February 2004 Archives

Well, well... There have been among us for some time now certain skeptics who, in their insinuating, have raised doubt in the greatness of legend. Now we can see the pitiful end of these blasphemeous insiunuation: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" has completed a full sweep of the Academy Awards, winning all 11 of the awards for which it was nominated. This ties the record totals set only by "Ben Hur" and "Titanic". Everyone knows that "Titanic" was a terrible movie, and no one knows why it did so well. So in reality, this evening has lifted "The Lord of the Rings" to a level of cinematic perfection achieved only by one other movie in the history of mankind. This is the kind of movie that transcends time and place and reality, and is nothing less than a legend, both literally and figuratively. Here is our modern Shakespeare, Homer, or Virgil: Peter Jackson and his armies of cohorts that have created this über-masterpiece.

I'm not sure about the title of this one. It sounds a little pretentious, but the title "Nihilism" didn't quite seem complete. I hope it's not too misleading. Without futher adieu:

I was having an excellent conversation with Leeor, and as usual we hit on some philosophical issue. Actually, we were having a perfectly average conversation when we started to overanalyze and have a lot of fun doing so. Essentially we were dissecting how people of varying religious beliefs can have faith in things which may or may not make logical sense to the outsider. In the end, I believe that our conversation concluded with a stunningly good demonstration of why nihilism is the closest that one can get to "truth"; i.e. the truth is that there is no truth.

Let's begin by taking the case of two people by using religion to demonstrate this point. One person is a very devout Christian of some kind. The other is an atheist with absolutely no conscious spiritualism. It is very obvious that each person believes that their dogma represents the cosmic truth (if you will). The Christian may have no idea whatsoever of how the atheist can believe what he does and vice-versa. The atheist may say, how can there be a god if you have no tangible proof of one, let alone the one that you proclaim exists. The Christian would respond by saying, how could there not be a god, especially when your beliefs can provide no reckoning of why anything really exists (and if the atheist was a physicist they'd start spewing some mumbo-jumbo about how the reason the universe exists is because if it didn't then we wouln't be here to see if, which I hate because it attempts to redefine the word "why"); hence, you can't prove what I'm saying is wrong so why should it be wrong. In essence, each person is right in their own mind. It would also be impossible for each person to prove the other wrong because each person's notion of what it takes to be proven right or wrong is different. Therefore it stands to reason that either both people are right, or both people are wrong. Since each person is clearly correct in their own mind, then we can safely say that both people are right. This raises the concern that both of our people are correct, yet their beliefs are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Here is where the basis of nihilism and relativism are proven. The obvious answer for our dilemma is that both people have different standards or requirements for proving the truth, and that leads them to different conclusions of what this truth really is. These standards are whimsical among individuals, much like a preference for a particular food. Each individual in this scenario clearly has everything they require to come to their conclusion, and yet their conclusions are so very different. Because of this we can say absolutely nothing for certain. A blind person could say that there was no such thing as light, and they would be right because to them there really isn't light. This is like the whole quantum mechanics, dead cat in a box thing, except that it goes further. People who like to say that there are such things as absolutes like to point to things like math, which are supposedly absolute because they are not prone to interperatation, but are rather highly logical and deterministic abstractions of the human mind. There are two responses to this. 1) Just look at 1984. If you tell people that 2 + 2 = 5, and give them no other alternative to believe anything else, then they will believe it. Math is only deterministic because we have created generally accepted rules that allow it to function as such. There's no fundamental reason why it isn't or couldn't be as chaotic as the rest of the world. And 2) Logic is entirely relative, so "logical reasoning" in math isn't any different that any other reasoning. Look back to the example of the two people. To the religious person, it was entirely logical to come to the conclusion that there was this one specific god. Logic is merely a person's intuition of what the most sensible pattern of reasoning is. It too is subject to these standards by which people decide what is true or correct.

