task that we have been doing since a few weeks after birth. Board games, however, are far more complex: one must not only initiate some form of strategy himself, but must also acclimate to the varying strategy of his opponents, no matter the degree. The depth of a video game goes only as far as any computer may go; and need it be stated that, at its base, a computer is simply many logic gates that either turn on or off.
And here's one for the Green Party: after having been created, board games use no additional environmental resources! (Reader: 'huzzah' now, please.) Again, video games are great, and are great wasters of time. I simply believe that board games are being under credited, and overlooked with the advent of so much new technology.
**
My next series of thoughts will be devoted to trying to understand why some phrases are used in English, though nonsensical if taken literally.
'Cool'. I believe it was first used to describe temperature.
"How's the weather today, lad?"
"It's very moderate today, sir. Not so warm, nor cold either."
"Hmm... 'Cool' isn't it?"
Maybe that's how it came about, though I think it more likely derived from the same word from which we get 'cold', employed to a lesser degree. But how did 'cool' come to be synonymous with such wonderful words as 'awesome' or 'wicked', or even (the phrase) 'wicked awesome'? Perhaps an English-speaking population living in a temperature-unstable location (like Indiana...) found that the temperature was best between hot and cold. It was 'awesome' or even 'wicked awesome' at such times. And so this temperature level began to be substituted in spoken sentences in place of words with such positive connotations; then, over time, its meaning officially became multi-faceted. Who knows?
Oh! A 'pair' of pants. I've labored over this one for some time, and still haven't overcome laziness enough to simply find a credible answer. The question that arises with pants, is why they must be purchased in pairs: one can buy a single t-shirt, but cannot buy a single pant(?). However, he can purchase a single pair of pants. I'm pretty sure that a 'pant' used to mean the clothing that covers a leg, or for simpler terms, a leg-sleeve. Because these 'leg-sleeves' used to be made independently, and only attached once both were prepared, it was more conventional to title their bonded state a 'pair' of 'pants'. And, actually, the term 'pant-leg' is still used commonly today, to refer to one leg of a pair of pants. I'm confident that the above explanation is fairly close to the truth.
**
Though my opinions on the entertainment value of this post likely cannot be applied to the readers, I entertained considerable pleasure while writing this, and hope (if the readers are not overly disgruntled) to do more similar to this in the future. My attempts at comedy were thus, and creativity in writing marginal at best; but these are the flaws of thoughtless writing. Many thanks!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Of Dimensions and the Shape of the Universe
This post concerns a branch of theoretical physics indirectly related to the string theory, which offers an explanation of reality. It is hoped that it won't subdue many readers.
Dimensions! The space in which our own reality exists! The definition of space contained within a shape! It is widely believed that we, Earthlings, are able to perceive four dimensions. (Perceive was used because - theoretically - we continue to exist in dimensions above the fourth, but are simply unaware of their existance or how our actions influence those them.) First, imagine a point: a place of infinately small size that has no area or volume, and simply represents space. If one were to imagine a second point, and draw a line between these, the first dimension could be created - length. If from this line another were to branch, the second dimension could be imagined - width. For ease of explanation later, the third dimension will be described as what the second dimension is folded through to get from one point to another instantly in the second dimension. As an example, imagine a second-dimensional creature walking along a flat plane: a second-dimensional world. If we were to take this plane and overlap it with itself (fold), then return it to its flat position, if the second-dimensional creature were to have walked onto the overlap before the plane was flattened again, and sustained its position after the plane were flattened - alas! It would seemingly have been transported from one point to another - instantly. Any dimension can be described as what is folded through in the dimension below it in this way.
The above dimensions concerned physical space, which we all are well-acquainted. The fourth and final dimension we are able to perceive is time. Time is fleeting. Physics describes time as an indefinate number of points every second/(second squared). Thus, we live from point-to-point in time - a literal 'time-line'. If you imagine yourself one second ago, and consider yourself now, you will notice you have changed, and also that you would be able to draw a line from that point to this one fluidly. On a larger scale, consider the universe from the big bang to the present: it could continue to be charted as a fourth-dimensional, fluid line. Physics also says that our existance is waves of probability collapsed by perception, and that every action we take creates a new path of existance for us, leading to one's present existance. The fifth dimension, then, is a branch, or branches, in the time-line. Now, what if you wanted to find one path of existance for yourself in which you were prosperous, or did a marvelous deed for the world? One way would be to travel back in time, influence your younger self in some way, and wait to see the result. Easier, however, would simply be to fold the fifth dimension through the sixth dimension so that you could instantly travel from one path of your existance to the path of your existance that you desire.
