Elitism: A Revival

"Reason first: You are a Virginian and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second: I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third: You can write ten times better than I can."

-John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

-The Declaration of Independence

The first quote is taken from a letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, concerning why the latter is the better choice to draft the Declaration of Independence. The second quote is a famous excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted by Jefferson.

The above quotes are meant to provide a certain perspective on the notion of 'equality'. I'm not a historian; I cannot provide commentary on the difference between the backgrounds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. However, in my mind they are roughly equal. They were both founding fathers and, consequently, both significant figures in American history. They were both Presidents of the United States and both left their own distinct legacies for the future. So why did Adams believe that Jefferson was more qualified to draft the Declaration of Independence? And more importantly, should Jefferson have drafted it rather than Adams?

When the Declaration of Independence articulates the nature of equality, it becomes apparent that people are equal insofar as they have rights bestowed upon them by a Creator. Some of these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jefferson's vision concentrates on people in the abstract. He had no particular individuals in mind when he described the rights which they should be guaranteed. Examining a person in the abstract gives Jefferson the ability to describe notable rights which are candidates for being desirable to all people. In general, he succeeded with flying colors; people both desire and deserve the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

People come in all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and intellects. They vary in athletic abilities, attitudes, habits, desires, goals, and perceptions of the world. I find this refreshing; there is someone for everyone and there is always someone new to meet.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, people are not equal. The belief that people are all equal requires the use of a very well-defined context. People are equal insofar as they are all people; they deserve a certain amount of respect as such, which is what Jefferson alludes to in the above quote. Equality does not entail that everyone is equally talented nor does it entail that everyone is equally important to society. People have different aptitudes and capacities. These aptitudes and capacities create a divide between the average person (abstract) and any particular person (specific).

People with a background in economics understand the importance of specialization. Specialization leads to an increased efficiency in production and results in an increased quality of life when compared with systems without specialization. The same types of specialization occur in everyday life; people get educated in a specific area of study, so as to be as productive as possible in that area. There may be a value in liberal arts education, but there is no reason that the world's greatest engineer must also be a concert pianist.

Above, it is clear that Adams has yielded to Jefferson's expertise when it comes to writing. The Declaration of Independence had the opportunity to be one of the most significant documents in history and John Adams conceded that he wasn't the right person for the job. I'm going to point out the virtue in that concession.

The concept of elitism is a tricky one. Elitism is obfuscated by a general disdain for authority; a certain mistrust of those people who claim to be elite for no particular reason. However, certain people are elite. Similarly with equality, elitism will require a specific context; some people will be good engineering while others are good at music. Elitism should probably be evaluated with respect to a perspective which compares the relative utility of skills; being good at engineering is probably more useful to the world than being good at Yo-Yo tricks (although I'm sure there are plenty of elite yo-yoers out there). However, I'm not here to establish criteria for elitism; I'm only here to discuss the necessity and the purposes of elitism.

To deny elitism is to deny a need for personal specialization. If Adams had started an argument with Jefferson regarding who should be given the privilege to write the Declaration of Independence, then catastrophe would ultimately result for the document. Jefferson was simply the right person for the job and Adams's concession is a noble one.

To that end, elite people raise the quality of life for everyone. "Elite" is a dirty word in today's society and it should not be. There is nothing wrong with being talented. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with taking pride in your work. It might not be humble to acknowledge how qualified you are, but it's not arrogant to accept that you are talented. If Jefferson had replied to Adams with a humble letter, refusing to write on the grounds that Jefferson had respect for Adams, then Jefferson would have shown weakness in the face of necessity. At some point, Jefferson has to own up to his own abilities and write the Declaration of Independence.

The mediocre often reject elitism in favor of mediocrity. When a person says "people are all equal" in order to make himself or herself feel better about being less talented, it is a vote for mediocrity. It is fear of inequality.

One must never fear inequality. One must accept it and move forward, striving to become the best that one can be. Cowering behind the shield of equality will only reveal the shield to be a thin veil, incapable of protecting anyone from the ways of the world.

Elitism isn't something to be feared; it is something to be admired and respected. Elitism should be its own reward, instilling pride in those people who have proven themselves capable. Elitism is an ideal; it isn't specific to any shape, size, color, religion, or intellect. To that end, being elite is a choice and challenge to pursue. It is not for the feint of heart.

Elitism isn't a tool for dividing people. The elite are students at heart and teachers of their craft. They recognize that helping other people is a way of helping themselves. They understand that everything is a learning experience and that new perspectives have a way of becoming relevant. (After all, how could a well-known perspective provide new insight?)