Many people find this kind of thinking highly dangerous, and rightfully so. It comes to no other conclusion than that there are no universal truths besides the fact that there are no universal truths (and even that is very questionable). That is nihilism in a nutshell: what people need to believe that something is true varies from individual to individual, and because there are all these conflicting standards, there is no one universal standard for anything, and consequently nothing is certain; i.e. the eternal verity is that there are no eternal verities. You know what's great about this though? That statement that I just made which I've repeated at least thrice is totally contradictory... have fun with that.

"Esperanto... [is] this highly intellectual... language."

--Colin Corbett

There aren't really any burning blog topics to write about (actually there are but they fall into one of two categories: A) I'm still mulling them over in my head to formulate the best vicious attack on this issue, and/or B) I am currently not a liberty to discuss them). Therefore, I'll bore you with another routine entry of las cosas típicas.

In terms of speech and debate, I've gone quite thoroughly insane. I'm converting my radio commentary into an oratory piece (8-10 min. memorized persuasive), and I'm doing extemp, quite possibly the most challenging event. Extemp is where you have 30 minutes to prepare a 7-8 min. informative speech on a political topic with all sources cited and no notes. It will be fun, for sure. After I decided that, I had an invigorating discussion with Ian Rocker on oration and political correctness. It became very clear to me that he is highly discriminatory against middle-class suburban housewives, so beware! He made very derogatory comments as to their intellectual abilities, que terrible! And then he denied it. Speaking of invigorating discussions, we had a very interesting discussion on the etymology of very vulgar words in English. So make sure you remind Kadish of this when he starts talking about "The Big Lebowski". And then there's MUN. Kvitka is still in Russia making a documentary on Gorbachev, so Ian and I have been whipping these little simpletons of club members into shape for credentialing and the conference. I think that about 90% of the people in MUN are new for this year, so it's very difficult to have the same level of enthusiasm as in previous years. It will be better next year though. Szymkowiak will be gone, but Ian and I will (hopefully) be on the Security Council practicing our megolomania and veto power. I can only hope that we're Russia so we can bring the past into the present by banging our shoes on the table. I'm in the General Assembly for Saudi Arabia this year though, which is pretty cool. I will get to take the most retrogressive, awful opinions on everything.

In lesser news, I had a physics test today, which I believe I did well on, although that concerns me. I had a US History test on which I got a 97%, and an English test on which I may have missed one question, putting me around a 95%. I'm translating Hemingway, writing a research paper on cold fusion, and reading some top-notch Huxley (not Brave New World). Speaking of which, I recommend that everyone read or reread all the dystopias you get your grubby little hands on. They're one of the greatest things ever. Especially read Farenheit 451: A) Because I'm reading it, and B) Because it's more relevant than the other dystopias I've read. It succeeds because it doesn't envision such an extreme world. Although burning books may seem extreme at first, it's not really as unlikely as the first impression compels one to believe: i.e. the Nazis burned books; it definately can happen. Speaking of Farenheit, it is the worst thermometric system I can possibly envision. Please, please, for the love of all that is sane in this world, use centigrade and kelvin. I'm not trying to "undermine the moral fabric of society", but merely to halt latent stupidity in society. Hah! that's what I'm really undermining: stupidity.

In conclusion, I would like to give previews for upcoming blog entries: gay marriage: the possible constitutional amendment and why I am on the verge of strangling myself as I write this; and then there will be an analysis of something so huge, so bad (for some of us), and something that I am currently not at liberty to discuss. Oh, and I can't rule out some random Esperanto here and there: Vivu Esperanton ĉar ĝi ne nur estas la plej bonega lingvo en la mondo, sed mia amiko bona ankaŭ diris "Esperanto" en ŝia parolo ĉe la paroldebatturniro! Nu, fartu bone! Ĝis. Kaj jes, mi estas penanta akiri regon super la tutmondo per mia lingvo malbonega. Do, havu atentadon!

There's a book called "Being Colloquial in Esperanto". I want it so bad. How could you not?

I was contemplating what would make some decent blog material and then I realized: "¡Ay jesús! There's something I could write about!" Yes indeed. You get to hear about one whose ego knows no bounds. You thought that you him (they're always male), but think again because this sucker eclipses all.