The seventh dimension is epic: all possible branches of the universe's timelines, represented in a single point. Anything from whether or not a caveman were to blink at one time instead of another, to whether or not Hitler decides to begin the Holocaust are contained in this point. Thus, the point is infinity - everything. But the eigth dimension is a line connecting one infinity to another. How is this possible? Different starting conditions, which would create a totally different universe with varying natural, physical laws, etc. So... as said, the line connecting one infinity to another (in time) is the eigth dimension. As you could probably imagine, then, the ninth dimension is a branch in time from one infinity to another, leading to yet another infinity. Finally, however, the tenth dimension is a point representing all possible timelines with all possible starting conditions... What I like to call 'absolute infinity'. *Whoah* The string theory says that matter derives from subatomic strings vibrating in the tenth dimension.
Now, to the shape of the universe. This has been, and is still being, debated, because none have left the universe (obviously) to photograph it, or document its shape. Some believe that the universe will eventually collapse under its own gravitational force, but I don't think that is very likely because in other dimensions in the universe gravity may not exist. Others, then, say that the universe is infinately expanding, and only a divine, all-powerful being should decide when it ends, if ever. Let us consider a moebious strip. To create one, take a strip of paper (representing a plane in the second dimension), twist one end 180 degrees, and attach the two ends as they are. You should have, then, a ring of paper with an odd bend in it. If you were to draw a line around the ring, you would notice that the line covers both the inside and outside of the strip before returning to its initial position; thus, it is a two-dimensional (one-sided) shape, existing in three-dimensional space. Wow! I believe this to be the shape of the universe. Because it is infinately expanding, we shall never see it from the outside. Similarly, if a two-dimensional creature were to walk along it, they would believe themselves to be walking in two-dimensions, while in reality they would be existing in three. Thus, if there are dimensions above our own that we are unaware of (as detailed above), then we very well could be like those two-dimensional creatures on a 3-D moebious strip, but with higher dimensions. We would be forever unable to see the outside, because we would be unaware of it entirely. What fun!
Dimensions! The space in which our own reality exists! The definition of space contained within a shape! It is widely believed that we, Earthlings, are able to perceive four dimensions. (Perceive was used because - theoretically - we continue to exist in dimensions above the fourth, but are simply unaware of their existance or how our actions influence those them.) First, imagine a point: a place of infinately small size that has no area or volume, and simply represents space. If one were to imagine a second point, and draw a line between these, the first dimension could be created - length. If from this line another were to branch, the second dimension could be imagined - width. For ease of explanation later, the third dimension will be described as what the second dimension is folded through to get from one point to another instantly in the second dimension. As an example, imagine a second-dimensional creature walking along a flat plane: a second-dimensional world. If we were to take this plane and overlap it with itself (fold), then return it to its flat position, if the second-dimensional creature were to have walked onto the overlap before the plane was flattened again, and sustained its position after the plane were flattened - alas! It would seemingly have been transported from one point to another - instantly. Any dimension can be described as what is folded through in the dimension below it in this way.
The above dimensions concerned physical space, which we all are well-acquainted. The fourth and final dimension we are able to perceive is time. Time is fleeting. Physics describes time as an indefinate number of points every second/(second squared). Thus, we live from point-to-point in time - a literal 'time-line'. If you imagine yourself one second ago, and consider yourself now, you will notice you have changed, and also that you would be able to draw a line from that point to this one fluidly. On a larger scale, consider the universe from the big bang to the present: it could continue to be charted as a fourth-dimensional, fluid line. Physics also says that our existance is waves of probability collapsed by perception, and that every action we take creates a new path of existance for us, leading to one's present existance. The fifth dimension, then, is a branch, or branches, in the time-line. Now, what if you wanted to find one path of existance for yourself in which you were prosperous, or did a marvelous deed for the world? One way would be to travel back in time, influence your younger self in some way, and wait to see the result. Easier, however, would simply be to fold the fifth dimension through the sixth dimension so that you could instantly travel from one path of your existance to the path of your existance that you desire.