I challenge everyone who reads this to affect the world in a positive way to the greatest extent that he or she can. I challenge everyone to take pride in who he or she is and to never settle for mediocrity. I challenge everyone to possess a level of authority indicative of his or her effort to become great. I challenge everyone to act courageous in the face of necessity, understanding that most decisions are bigger than any one person. In essence, I challenge everyone to be elite.

I cannot tell you that Jefferson was an objectively better writer than Adams. Either way, I can tell you that question is insignificant. Jefferson was the right person for the task at hand. Why? Because Adams nobly yielded to Jefferson and Jefferson nobly accepted the burden of drafting the Declaration of Independence. It may seem that Jefferson is more elite for having written the document, but I assure you that is not my contention. Jefferson was probably the better writer, but that's only true in virtue of Adams's concession. My point is that both men were elite in their own respective ways; they work together to make the best draft possible, even if, as in Adams's case, that means forfeiting a certain place in history.

Should Adams get credit for helping to write the Declaration of Independence? Not a chance. Should Adams get credit for understanding what is at stake in such a declaration? Should he get credit for owning up to his own limitations? Should he get credit for suppressing illusions of grandeur? Absolutely. For similar reasons, Jefferson isn't gaining notoriety for his humility. However, he should be credited with authoring one of the most important documents in history; he should be credited with accepting responsibility for his incredible proficiency in writing; he should be credited for aiding a nation which was desperately in need of leadership.

In an era of confusion and accusation, it becomes apparent that we must examine our past if we hope to be the driving force behind a better future. Elitism plays a critical role in the success of people in general. Although I issued you a challenge to become elite, this evokes the wrong motivation; a challenge implies competition. Rather, I actually mean to extend you an invitation, which evokes collaboration. Whether or not you accept is entirely up to you.

Revenge is a Beer Best Served Cold

(click to enlarge)

Did someone just say epic? Or rather, why is Daniel in an unknown place drinking a beer, with a hand wrapped in some cloth? What happened to stick figures and stuff like that?

I've been wanting to draw this for a few weeks now but I've been busy with summer school. But since I finished courses today, I let myself have fun. There's an entire story behind this comic, by the way. Come back for more. =D

Pretending like it's fun to blog with Daniel and Joe xP

I have things to write about but not the patience to organize my thoughts at the moment so instead of writing a bunch of jumbled nonsense I will simply post more pictures, xD.

Old dude painting an awesome picture of a town hall-like building

Tenmabashi Station area

Osaka Castle area

Osaka Castle

Gundams...many, many Gundams

That last picture is for Joe. Yes, those are all Gundam, and no, that is not even close to all they had. There were many, many, many more. Basically a whole small store of Gundam models. They're cheap too (I saw prices as low as $5-7 for some models).

Daniel is the Odd One.

(click to enlarge... I think)

I mean, it's not our fault white people are afraid of a little "Hiya!" They just don't teach em the old school hunt and kill like they used to. I mean go watch The Patriot. Mel Gibson taught his kids how to shoot well enough to kill a bunch of redcoats. With a musket. Nuff said.

EDIT:

Daniel didn't think he was getting enough action in the comic. So to make him feel better since he isn't Asian, I drew this for him.

this is how Daniel goes fishing. By the way

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/shark-week/

Shark Week is Aug 1st.

Unicorns Stole My McGriddle

(click to enlarge the comic... DO IT)

I tried summarizing what Daniel has been telling me these past two weeks.

You can ask Daniel for a post detailing what he has been talking about if you want.

But as the comic says. You're better off getting a intelligent answer from Daniel instead of me cause I have random sleep schedules.
I'll try to make more comics about Kyle as well cause he seems to be the odd man out right now.
It's cause he's busy with his lady friends. kyuk kyuk

EDIT: Daniel told me the second panel was wrong, so I fixed it. But apparently the Photoshop on Mac and PC are bit different concerning font, so ignore that. you simpletons. I also spelled "that" wrong, but seriously, corn beef hash is more important that spell check

The Metaphysics of Time: Time for Beginners

Seeing as how Joe likes to blog about time (see here and here), I should probably include a post about the metaphysics of time. This post is going to forgo discussions about the limits of time, so that means I won't be discussing things like what the stream of time looks like with respect to the whole of time. In other words, expect to not see discussions about: expanding and contracting universes, eternal recurrence (AKA circularity of time), and a single unbendable time stream. This means I will also not be discussing the warping of time; the space-time fans out there will just have to wait. How long will you have to wait? That depends on how fast you're traveling.

So what will I be discussing? This post will be about the nature of how time progresses; I will be talking about how moment #1 becomes moment #2 and the effect(s) that this progression has on these moments.