There's this really weird tendency for lead trumpet players to be incredibly obnoxious, arrogant, and unpleasant. Remarkably, this holds true about 60% of the time. As for the other 40%, they're generally just normal people. But for some reason, the per capita level of unpleasantness of lead trumpet players is like 10 times higher than the general population. So anyway, there is this trumpet in PYJO II who is quite good. He is better than me in most respects, but he is always flaunting his abilities and is unbelievably insecure. Here's just a couple anecdotes from tonight.

First of all, we got "Black and Tan Fantasy" (it's awesome; Ellington is a genius, but you already knew that). I got the 3rd part because I have a painfully difficult 1st part on "The Queen Bee", and this guy got the 1st part. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what part I get as long it isn't too easy or too hard: just difficult enough as to where I will be able to play it, but I'll have to work at it. As usual the first thing he did was to look over my shoulder and compare his music with mine. For a couple seconds he seemed baffled, and I soon realized what the cause was. It appeared that a line on my 3rd part was actually at a higher register than the 1st by a partial or so. This rarely happens, but is certainly not unheard of. Trumpet players tend to be irrationally proud of their range, and this clearly came as a major blow to him to have a lesser part with higher notes (it sounds so feudal!). So after he pointed this out to me, he quickly added: "I'm sure they meant this to be up an octave." Well, no moron! If they actually meant it to be an octave higher they would have written it an octave higher or written 8va, but did they? No. It was humorous indeed, especially watching him actually try to play the line an octave higher. I must give him credit though: he handled the consequences of his ego inflation with reletive ease.

Here's another humorous thing: if I ever miss a note because it's high, he always (without fail) asks if I really can handle the part (especially if I am playing I higher part than he), and if I want him to take over certain parts of it. After all, as his supposedly wonderful former teacher (who taught him scales, all types of scales! He told me once, "Yeah my old teacher and I did tons of scales. I know major, minor, modal, we did 'em all.") once said, "If you can't play something, why try?" According to this logic, I should never had started an instrument.

One of my new favorite things he now talks about is his band at school. At least 5 times (no joke!) he has mentioned how good they are and how his teacher is determined to take them to state and do well. Following his extensive explanations of their sectional practicing schedule, he always asks if my school going to state. And I tell him, as I always have told him, that I'm not in band at school because I take science classes instead. This really doesn't seem to compute with him, and always ends the discussion. Either that or he makes sure to add one more time that his school's symphonic band is really good, A) as if I cared, and B) as if I should some how feel intimidated. It's a band for god's sake, a band. Not even an orchestra, much less some giant juggernaut that I should feel obliged to care about. So I tell him good luck, and that's all he has to say.

The egos in trumpets really are pathetic. I mean, these people make squawky noises out of little brass tubes; who cares? I often ask myself that. But somehow there's more. It's an underlying cultural phenomenon. And like all culture, it makes absolutely no rational sense and is entirely inescapable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the world has a conspiracy to destroy me.

"Justice is like a tent. You go in and you need a place to sit down. They don't tell you where to sit!"

--Eric Lowe, describing why justice is not an acceptable value during his rebuttal. Needless to say, he lost this debate.

"'Fight the good fight.'"

--Quote on the back of the t-shirts for the members of the Stop Plate Tectonics Club

Well (it seems like I start every post with this interjection), after 28 hours at the Mt. Hood Community College Speech and Debate Tournament, the results are in, and they speak well. Our school dominated public debate (on which I shall elaborate later), had stellar performance in the IEs (so called, “Individual Events”; really just anything besides debate), and fittingly took 2nd place in the tournament out of at least 20 teams.

