Before I Read this Poem

by George David Miller

Before I read this poem, I want to tell you somethings
About myself.

I know — I’m like you
I can’t stand this confessional poetry crap
The inner recesses of the soul and all that.
I think the more you say
The more you hide from others and from yourself.
Nietzsche said nobody ever wrote an authentic
Autobiography.

My life isn’t a poem
It’s a clearance sale at Wal-Mart
Buying all the Easter stuff
At half price
The week after the big rock is supposed
To have been moved from the cave

While I’m always late for big sales,
I’m always right on time for the trivial things of life:
Mowing the lawn
Picking up the kids at soccer
Making sure the bras are snapped before they’re placed in
The washer
Buying tampons with half-price coupons.

I always feel like I’m relief pitcher
In the bullpen
Waiting and waiting and waiting
To get into the big game
For the big moment
But that big game
And that big moment
Don’t come for me

Or I’m the kid playing Candy Land
Who gets all the way to Ice Cream
At the top of the board
And then gets the Candy Canes card
And has to go back to the beginning.

My life is an endless series
Of trivial foreplay
It’s like those advertisements
For the abdominal wheel
That is supposed to give you a six pack
Like Adonis
But two months after you bought it
Ends up in the garage as a replacement wheel
For your wheelbarrow.
Or it’s like those religions
That tell us to look inside of ourselves
And we’ll find the kingdom of God
But when we look inside ourselves
Which we always imagine to be
A golden chateau in the clouds
All we find is a raised rance
In Bolingbrook.
It’s like the glistening glamorous
Face on the barstool
At the beginning of the evening
That by the end of the evening
Is a mirage of mascara
Dirty rivulets streaming down
Her cheeks.
Or it’s like the vociferous promises
Of politicians
Becoming the casual compromises of
Diluted legislation.
It’s like the beautiful rooms
On Home and Garden television
That you try to emulate
But end up having
Someone finish for you

The big moments of life are not:
When the walls of Jericho tumble
When Haley’s Comet sparkles across the sky
When a knockout punch fells a fighter
Or when Sisyphus’ boulder finally goes over the hill.

The big moments of life
Are not when the boulder clears the ridge
But when we tie our shoes
Spit on our hands
Take deep breaths
Flex our muscles
Focus all our energy
And do it all over again

Realizing
Each moment is history
Each moment is passion
Each action is meaning

With Big Mac breath
Tide scented clothes
And a Wal-Mart fanny pack
We can still raise our arms
To the heavens and scream
“I’ve lived, I’ve lived” —
Carving epic lives
From ordinary moments.

And that is the whole meaning of life
To be able to look to the heavens
And scream “I have lived, I have lived” —-
To have carved epic lives
From ordinary moments.

This is my life — and it’s your life too
This is my poem — and it’s your poem too.
And you still don’t know me
And I still don’t know myself.

Lying for the good of society

It seems that everyone other than me thinks that we should keep religion, since society needs an idea of "Truth" and "Good," to function. However, aren't we just proposing a society where the truth is hidden, and people are indoctrinated to believe in irrational and illogical things which go against everything else they know to be true. Won't people begin to see through these lies?
On the other hand, I can't refute the fact that ever since Jesus spread the word of God, all poverty and suffering have been ended, and that all Christians are completely moral people, while all atheists are godless child abusing homosexual cannabalistic murderers.

Why we shouldn't hate Rand

Libertarians are a rather questionable group. The moral system they advocate benefits the rich, which they almost always are. In many cases it is a flimsy justification for acting selfishly.
However, in the Fountainhead, Rand is not particularly focused on this type of libertarianism. Instead she focus on the value of creativity and production instead of manipulation, of breaking away from the bonds of tradition, the rejection of justification by feelings and society, and the true nature of evil and power.
Thus, I encourage you to read the Fountainhead. It's not going to hurt you, and is an interesting change of style from the normal philosophical pieces. She is a terrible writer, but she presents an interesting and unique view of society, which remains valuable even if you don't believe everything she says, because she is only considering one aspect of reality.
Let us not accept opinions without questioning.