The seventh dimension is epic: all possible branches of the universe's timelines, represented in a single point. Anything from whether or not a caveman were to blink at one time instead of another, to whether or not Hitler decides to begin the Holocaust are contained in this point. Thus, the point is infinity - everything. But the eigth dimension is a line connecting one infinity to another. How is this possible? Different starting conditions, which would create a totally different universe with varying natural, physical laws, etc. So... as said, the line connecting one infinity to another (in time) is the eigth dimension. As you could probably imagine, then, the ninth dimension is a branch in time from one infinity to another, leading to yet another infinity. Finally, however, the tenth dimension is a point representing all possible timelines with all possible starting conditions... What I like to call 'absolute infinity'. *Whoah* The string theory says that matter derives from subatomic strings vibrating in the tenth dimension.
Now, to the shape of the universe. This has been, and is still being, debated, because none have left the universe (obviously) to photograph it, or document its shape. Some believe that the universe will eventually collapse under its own gravitational force, but I don't think that is very likely because in other dimensions in the universe gravity may not exist. Others, then, say that the universe is infinately expanding, and only a divine, all-powerful being should decide when it ends, if ever. Let us consider a moebious strip. To create one, take a strip of paper (representing a plane in the second dimension), twist one end 180 degrees, and attach the two ends as they are. You should have, then, a ring of paper with an odd bend in it. If you were to draw a line around the ring, you would notice that the line covers both the inside and outside of the strip before returning to its initial position; thus, it is a two-dimensional (one-sided) shape, existing in three-dimensional space. Wow! I believe this to be the shape of the universe. Because it is infinately expanding, we shall never see it from the outside. Similarly, if a two-dimensional creature were to walk along it, they would believe themselves to be walking in two-dimensions, while in reality they would be existing in three. Thus, if there are dimensions above our own that we are unaware of (as detailed above), then we very well could be like those two-dimensional creatures on a 3-D moebious strip, but with higher dimensions. We would be forever unable to see the outside, because we would be unaware of it entirely. What fun!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Another Void. Another Post!
Greetings, friends, unto you!
I apolozize, again, for my affinity for hypocracy in not updating this blog. Though the usual barrage of reasons validating this lack of posts exists, I shan't use it as a crutch; but must be foreward in saying that I have been uncommonly lazy of late, and with the advent of summer, intend (dearly) to dismiss my sloth. Onwards - to the post!
Basically, with this post I intend to raise awareness about a mental disorder called 'Asperger/'s Syndrome', which is a form of very high-functioning autism. The usual sterotypes applied to autistic patients - repetitive, exaggerated movements; apparent mental retardation; the inability to express oneself - are not present or are very mild in an Aspie (one diagnosed with Asperger's). 'Then,' you may question, 'what is Asperger's Syndrome?' A basic definition can provide that it is primarily a social disability. Though individuals with Asperger's are generally quite intelligent, they are uncomfortable in an unfamiliar or (for them) hostile environment; however, further signs of Asperger's vary between patients. Thus, to make readers aware of what it is to the best of my ability, I'll describe my own case, and try to relate it to someone unaffected by it.
It's probably fair to say that I was a very normal, pleasant young child. However, my concerns were allocated in areas other children wouldn't worry about. I was always overly concious about manners, and felt terribly whenever my parents would spend money on me. Though at this time I probably did not have complete Asperger's, these signs very well could have led to the case I now have (as it is a developmental disorder.) Perhaps the first indications of full-blown Asperger's were the terrific stage fright I developed around fourth grade, and with that a tendency to rock sligtly from side-to-side before large crowds. I became acquainted with my viola (and thus the broader world of music) in sixth grade, and have since developed a great interest there.
From about fourth grade until near the end of eigth grade, my social habits depreciated. I failed to find friends outside of those I made in elementary school; my voice began to quiver (and I began to perspire, slightly) when talking before the class; eye contact became very difficult to maintain (this last is another defining trait of Asperger's). At the end of eigth grade, a series of events led my parents to seek phychologic help. Through this terapy, I was eventually diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.
So, now: my life with Asperger's. Like all things, it has disadvantages, and with them equal advantages. When speaking with people I cannot maintain eye contact for more than a few seconds without fair discomfort ensuing. I don't like meeting new people, and don't particularly care to be touched unexpectedly. I often speak too quickly for people to comprehend what I'm saying, without realizing that I'm doing it. In general - I don't seem to fit in. This is something also found in many Asperger's patients: other people see them, and notice somehing different, but can't point to what it is. It's very fair to say that one could be acquainted with an Aspie and be ignorant of his/her disorder until they are told of it. A great deal of this miscut edge in the puzzle of society is that Aspies often don't recognize social hints the way 'normal' people do. During cross country season this year, for example, I was dressed in running shorts at school, and didn't realize that it was something people simply didn't do. One of those unwritten social laws, I suppose. Aspies might also take unfamiliar phrases literally; an extreme example (i.e., one that an Aspie would never process in this way): literally breaking a leg after being wished to 'break a leg'.