First, a brief history lesson:
Time is a divisive issue in philosophy. It always has been and (probably) always will be. Different people perceive time in vastly different ways. Frequently, each person's perception of time shapes their own perception of the world. (You'll see why this is true later.)

Fast forward to 1908 when J.M.E. McTaggart releases The Unreality of Time. This was an incredibly important text for a variety of reasons (not that I've read it). In this work, McTaggart attempts to characterize distinct perceptions of time and organize them according to how they treat the progression of events. From there, McTaggart evaluates these theories and comes to his own conclusion about the nature of time (discussed at the end of this post).

McTaggart divides theories about time into A-theories and B-theories (apparently McTaggart didn't feel like getting creative with the names). Please note that there is a linguistics project here, but I'm not going to discuss much linguistics material. Also, please note that ontology is the study of the nature of existence.

A-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tensed and that whether an event is "past", "present" or "future" will affect the event in an ontological way. This means that whether or not the event exists will be affected by it's location relative to the present.

Let's look at a few examples of A-theories:

Presentism: the belief that only the present exists. This is somewhat intuitive, given the present seems "more real" than the past or future. Each passing moment is real as it passes, but it ceases to exist after it's gone or before it happens.

Growing Block: the belief that only the past and present exist. Again, this is is somewhat intuitive, because the past is a series of events which have already happened. These events contribute to the whole of history. The past exists as much as the present does, no matter how distant. The amount of events which exist is growing with each passing moment, hence the name "growing block".

Shrinking Block: the belief that only the present and future exist. I think this one is less intuitive, but it no less important. The rationale for this one is something along the lines of: the past is gone and cannot be changed. The present and future are therefore real, as there is still a possibility that these could change. The amount of events which exist is shrinking with each passing moment, hence the name "shrinking block".

(The above list is not comprehensive; I just listed a few examples for clarity.)

B-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tenseless and that all times in the past, present, and future are equally real. In essence, there is a time at which any given event occurs and time itself is nothing but and ordering of these events. In other words, time is defined with respect to other events.

If you're a B-theorist, then you believe that the past is full of events which exist NOW. You cannot experience these events, but they exist now as having occurred at some particular time. In addition, the future is full of events which exist NOW. You will never be able to experience these events, but they exist as much as the present does.

There is a C-theory, but I won't be spending much time discussing it. Essentially, C-theory orders events in terms of two other events, one of which is before the event and one of which is after it. So, event B is between events A and C is an example of C-theory.

McTaggart's own conclusion was that time was an illusion. Although I'm not particularly familiar with the argument, I do know the basics. McTaggart believed that the B-series was dependent on the A-series. Consequently, he focused spent his time evaluating the A-series. However, McTaggart believed that the A-series resulted in a contradiction; the temporal locations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive, but it seems as though these "properties" can be possessed simultaneously with respect to different present-times. For that reason McTaggart concluded that time is not real; it doesn't exist.

Although I don't agree with McTaggart's argument (and consequently his conclusion), I have a profound respect for the system of organization that he has brought to the world of metaphysics.

For the sake of fairness to the arguments, I'm not going to articulate my own opinion on the subject. However, you should give it some thought, because it greatly affects your view of ontology (that which exists). Now you can see why your perception of time will affect the way your organize your life.

As an example, let's evaluate a common situation: planning for the future. If you are a B-theorist, then your future exists now, so it is something to be planned for. However, your past also exists as much as your future does, so maybe you might consider planning for your past. If you are an A-theorist (growing block), then your future does not exist now. Why should you plan for something which does not exist? Maybe you would also be interested in snipe insurance because of all the snipes that make a mess on your lawn. If you answer "my future will exist later", then you fail to answer why you should plan for it NOW. You should plan for it when it finally exists in the present.

If the above seems absurd, then consider the arguments, think about it, and come up with your own answer.

What kind of temporal theorist are you?

Believe me, it'll happen.

I was watching Eragon this morning (terrible movie, I choose David Spade and Sean Connery in Dragonheart over that..well I guess it did have Jeremy Irons) and I realized that something was curious about the phrase "Prophesy Fortells" or "Legends Say."

Of course since I am Christian, my beliefs are in a monotheistic creationism by God.

But if we put aside my religious beliefs which people would claim bias, the idea that humans believe in prophecy and legends is fascinating. Where did this theory come from that there is a divine truth that dictates what will come to pass?