Fish's Fishy Logic

To be frank, Fish and Eagleton's arguements are entirely false. Although their arguements have a verisimilatude, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that their conclusions are based on circular reasoning and non sequitors
Fish quotes Eagleton:
“What other symbolic form,” he queries, “has managed to forge such direct links between the most universal and absolute of truths and the everyday practices of countless millions of men and women?”
Well, clearly, if you believe the universal and absolute truths to be the ones which religion describes, then yes, religion will describe them.
Another example of this fallacy is the use of the analogy of ballet:
[B]elieving that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.” Running for a bus is a focused empirical act and the steps you take are instrumental to its end. The positions one assumes in ballet have no such end; they are after something else, and that something doesn’t yield to the usual forms of measurement.
Fundamentally, they the existence of a absolute truth as a given, and that this absolute truth is God, and then complain about how science does not include this truth. They then conclude that science is incomplete, and thus we must believe, it this absolute truth. Upon this realization of circularity, the rest of the argument collapses, since there is no reason any of the things they complain about are bad, without the existence of their absolute truths, which they never show to be true.
Firstly, the value of ballet does not imply religion has value, since ballet and religion are only equivalent by analogy. Furthermore, ballet only has value within a value system, which is the very thing which this analogy is being used to prove the need for.
However, I would like to point out a few other flaws in their arguments:
Firstly, they claim that science has not replaced religion. He claims that science and religion deal with different subjects. If so, why do so many people believe thing which directly contradict the predictions of science. Although in its ideal form, religion may make not testable predictions, in reality, it makes many false testable predictions.
Secondly, his claims about the failures of science to bring progress strike me as false. I'm inclined to say that humanity has changed due to changes in science rather than their natures, because if it were just us becoming better without the help of science, why didn't we become really civilized back before we invented fire. Racism and sexism existed far before science, but there is an awfully strong correlation between the development of science and increases in the utilitarianism of society. Given that science is the fundamental cause of the civilizing of society, this seems to be causation, through a chain of direct causations.
Lastly, I would like to reject his carcature of science. Science is a way of using data to make perdictions. I do not believe, or have faith in science, any more than I have faith in my bike's ability to move me around. Its a tool, which has proven to be an effective way of moving around, just as science tends to make reliable perdictions. My bike doesn't tell me absolute moral truths. My bike doesn't tell me where I should go.
Now this brings up the final issue with their arguedment. They claim that because science doesn't us what to do, we need to have religion, so we can ecide what to do. This is simply a non sequitor.
Inevenitable we will pursue goals, but this does not mean we have faith. I can bike to get a sandwich without believing that getting a sandwich is the ultimate goal of my life. The reason I am getting a sandwich is because I am hungry, and so I will go eat, because my brain is setup to make me eat when I am hungry since that behavior is selected for because if I didn't feeling motivated to go eat, I would die, and then I wouldn't reproduce. The existance of goals does not demostrate the truth of faith, but rather a phenomana known as natural selection.
The lack of an objective imperitive does not mean an objective imperitive must exist.

Beyond Good and Evil? A Buddhist critique of Nietzsche

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/loy.htm

Stanley Fish on Terry Eagleton on Religion, Science, and Faith

Fish can be all over the place at times, but he reviews a compelling-sounding book here:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/
Is faith in some form or another inescapable in our lives?

Fun song

Gronlandic Edit by Of Montreal.
Song :http://www.imeem.com/jukeboxmusic8/music/tbNGHWXb/of-montreal-gronlandic-edit/
Lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/gronlandic-edit-lyrics-of-montreal.html

Buddhism and Nietzsche

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

Classic Review of Atlas Shrugged

I have to go on the record early (and often?) as opposing one of the writers in the list on the far right. Here's a well-known review of one of her "novels":

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

INTJ results

I am:
very expressed introvert (78%)
slightly expressed intuitive personality (12%)
distinctively expressed thinking personality (75%)
slightly expressed judging personality (22%)

Nietzsche is Pietzsche

Here is a brief and slightly humourous introduction to Nietzsche's nihilism.