Honestly, though, I don't think Asperger's is a disability. Aspies have specific areas of interest in which they heavily specialize. A good analogy would be a wide, but shallow, pool - representing the interests of a 'normal' person - against a very deep, narrow well - the Aspie area of interest. Just to give an example (by no means is this intended as bragging), my musical interest has developed to a point, in such a short period of time, that I could almost be called a savant (according to my therapist). With the help of an instructional book, over a period of about three months, I can now play the piano quite well, and have composed several pieces of music, all of increasing complexity. Another interest of mine is reading. This was probably another pre-Asperger's diagnosis sign, but by second grade I had read the complete Lord of the Rings, amongst others. Et cetera, et cetera, for all Aspies (of course, interests vary). I am able to learn things very quickly, and prefer (when learning things), to have the information directly, instead of - perhaps - through a game.
Another cool thing about Asperger's is how it allows its patients to think. Usually, a person processes information beginning with the larger picture, and, if necessary, taking in the smaller details later. In an Aspie, the opposite is true. They see smaller details immediately, and piece together the larger picture. So, they are generally able to see things that others may not pick up at first. I don't know if this is true, but according to a research article, 'normal' people usually are unable to picture a word in their head, or have some amount of difficulty in doing so. As an example, if they were given the word 'pen', they would understand it to be an ink-based writing utensil, and all other associations linked to pen that they are aware of, but would not be able to picture it without effort. With Asperger's, the picture of the pen is called to mind effortlessly. Again - I don't know if that's true; but it's accurate based on personal experience.
That's about it. I haven't touched on every facet of Asperger's Syndrome, and may write more on it in the future. But the cliche message I would like to impress upon readers is that Aspies are just like everyone else - they wish to communicate and interact (to an extent, like all people) - but simply find it difficult to accomplish. I find it extraordinarly aggravating when someone greets me as if I've the mental capacity of a child. They stroll over, and immediately a false, cheesy grin spreads across their face; in a fake, 'friendly' voice they might exclaim some simple greeting, and emphasize, 'How - are - you?' Ugh! It's rather late, and I probably didn't describe that very well, but what I'm trying to say is that - yes, Aspies may look retarded, or unstable, but we're not. We just carry ourselves differently. That's enough said for now. Thanks for reading! My intentions are to update more regularly, assuming nothing barricades spare time throughout this summer.
I apolozize, again, for my affinity for hypocracy in not updating this blog. Though the usual barrage of reasons validating this lack of posts exists, I shan't use it as a crutch; but must be foreward in saying that I have been uncommonly lazy of late, and with the advent of summer, intend (dearly) to dismiss my sloth. Onwards - to the post!
Basically, with this post I intend to raise awareness about a mental disorder called 'Asperger/'s Syndrome', which is a form of very high-functioning autism. The usual sterotypes applied to autistic patients - repetitive, exaggerated movements; apparent mental retardation; the inability to express oneself - are not present or are very mild in an Aspie (one diagnosed with Asperger's). 'Then,' you may question, 'what is Asperger's Syndrome?' A basic definition can provide that it is primarily a social disability. Though individuals with Asperger's are generally quite intelligent, they are uncomfortable in an unfamiliar or (for them) hostile environment; however, further signs of Asperger's vary between patients. Thus, to make readers aware of what it is to the best of my ability, I'll describe my own case, and try to relate it to someone unaffected by it.
It's probably fair to say that I was a very normal, pleasant young child. However, my concerns were allocated in areas other children wouldn't worry about. I was always overly concious about manners, and felt terribly whenever my parents would spend money on me. Though at this time I probably did not have complete Asperger's, these signs very well could have led to the case I now have (as it is a developmental disorder.) Perhaps the first indications of full-blown Asperger's were the terrific stage fright I developed around fourth grade, and with that a tendency to rock sligtly from side-to-side before large crowds. I became acquainted with my viola (and thus the broader world of music) in sixth grade, and have since developed a great interest there.
From about fourth grade until near the end of eigth grade, my social habits depreciated. I failed to find friends outside of those I made in elementary school; my voice began to quiver (and I began to perspire, slightly) when talking before the class; eye contact became very difficult to maintain (this last is another defining trait of Asperger's). At the end of eigth grade, a series of events led my parents to seek phychologic help. Through this terapy, I was eventually diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.