Most easily referenced would be ancient civilizations who believed in a higher being. God, the Olympians, The Mayan Gods, the Asian Gods, are all deities supposedly created by the people and according to atheists, are the manifestation of the weak human mind (you think y'all so special). By saying "there will be a time" means that they understood time was a limitless idea, unfathomable by the human brain. How far does time go? How long ago did time begin? Is this the present? By the idea of time, we came with the idea of future. Things shall come and things shall pass. So were prophecies and legends the creation of people's desires from the suffering that is humanity? Is it simply a story that they told themselves to help them go to sleep in a terrible world? How was an entire globe of different civilizations able to come to the same conclusion that there was a defined future of things that will come. We say that time is uncertain for we don't know what will happen because of the numerous variables that combine to lead us to infinite results.

Then according to religions, there must be a divine being(s) who know time or rather transcend it and bestows its knowledge to the people. God sent his prophets to his people. The Greeks listened to the mystical powers of the Oracle at Delphi. The Mayans supposedly thought the world would end on 2012.

Many stories of old tell of legends. Why, movies today use the idea of a gifted being to save the rest. Star Wars by George Lucas has Luke Skywalker as "A New Hope" that was foretold by the predecessors of the Jedi Council. Heck, even Dragonball Z had prophecies that Bardok could tell. How were humans able to believe in what someone was saying?

Coming back to the point, humanity has always been telling stories. Whether for fun or for religious purposes, the idea that a future will come is what drives the human race to keep on living. A business man can look forward to his kids growing up and himself retiring comfortably. A child works toward a future to achieve their dreams. It is plausible to say, that people of old, too weak to do anything themselves, believed that someone would come, or some event would pass that would ease their suffering. But what of prophecies of drought, famine, and death? Why would a race that desires survival foretell of disaster? Man understands the vague concept of time. Past, present, future. Man understands that in order to grow, trials must be overcome. Man is born, lives, and dies. This is the natural course of man. People understood that the heart of man was wicked and filtered that into the concept. We do not know how we're going to die. We may fall from a ledge, be shot, or just cease to exist. This leads me to think of a circle.

Why a circle?

The ancient Chinese believed that the Emperor was called by heaven to take the throne. A mandate from the heavens. When a new emperor arose, it was a cycle. A emperor rose to serve the purpose of the Heavens and to serve it's people. When the Emperor did not serve the citizens well, disaster came and a new Emperor arose. (By the way, I started singing the Circle of Life at this point.)

The circle loops. There will be life and death. There will be good and bad. Dark times shall come and a hero shall arrive to save the day. (Hopefully in green clothing and an annoying fairy following.) The concept of prophecies and that something we deem will come to pass in an uncertain future, often at an uncertain time, is intriguing. Simply that these legends and prophecies continue on from human faith and the idea that we are able to pass on our beliefs and cultures to others is simply the foundations of civilizations.

So how does one understand why people were able to speak of a future? I believe that it was human faith, the undying spirit within us attempting to be happy and fulfill our desires. My beliefs lead me to believe that God already knows everything that was, is, and is to come. Human faith that there will be another day and perhaps they have a reason and a mission is what I believe drove the people to dream big.

The Many Working Positions of Joe

Metablogging: The Depth of the Blogosphere

Unfortunately, this will not be a creative piece. It is a starter piece, a beginner piece, and an introduction to blogging.

Today, I'm going to coin the term "metablog". (A quick Google search has just informed me that "metablog" indeed has been used before by other people in the exact same context as I am going to use it. Oh well.) Many of you are already familiar with the prefix "meta"; it often means "pertaining to" or "the study of". If you study philosophy, then you should already be familiar with metaethics and metaphysics, the studies of what ethics and physics are, respectively. For my purposes, "metablogging" will pertain to the study of blogging. This includes (and is not limited to) the effects of blogging, the distinguishing characteristics of blogs, and the purpose of blogs.

So why begin here? This is needlessly academic for a blog post. I'm sure that most of you don't care much about the formalism above. That's understandable, given you're probably not reading this post in order to learn something. But if you're not here to learn something, why are you here? Do you expect me to be entertaining and witty? Would you like me to juggle and make you laugh?

A long time ago, long before the printing press, stories were told by word of mouth. To be a writer was a rarity; more people "wrote" by speaking than by writing. In order for stories to persist, they had to be told and retold. This would be like playing an inter-generation game of telephone; I imagine that stories would literally evolve through the years.

Still a long time ago, but only immediately before the printing press, there were precious few books. Information was transferred by hand; only important works had the relevancy to be copied. Although I'm sure there was some writing, I imagine that the vast majority of the works which were copied and distributed were religious texts.

The point is simple: in the days of old, you had to be relevant, significant, or otherwise notable in order to be "published".

The invention of the printing press must have rapidly changed this.

Immediately after the invention of the printing press, it seems likely that the already-important, already-been-copied works were printed and distributed on a massive scale (a primary example of this is the Bible).