Let me begin with debate. There are multiple formats of debate, but our school only does public debate because its pretty much the only decent format. We sent four teams, all in the Open division. Myself and Colin, and Leeor and Meghan made it to quarterfinals where we were eliminated. This essentially means that these two teams were ranked somewhere between 5th-8th place in the tournament of 40 teams. Not too shabby. In addition to this, our best team also made it to quarterfinals, but they won putting them in semifinals. Here, they faced the team beat us in the quarterfinals and that won the tournament last year (against a team from our school, interestingly). Let me just say that there are very few people that I supremely dislike. However the unbelievable arrogance of these opponents, Anderson and Lowe, compels me to have such animosity. It was a good debate, and Dan and Catherine crushed them, debating the the topic “this house would let Martha Stewart fry” (the worst topic I’ve ever, ever heard). The final speech of the debate was Catherine’s rebuttal, and it was without a doubt the greatest and perhaps angriest speech I have ever heard in a debate. Dan and Catherine were then put in the final match, where they debated the topic “this house believes that everyone should be allowed to say ‘I do.’” The proposition defined this essentially as “the American people believe that the citizens of the US should have the right to obtain legal marriage licenses.” This wording on this topic is a little weird, but they were essentially debating whether or not everyone “should” be allowed to obtain marriage licenses. The thing with “believes” is misleading, and the word is almost never in topics. The proposition came up with the classical arguments for no restrictions of marriages in their first speech. Dan gave the first opposition speech with a good set of arguments against the proposition’s, focusing primarily on homosexual marriage, as that is where there is the most controversy in respect to this topic, and that is clearly from where the topic was derived. He focused on how the American public was not progressive or ready enough for gay marriage, and how civil unions were a good alternative. The proposition had also stated that the purpose of government was solely to protect the rights of the citizens, and Dan launched an excellent counterattack. He essentially said that this was not the a function of government rather than a fundamental purpose. Fundamentally, he went on, the purpose of government in our representative democracy is to carry out the will of the people. Indeed, the government carries out the will of the people and often the will of the people is to protect the rights of people. The government is essentially bound to the majority opinion, and in this case, the majority opinion of the United States people is clearly against homosexual marriage. The second propositional speaker didn’t flesh out a lot of new ground, but made a few key arguments. She pointed out that all of the opposition’s arguments were tied to homosexual marriage and the argument was not limited only to this, but it encompassed all marriage. This was a key argument that could have won the debate, but it also opened up a small but major weakness. Throughout the debate there had been some comparisons to the civil rights movement, and she noted that the national guard was used in the 1960s to let black children attend white schools even when the majority opinion in those states was against desegregation. This is decent argument, but it has major deficiencies. Then she brought up this utter crap about the fourteenth amendment guaranteeing equal rights to everyone. The opposition never really nailed this, but I’ll tell you why it’s the biggest load of crap. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. It wasn’t until a century later that African Americans actually had remotely equal legal rights, and that’s because the government enacts the will of the people, regardless of whether it upholds rights or not. The majority opinion of the US until near that time was that blacks were inferior, and so unfortunately that’s how the government treated them.

After the 2nd propositional speech, Catherine delivered the 2nd oppositional speech which sealed the case brilliantly. The proposition was focusing a lot on how the opposition’s arguments pertained mainly to gay marriage, but really the debate was about the marriage of all of the citizens of the United States of America. So Catherine stood up and apologized for the misunderstanding (you don’t hear someone actually apologize to you in debate unless they’re going to obliterate you anyway or they’re about to introduce an argument that is going to obliterate you). She said that clearly the controversy of homosexual marriage is where the topic had been taken from, and they had made a mistake limiting their arguments to it. She also affirmed that the homosexual arguments still hold to the case however, since homosexuals are still citizens. Then, she introduced her first main argument: if indeed the proposition is proposing the legalization for any citizen of the United States to get marriage licenses as they defined the topic, then they are proposing the expansion of marriage rights to minors. And, if you give marriage rights to minors, then that follows that minors would be having sex, and none of this is clearly morally acceptable by the standard of the overwhelming majority of US people. Since the purpose of government is carry out the will of the people, then this would not happen. much of the rest of the speech reaffirmed previous arguments and rebutted others. On the whole it was an excessively brilliant speech. Dan then gave his rebuttal, which sealed down the substance of the argument with his characteristic good structure. The proposition was left then with only one five minute rebuttal to try to defeat the opposition’s unpredictable shift in arguments. The speaker was a good for sure, but the substance of what she said was shaky. She went down the line of what the opposition had said, and claimed to point out inconsistencies and logical failures of the opposition. About two-thirds of the time, it seemed that she had slightly skewed or misunderstood the meaning of the opposition’s arguments, and she failed to substantially rebut the child-marriage argument. Overall, it was not that great of a speech. After the ballots had been cast, apparently one of the judges said that it was one of the best debates he had ever seen either on the high school or college circuit. Needless to say, they won the debate and Catherine got an award for being the best speaker in the tournament.