So, now: my life with Asperger's. Like all things, it has disadvantages, and with them equal advantages. When speaking with people I cannot maintain eye contact for more than a few seconds without fair discomfort ensuing. I don't like meeting new people, and don't particularly care to be touched unexpectedly. I often speak too quickly for people to comprehend what I'm saying, without realizing that I'm doing it. In general - I don't seem to fit in. This is something also found in many Asperger's patients: other people see them, and notice somehing different, but can't point to what it is. It's very fair to say that one could be acquainted with an Aspie and be ignorant of his/her disorder until they are told of it. A great deal of this miscut edge in the puzzle of society is that Aspies often don't recognize social hints the way 'normal' people do. During cross country season this year, for example, I was dressed in running shorts at school, and didn't realize that it was something people simply didn't do. One of those unwritten social laws, I suppose. Aspies might also take unfamiliar phrases literally; an extreme example (i.e., one that an Aspie would never process in this way): literally breaking a leg after being wished to 'break a leg'.
Honestly, though, I don't think Asperger's is a disability. Aspies have specific areas of interest in which they heavily specialize. A good analogy would be a wide, but shallow, pool - representing the interests of a 'normal' person - against a very deep, narrow well - the Aspie area of interest. Just to give an example (by no means is this intended as bragging), my musical interest has developed to a point, in such a short period of time, that I could almost be called a savant (according to my therapist). With the help of an instructional book, over a period of about three months, I can now play the piano quite well, and have composed several pieces of music, all of increasing complexity. Another interest of mine is reading. This was probably another pre-Asperger's diagnosis sign, but by second grade I had read the complete Lord of the Rings, amongst others. Et cetera, et cetera, for all Aspies (of course, interests vary). I am able to learn things very quickly, and prefer (when learning things), to have the information directly, instead of - perhaps - through a game.
Another cool thing about Asperger's is how it allows its patients to think. Usually, a person processes information beginning with the larger picture, and, if necessary, taking in the smaller details later. In an Aspie, the opposite is true. They see smaller details immediately, and piece together the larger picture. So, they are generally able to see things that others may not pick up at first. I don't know if this is true, but according to a research article, 'normal' people usually are unable to picture a word in their head, or have some amount of difficulty in doing so. As an example, if they were given the word 'pen', they would understand it to be an ink-based writing utensil, and all other associations linked to pen that they are aware of, but would not be able to picture it without effort. With Asperger's, the picture of the pen is called to mind effortlessly. Again - I don't know if that's true; but it's accurate based on personal experience.
That's about it. I haven't touched on every facet of Asperger's Syndrome, and may write more on it in the future. But the cliche message I would like to impress upon readers is that Aspies are just like everyone else - they wish to communicate and interact (to an extent, like all people) - but simply find it difficult to accomplish. I find it extraordinarly aggravating when someone greets me as if I've the mental capacity of a child. They stroll over, and immediately a false, cheesy grin spreads across their face; in a fake, 'friendly' voice they might exclaim some simple greeting, and emphasize, 'How - are - you?' Ugh! It's rather late, and I probably didn't describe that very well, but what I'm trying to say is that - yes, Aspies may look retarded, or unstable, but we're not. We just carry ourselves differently. That's enough said for now. Thanks for reading! My intentions are to update more regularly, assuming nothing barricades spare time throughout this summer.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
'Life and Death' on Piano
A link to a video in which Virgil plays the song 'Life and Death' from the television show LOST.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9i4uom1Z6iI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9i4uom1Z6iI
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Meaning of Life
Because I deleted the companion blog, I'll occasionally speak in first person ('I' am Virgil), where it is appropriate. This is one of those occasions. Every time I hear about scientists (or anyone, in fact) trying to decipher what 'this' means, or what 'that' does, or how 'those things' work, I become very aggravated, for what does it matter? God did not place humans on Earth to have them break apart his work. In fact, the more humans do against nature, against the intentions of God, the more we ruin the Earth, the more we create unnatural diseases and sufferings, all for this sort of false paradise on this mortal planet, in this mortal existence; because apparently there is only one life, and we should live it to the 'fullest'. But the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed God - the moment that this sin was introduced to Earth - the planet fell into decline, and people's perception about what life is, what it constitutes, became severely blurred. Below is my explanation of the meaning of life, I hope, the way God intended for it to be.