On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense:
In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history"—yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.
One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts.
It is strange that this should be the effect of the intellect, for after all it was given only as an aid to the most unfortunate, most delicate, most evanescent beings in order to hold them for a minute in existence, from which otherwise, without this gift, they would have every reason to flee as quickly as Lessing's son. [In a famous letter to Johann Joachim Eschenburg (December 31, 1778), Lessing relates the death of his infant son, who "understood the world so well that he left it at the first opportunity."] That haughtiness which goes with knowledge and feeling, which shrouds the eyes and senses of man in a blinding fog, therefore deceives him about the value of existence by carrying in itself the most flattering evaluation of knowledge itself. Its most universal effect is deception; but even its most particular effects have something of the same character.
The intellect, as a means for the preservation of the individual, unfolds its chief powers in simulation; for this is the means by which the weaker, less robust individuals preserve themselves, since they are denied the chance of waging the struggle for existence with horns or the fangs of beasts of prey. In man this art of simulation reaches its peak: here deception, flattering, lying and cheating, talking behind the back, posing, living in borrowed splendor, being masked, the disguise of convention, acting a role before others and before oneself—in short, the constant fluttering around the single flame of vanity is so much the rule and the law that almost nothing is more incomprehensible than how an honest and pure urge for truth could make its appearance among men. They are deeply immersed in illusions and dream images; their eye glides only over the surface of things and sees "forms"; their feeling nowhere lead into truth, but contents itself with the reception of stimuli, playing, as it were, a game of blindman's buff on the backs of things. Moreover, man permits himself to be lied to at night, his life long, when he dreams, and his moral sense never even tries to prevent this—although men have been said to have overcome snoring by sheer will power.
What, indeed, does man know of himself! Can he even once perceive himself completely, laid out as if in an illuminated glass case? Does not nature keep much the most from him, even about his body, to spellbind and confine him in a proud, deceptive consciousness, far from the coils of the intestines, the quick current of the blood stream, and the involved tremors of the fibers? She threw away the key; and woe to the calamitous curiosity which might peer just once through a crack in the chamber of consciousness and look down, and sense that man rests upon the merciless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous, in the indifference of his ignorance—hanging in dreams, as it were, upon the back of a tiger. In view of this, whence in all the world comes the urge for truth?
Insofar as the individual wants to preserve himself against other individuals, in a natural state of affairs he employs the intellect mostly for simulation alone. But because man, out of need and boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum omni contra omnes [war of all against all] from his world. This peace pact brings with it something that looks like the first step toward the attainment of this enigmatic urge for truth. For now that is fixed which henceforth shall be "truth"; that is, a regularly valid and obligatory designation of things is invented, and this linguistic legislation also furnishes the first laws of truth: for it is here that the contrast between truth and lie first originates. The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real; he says, for example, "I am rich," when the word "poor" would be the correct designation of his situation. He abuses the fixed conventions by arbitrary changes or even by reversals of the names. When he does this in a self-serving way damaging to others, then society will no longer trust him but exclude him. Thereby men do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception: what they hate at this stage is basically not the deception but the bad, hostile consequences of certain kinds of deceptions. In a similarly limited way man wants the truth: he desires the agreeable life-preserving consequences of truth, but he is indifferent to pure knowledge, which has no consequences; he is even hostile to possibly damaging and destructive truths. And, moreover, what about these conventions of language? Are they really the products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Do the designations and the things coincide? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?
Only through forgetfulness can man ever achieve the illusion of possessing a "truth" in the sense just designated. If he does not wish to be satisfied with truth in the form of a tautology—that is, with empty shells—then he will forever buy illusions for truths. What is a word? The image of a nerve stimulus in sounds. But to infer from the nerve stimulus, a cause outside us, that is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle of reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis [Genesis] of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say "the stone is hard," as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation! We separate things according to gender, designating the tree as masculine and the plant as feminine. What arbitrary assignments! How far this oversteps the canons of certainty! We speak of a "snake": this designation touches only upon its ability to twist itself and could therefore also fit a worm. What arbitrary differentiations! What one-sided preferences, first for this, then for that property of a thing! The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one. One can imagine a man who is totally deaf and has never had a sensation of sound and music. Perhaps such a person will gaze with astonishment at Chladni's sound figures; perhaps he will discover their causes in the vibrations of the string and will now swear that he must know what men mean by "sound." It is this way with all of us concerning language; we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things—metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities. In the same way that the sound appears as a sand figure, so the mysterious X of the thing in itself first appears as a nerve stimulus, then as an image, and finally as a sound. Thus the genesis [Entstehung] of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is a least not derived from the essence of things.
Let us still give special consideration to the formation of concepts. Every word immediately becomes a concept, inasmuch as it is not intended to serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth, but must at the same time fit innumerable, more or less similar cases—which means, strictly speaking, never equal—in other words, a lot of unequal cases. Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another, and the concept "leaf" is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions; and now it gives rise to the idea that in nature there might be something besides the leaves which would be "leaf"—some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no copy turned out to be a correct, reliable, and faithful image of the original form. We call a person "honest." Why did he act so honestly today? we ask. Our answer usually sounds like this: because of his honesty. Honesty! That is to say again: the leaf is the cause of the leaves. After all, we know nothing of an essence-like quality named "honesty"; we know only numerous individualized, and thus unequal actions, which we equate by omitting the unequal and by then calling them honest actions. In the end, we distill from them a qualitas occulta [hidden quality] with the name of "honesty." We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond o the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.