In the IE roundup, we also did well although I did terribly. My radio piece that had gotten me 4th at a previous tournament was hated by two the judges in two of the three rounds. One judge said it was “quite boring and repetitive”, and another said it was “hard to listen to”. One judge really liked it though, and gave me a perfect score. Radio is supposed to focus on writing an opinion about current event topics with some analysis. Mine was a philosophical piece on the role and future of religion in postmodern societies. It’s sort of a current social analysis. Another radio piece of someone on our team also focused on philosophy and he too got hammered after winning at other tournaments. I think most people really don’t enjoy philosophy. He had a Yale-educated teacher at school read and comment on it, and he wrote on the piece that it got boring and was “too philosophical.” People just don’t understand what is really interesting. To me, philosophy is ten times more interesting than the usual hackneyed radio topics like how schools aren’t supported enough, or how popular culture is a sign of how horrible our society is becoming. Blah, blah, blah... everyone knows that pop culture is actually just a common misspelling of "poopy culture". Dan (this other person I've been speaking of) and I have decided to scrap our radios and write new ones. We'll see how life further abuses us.

But I shouldn't be complaining, because lots and lots of other people made finals and won things, and after 28 hours when all the tabulations were over, we took 2nd in the tournament (2 years running). The only reason we didn't get first was because of stupid University High School from Spokane, Washington. The only reason they got 1st (2 years running) is because they have so many people that to cross-examination debate, and Lincoln-Douglas debate. Your team gets significantly more points for doing well in those debate styles than in the other debate styles like public (which we do). Not that I'm complaining.

Colin Corbett,
I want to inform you that I will be going to the Mt. Hood CC Debate Tournament on Friday, despite my illness. If I'm lucky, my voice should be fully recovered by then, and some of the dead brain cells will have grown back. And don't forget, we're going to win too. Schweitzer and Ms. Doughty were undefeated at the last tournament (and yet they still didn't make semifinals...), so they will probably be doing good on Friday. If we can add a strong showing, then that would be really good. And hopefully the fact that we've only debated in 1 tournament together won't hold us down (ahah! [nervous laugh]). I think that it is psychologically imperative that we place in sweepstakes here, seing as it is the last competition before the district tournaments. And enter in impromptu again for Saturday. And if you really want to, do extemp with me: I'm making up a file for it. The more entries the better for this one. And look at it this way: this is the only tournament where you can triple enter (although technically it's not really triple entering). Try and make it to practice tomorrow (Thursday), I'll be there whether I make it to school or not. Danke!

Estas vere! This morning I had a fever that measured in at 103 degrees Farenheit, and it may have been even higher during portions of the night. So naturally, I didn't go to school today. Hopefully that will change tomorrow. I am determined to end my spate of chronic sinus infections which have left me severely ill about 8 times in the last 2-3 years. In fact, sinus infections have been the only major health problem that I have had during this period. It is a chronic condition, as I am always blowing my nose and coughing up drainage even when I am not bedridden. The plan goes like this:

Phase 1 - A comprehensive 2-4 week course of antibiotics (Yes, I know. This is ultimately leading to the downfall of mankind by increasing bacterial resistance, but for the sake of god, what is one to do: be bedridden for the rest of their life? I can't just all of a sudden fight off this chronic infection (believe me I've already tested the theory of increasing immunity by exposing oneself to bacteria; it doesn't work).).

Phase 2 - Reassessment by physician.

Phase 3 - Possible CAT scan of sinuses to determine the extent of any remaining infection and identify any structural defects in the sinus cavities.

Phase 4A - Possible referral to Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialist to assess the situation and consider surgical procedures.

Phase 4B - Possible treatment for year-round allergies.

Phase 5A - Possible surgical procedure.