What is the meaning of life?
That's a wonderful question. As a Christian, I believe one simple solution can answer this question, a solution that makes perfect sense, requires no research, nor philosophical nor scientific prerequisite knowledge.
Scientists look for an answer to all things. They search indefinitely, and upon discovering something new, they also happen upon more new unanswered questions. In theory, then, there should be one something that binds everything together. It is that one missing piece of the puzzle, that allows each of life's many facets to work - but what is it? Will scientists ever know? Of course they won't: they reject God.
God is that missing piece. Certainly scientists can travel to an extent in their research to understand how the creation of God works, but this can only extend so far. Consider the Big Bang Theory: perhaps it occur - I'm not saying it didn't. But the theory is founded on the idea that mass existed somehow, to then become superdense, implode, and become the Universe. One question that these scientists have forever failed to answer, is how that principle matter originated, where it came from. According to science, there is an existing amount of matter in all of creation, which cannot be varied. In all, matter cannot create additional matter, nor can matter vanish into nothing. So then, the question presented in new light: where did this principle matter, that formed our universe, come from? Until science accepts God, they will never answer this. It's simply impossible. Before anything existed, there was God. And God brought this matter to exist. In the same way, then, science can only extend so far in explaining God's creation, because the basis of everything, quite simply, is the Lord.
Back to the meaning of life. If God is life's basis, then humans are based on God. Their primary objective in life is not to understand the Lord - God is God - who are we humans to say that we can understand the motives of such an awesome deity? Nay - our objective in life is to come to know the Lord. To have faith enough in what is unseen, in what cannot be deciphered by our unworthy, spoiled human minds, to believe in the Lord.
And then, accordingly, to follow his word, and obey. For if we accept the Lord, and believe that he is our All, our Everything, then certainly we should also believe that what he has instructed to be written - the Bible - essentially his Word - to be the truth. That the existence of Heaven and Hell are very, invariably real, and, as such, admittance to Heaven open only to those who fulfill their mortal duties to God; and Hell, and with it eternal suffering, open to all else.
The meaning of life cannot be described by any scientific measure. Life, I believe, to be a test of faith, a determination of who goes to Heaven, and who to Hell. When Judgment Day comes, where will you be standing?
What is the meaning of life?
That's a wonderful question. As a Christian, I believe one simple solution can answer this question, a solution that makes perfect sense, requires no research, nor philosophical nor scientific prerequisite knowledge.
Scientists look for an answer to all things. They search indefinitely, and upon discovering something new, they also happen upon more new unanswered questions. In theory, then, there should be one something that binds everything together. It is that one missing piece of the puzzle, that allows each of life's many facets to work - but what is it? Will scientists ever know? Of course they won't: they reject God.
God is that missing piece. Certainly scientists can travel to an extent in their research to understand how the creation of God works, but this can only extend so far. Consider the Big Bang Theory: perhaps it occur - I'm not saying it didn't. But the theory is founded on the idea that mass existed somehow, to then become superdense, implode, and become the Universe. One question that these scientists have forever failed to answer, is how that principle matter originated, where it came from. According to science, there is an existing amount of matter in all of creation, which cannot be varied. In all, matter cannot create additional matter, nor can matter vanish into nothing. So then, the question presented in new light: where did this principle matter, that formed our universe, come from? Until science accepts God, they will never answer this. It's simply impossible. Before anything existed, there was God. And God brought this matter to exist. In the same way, then, science can only extend so far in explaining God's creation, because the basis of everything, quite simply, is the Lord.
Back to the meaning of life. If God is life's basis, then humans are based on God. Their primary objective in life is not to understand the Lord - God is God - who are we humans to say that we can understand the motives of such an awesome deity? Nay - our objective in life is to come to know the Lord. To have faith enough in what is unseen, in what cannot be deciphered by our unworthy, spoiled human minds, to believe in the Lord.
And then, accordingly, to follow his word, and obey. For if we accept the Lord, and believe that he is our All, our Everything, then certainly we should also believe that what he has instructed to be written - the Bible - essentially his Word - to be the truth. That the existence of Heaven and Hell are very, invariably real, and, as such, admittance to Heaven open only to those who fulfill their mortal duties to God; and Hell, and with it eternal suffering, open to all else.
The meaning of life cannot be described by any scientific measure. Life, I believe, to be a test of faith, a determination of who goes to Heaven, and who to Hell. When Judgment Day comes, where will you be standing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)