What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries' old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth. From the sense that one is obliged to designate one thing as red, another as cold, and a third as mute, there arises a moral impulse in regard to truth. The venerability, reliability, and utility of truth is something which a person demonstrates for himself from the contrast with the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes. As a rational being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions. First he universalizes all these impressions into less colorful, cooler concepts, so that he can entrust the guidance of his life and conduct to them. Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon this ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept. For something is possible in the realm of these schemata which could never be achieved with the vivid first impressions: the construction of a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries—a new world, one which now confronts that other vivid world of first impressions as more solid, more universal, better known, and more human than the immediately perceived world, and thus as the regulative and imperative world. Whereas each perceptual metaphor is individual and without equals and is therefore able to elude all classification, the great edifice of concepts displays the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium and exhales in logic that strength and coolness which is characteristic of mathematics. Anyone who has felt this cool breath [of logic] will hardly believe that even the concept—which is as bony, foursquare, and transposable as a die—is nevertheless merely the residue of a metaphor, and that the illusion which is involved in the artistic transference of a nerve stimulus into images is, if not the mother, then the grandmother of every single concept. But in this conceptual crap game "truth" means using every die in the designated manner, counting its spots accurately, fashioning the right categories, and never violating the order of caste and class rank. Just as the Romans and Etruscans cut up the heavens with rigid mathematical lines and confined a god within each of the spaces thereby delimited, as within a templum, so every people has a similarly mathematically divided conceptual heaven above themselves and henceforth thinks that truth demands that each conceptual god be sought only within his own sphere. Here one may certainly admire man as a mighty genius of construction, who succeeds in piling an infinitely complicated dome of concepts upon an unstable foundation, and, as it were, on running water. Of course, in order to be supported by such a foundation, his construction must be like one constructed of spiders' webs: delicate enough to be carried along by the waves, strong enough not to be blown apart by every wind. As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things. When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal" I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be "true in itself" or really and universally valid apart from man. At bottom, what the investigator of such truths is seeking is only the metamorphosis of the world into man. He strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation. Similar to the way in which astrologers considered the stars to be in man 's service and connected with his happiness and sorrow, such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound-man; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture-man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has these things [which he intends to measure] immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves.
Only by forgetting this primitive world of metaphor can one live with any repose, security, and consistency: only by means of the petrification and coagulation of a mass of images which originally streamed from the primal faculty of human imagination like a fiery liquid, only in the invincible faith that this sun, this window, this table is a truth in itself, in short, only by forgetting that he himself is an artistically creating subject, does man live with any repose, security, and consistency. If but for an instant he could escape from the prison walls of this faith, his "self consciousness" would be immediately destroyed. It is even a difficult thing for him to admit to himself that the insect or the bird perceives an entirely different world from the one that man does, and that the question of which of these perceptions of the world is the more correct one is quite meaningless, for this would have to have been decided previously in accordance with the criterion of the correct perception, which means, in accordance with a criterion which is not available. But in any case it seems to me that the correct perception—which would mean the adequate expression of an object in the subject—is a contradictory impossibility. For between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness, and no expression; there is, at most, an aesthetic relation: I mean, a suggestive transference, a stammering translation into a completely foreign tongue—for which I there is required, in any case, a freely inventive intermediate sphere and mediating force. "Appearance" is a word that contains many temptations, which is why I avoid it as much as possible. For it is not true that the essence of things "appears" in the empirical world. A painter without hands who wished to express in song the picture before his mind would, by means of this substitution of spheres, still reveal more about the essence of things than does the empirical world. Even the relationship of a nerve stimulus to the generated image is not a necessary one. But when the same image has been generated millions of times and has been handed down for many generations and finally appears on the same occasion every time for all mankind, then it acquires at last the same meaning for men it would have if it were the sole necessary image and if the relationship of the original nerve stimulus to the generated image were a strictly causal one. In the same manner, an eternally repeated dream would certainly be felt and judged to be reality. But the hardening and congealing of a metaphor guarantees absolutely nothing concerning its necessity and exclusive justification.
Every person who is familiar with such considerations has no doubt felt a deep mistrust of all idealism of this sort: just as often as he has quite early convinced himself of the eternal consistency, omnipresence, and fallibility of the laws of nature. He has concluded that so far as we can penetrate here—from the telescopic heights to the microscopic depths—everything is secure, complete, infinite, regular, and without any gaps. Science will be able to dig successfully in this shaft forever, and the things that are discovered will harmonize with and not contradict each other. How little does this resemble a product of the imagination, for if it were such, there should be some place where the illusion and reality can be divined. Against this, the following must be said: if each us had a different kind of sense perception—if we could only perceive things now as a bird, now as a worm, now as a plant, or if one of us saw a stimulus as red, another as blue, while a third even heard the same stimulus as a sound—then no one would speak of such a regularity of nature, rather, nature would be grasped only as a creation which is subjective in the highest degree. After all, what is a law of nature as such for us? We are not acquainted with it in itself, but only with its effects, which means in its relation to other laws of nature—which, in turn, are known to us only as sums of relations. Therefore all these relations always refer again to others and are thoroughly incomprehensible to us in their essence. All that we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them—time and space, and therefore relationships of succession and number. But everything marvelous about the laws of nature, everything that quite astonishes us therein and seems to demand explanation, everything that might lead us to distrust idealism: all this is completely and solely contained within the mathematical strictness and inviolability of our representations of time and space. But we produce these representations in and from ourselves with the same necessity with which the spider spins. If we are forced to comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear within themselves the laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that conformity to law, which impresses us so much in the movement of the stars and in chemical processes, coincides at bottom with those properties which we bring to things. Thus it is we who impress ourselves in this way. In conjunction with this, it of course follows that the artistic process of metaphor formation with which every sensation begins in us already presupposes these forms and thus occurs within them. The only way in which the possibility of subsequently constructing a new conceptual edifice from metaphors themselves can be explained is by the firm persistence of these original forms That is to say, this conceptual edifice is an imitation of temporal, spatial, and numerical relationships in the domain of metaphor.