My mother claims that I need to have my tonsels and adnoids removed in order to rectify the ague, but I am not convinced of this, nor will I be convinced of anyone else's piddling little opinions unless they are qualified medical professionals. Needless to say, the ague hath left me of late. Oh, and I've also had this hacking cough recently. So now I take this codine-narcotic prescription cough-suppresant at night. I can't even imagine how many brain cells this whole bout of illness will end up killing. It's unfathomable.

Ian Rocker: "I am particularly fond of history."

Me and Myself: "So you want to be a historian?"

Ian Rocker: "[pause]... Yes. Either that or a dictator of a small out-of-the-way country."

--In a conversation before Ian Rocker had his blood drawn. Many people are worried about Mr. Rocker. Some might say he's headed for a nervous breakdown. But no one knows why.

Well it appears that my readership is going up, up, up... Faster than ever before, to unforseen heights. I'm very happy, and I will accordingly be upping my blog output. New advertising measures seem to be working.

I'm improving, but getting occasional coughing fits. You might not have noticed, but I'm having trouble filling up space here. Scroll down. It becomes very obvious. But that's ok because I'm sick, right? And maybe going insane. But according to Colin Corbett (whose judgment I seldom doubt and don't doubt here) "we went insane a long time ago..." or something like that.

I have to get up at 5:45 tomorrow, meaning that I'm slated to get 7.75 hours of sleep if I go to bed now. I also have a physics test tomorrow, but I'm going to get cien por ciento because I know that Δp=mΔv, p=mv, p=Ft, and p=p'. It's amazing how simple physics can be. But what's more amazing is that momentum is conserved (theoretically, that is. It almost never really happens). And even more amazing than that is the fact that all of amazingness of the conservation of momentum can be written as p=p'.

Now moving into a little bit of midnight psychology, you may think that I'm smart because because of that last paragraph. But if you're smart (that is, well-versed in either psychology or physics), then you know that that wasn't necessarily intelligent. In fact! You know that the fact that I wrote that makes me an idiot because why would I write something that could seem so technical but really was so facile, other than to--in the words of Theorian Social Dynamic Theory--"assert their [my] dominance over others..."? Aha!

Now moving into the realm of the metacognitive, where the snobbery of humanists see the proof that they are superior to the rest of the whole world... Why would I write the above writing on the above writing if I wasn't doing exactly what the above writing says I was doing in the writing above the above writing? But then aren't I doing just that in this writing? Aha! So, here you have it. Like the egotistic moron Dean of Admissions at Reed College, I have just given you true proof of my idiocy. And I have used up a great deal of space in the process. And perhaps I have wasted a large portion of your time trying to decipher painfully awfully written sentences too. In any case, the moral of this exercise is twofold. Firstfold and foremost, there is no moral. Secondfold and secondmost, people may spend their whole lives in this rampant idea of the metacognitive and "thinking about thinking about things", but really all that they're doing is randomly firing of neurons and thinking about thinking about things, and then coming to the conclusion that they can't come to any conclusion in the things they're thinking about thinking about. And why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT ANYTHING!!!!!! DUH! What IDIOTS! Think about it (seriously), how can these people manage to get dressed in the morning? So I guess the moral is secondfold, think about something... please.

Leadership
English 5-6H
Poly Sci-AP/Econ-AP
Calculus 1-2 AP (AB)
Adv. Chemistry
Adv. Biology
Spanish 5-6 (maybe 7-8)
Music Theory

Well, I'm sick. For the past couple months I've managed to evade the illness, but yesterday the ague took hold. I had semi-conscious delirious nightmares last night, and I was sweating profusely throughout. I think I've taken hold of the fever, and I seem to by improving. No es divertido.

"... I read his entire blog. It was the most boring thing I have ever done."

--Dane Gatewood, referring to the Author and this blog. Admittedly, this is sad news for the Author and his blog. Nevertheless, he has reason to believe that readership is up, and he has plans for increasing it by even greater margins. In addition, the Author is planning on teaching himself more about CSS and HTML, as well as downloading the GIMP 2.0, in order to update the design of this site.