This leads the the creation of the printing industry. The printing industry allows people to be published if they are particularly adept at selling their work. Whether a writer gets paid by contractual writing or by writing a book that everyone buys, it takes a certain level of writing proficiency to be published. Maybe it takes less proficiency the first time a person gets published, but I'm sure the printing industry is like any other: either its employees get good or find new work.

This brings us to the relevant question of the post: how do blogs fit into this picture? This is a question about metablogging and it explains why the formalism is outlined at the top of this post. Blogs appear to be, at least on the surface, a culture-changing development in the history of publishing.

Blogs are a low-cost, widely available means of publication. If you have access to the internet, you can now be an author. That might not guarantee readership, but it certainly gets you a lot farther than the days of old; today, everyone connected to the internet has access to your writing, even if they don't read it. In the distant past, there was no real means of reaching your audience. In the not-so-distant past, the only means of reaching your audience was to demonstrate a proficiency in writing before publication. Now, your audience is practically everyone. The only question is whether or not you have enough writing proficiency to develop a following.

In essence, blogging is your foot in the door of legitimate authorship.

Granted, this is a culture-changing development in the sense that now anyone can publish without demonstrating writing proficiency. However, as was pointed out before, publication does not guarantee readership. Therein lies the striking similarity to the not-so-distant past: in order to be a successful blogger, you must demonstrate enough of a proficiency in writing in order to generate readership. Granted, people may not be buying your books and blogging may not be your primary source of income, but writing prowess is necessary to captivate people's attention. This is the difference between successful and unsuccessful blogs, just as it used to be the difference between successful and unsuccessful writers.

So what does publication look like today?
Blogging has changed the landscape of publication. Publication is relatively cheap (as expensive as your internet connection), but the authorship is not guaranteed. Unlike the writing industry, which provides jobs in addition to publishing opportunities, blogging has opened the door for many prevalent writers who may not otherwise have had a chance. Conversely, it provides greater competition for those people in the writing industry today.

However, the end result is the same as yesteryear. Those with intelligent, captivating writing are read. Those without such writing never really had a chance. The internet is a place for shared information, yet it seems as though there is a saturation point. Any individual can really have access to too much information. When that person does, he or she has to pick and choose what to read.

I'm just hoping that we give you reason to stay.

Joe wanted pictures so here I go...

There... I posted.

Awake

I'm awake, again. Been awake. Don't like it much.
Eyes open. My brain makes the whirling sound a computer makes when it's compensating for the heat during processing. I don't particularly like being awake.

But the fact is, I love being awake. I love it when I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. When I touch something with my hands, an electrical shock sends my brain a message, "this is real." Time is short. Life is measured in time. How old are you? You still don't have a job? When are you going to get married? Life is short. Time keeps running. No time for sleep.

Move! There are thing to be done! You can't sleep till the deadline in 3 days! Sleep is for the weak. 48 hours in, your eyes, they droop. Your mind slips. The alluring darkness that seduces you each time you blink, gets longer as your eyelids take another second before opening again.

I love sleep. I dream. I see visions of grandeur, of fantasy, and of love that cannot be real. The sands on the beach dig into my heels as I press them further in, hoping to root myself in this realm. But Time, you terrible beast, you turn the gentle waves into raging fires, turn the sands into maggots, and turn the sun into a black hole.

Work. I hate it. But after that 48th hour, when you're heart beats like a smithy's hammer and you gasp for air like a man on the moon and when your legs give no strength as if Atlas has passed you his globe, it is a feeling of ecstasy. The pain, the wonderful fulfillment of Time. I have outdone you once again, vile fiend! I have broken your code. I live and I tell a tale of my suffering with glee. A boast. My pride swells as the fact that I have sacrificed mind and body for a moment of satisfaction.
Time, my black-hearted foe. you rob me of what is rightfully mine, you make me crawl and beg and weep for it. You take from me satisfaction.

Time, my sweet friend, you send me on ventures that one cannot walk without a kick off a cliff. You send me hurling down into darkness, despair so that I can climb up the other side and keep moving. Time could build me a bridge, but what's the point of that? Bridges will burn, they will snap and they will rot.

I'm awake, eyes closed, deep breathing. I tell you, I'm awake. I'm just resting my eyes. See those footprints behind me, that is where I have come from, you can see them cross the horizon.

Why do I cross this desert? I hear of a land flowing with milk and honey on the other side. It's better than this desert.

No seriously, I'm awake. Stop poking me. I'm not dead.

Wheee

click to enlarge.

I'll take note that I should use a larger size next time or see if i can mess with the settings.

Joe