Myers-Briggs results

I just took the test. INFJ

• slightly expressed introvert
  
• moderately expressed intuitive personality
  
• moderately expressed feeling personality
  
• very expressed judging personality
  

Isn't Nature Beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMG-LWyNcAs

Don't Bother

I have come to tell you, that your struggle against me is doomed to failure. You may try to create a culture where the environmentalism is valued, but you soon will discover that people care less about saving the Earth, and more about appearing to be. They will flock to your projects, working at community service, so they can get into college and buy your recycled shirts, to impress their friends. No matter what victories you seem to achieve, in the end, you will find that they never left us. For them, you’re just another brand, trying to sell another product. You’ll never be able to compete with us, because we can make our stuff cheaper, bigger, and better. You are trying to sell them a fundamentally inferior product. You are trying to sell them of a life of sacrifice, with no reward, a life of small portions, small cars, and small houses. We offer a life of luxury, letting them plug into the Matrix of consumerism, living in hermetic homes, with air conditioning, and televisions, but no windows. They’ll never have to think again; we’ll do it for them, telling them which television to buy, which car is the best, what is true, and what is a lie, told by evil monsters trying to steal their hard earned wealth. They’ll live in a bubble, protected from terrifying world by us, their noble benefactors. They’ll never have to work or think again. And best yet, it’s practically free, because we are able to externalize our costs in a way you’ll never be able to, running our industries on their happiness and the future of the world. They may not be happy, but they think they are, because we told them that they are. And why would we ever lie to them? We are their protectors, and we would never hurt them. We live in a world of opinions, not facts, and we control the media, the government, and the world. And what do you have? A couple scientists, and hippies? You may try and get the truth out, but your one small voice will be drown out by a million voices, telling the world you’re wrong, and perhaps more importantly, about the new low low price on the Chevy Tahoe. You may have the truth on your side, but we have everything else. You will try to fight us, but you will never win, until it is too late, for you will discover that humanity wants nothing more that to listen to our beautiful lies.
Give up, join me, and let us raze this pitiful world to the ground. Humanity does not want to be saved; let us give it what it wants, and we shall live like kings.

Why bother?

This is an article I really like, written by Michael Pollan and presented in the New York Times. I have some contentions, but he has some good ideas about the way we live our lives in regards to environmental impact and obligation.

http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=92

(Disclaimer: His argument is from the point of an environmentalist, and he talks about gardens a lot.)

The Snow Man

by Wallace Stevens

One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.