Absolute Knowledge

Here we go again.  Another oft used term that I feel is poorly understood by the community as a whole, and certainly by those who have a tendency to use it.

Believe it or not, in my experience, people's issues with the concepts surrounding this term stem less from the word knowledge (though there are issues there), and more from the word absolute.  (I know, absolutely shocking!)

Really though, it couldn't be simpler.  While the effects of absolute knowledge may be complicated and intricate, the definition is not.  If you have absolute knowledge, you know everything.

EVERYTHING.  This, I think, is where people start to struggle.  Everything is a fuckin' lot of things.  It's not tons of things, or most of things; it is all of the things.

When I say all, I seriously mean all.  All is bigger than the universe.  All is bigger than a googol (not to be confused Google, though they're close) which is a number that is roughly twenty orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the universe.  All is bigger than infinity.

All includes everything physical.  It includes everything not physical.  It encompasses the universe, and whatever lies outside of it.  It counts other universes.  It includes alternate dimensions.  All counts time in its entirety, both past and future.  Even moments of time that didn't actually happen!  All means every possible outcome for every possible situation that every possible thing has encountered in ever.  All means every impossible outcome for every impossible situation that every impossible thing has encountered in never.

Get the picture?

Alright, so now what?  Well, for starters, fuck school, amiright?  Sure.  But while you're at it, you might as well forget everything else.  Absolute knowledge ruins everything you do.

If you knew everything, then you'd already know how this post ends, so you wouldn't need to keep reading.  (Seriously though, you don't know everything so keep reading, you arrogant bastard.)

 

Everything you would do would be a repetition.  Just like how you remember things you've done in the past, you would have knowledge, or "memory," of things you will do in the future.  When time catches up to that moment (supposing time still holds any meaning for you at this point) you will know everything that will happen, in the order it will happen, exactly perfectly.

At best this means that the entire rest of your existence (potentially eternity) will be spent doing things you've effectively already done.  Your life is now dictated by fate, so to speak, like a familiar and well-rehearsed play. Do this at this time, then this at this time, with you unable to make any changes.  Any "changes" you wanted to have made would already be known well ahead of time, and part of the play from the beginning.

At worst?  You basically cease to exist.  A kiddie ride car on rails can hardly be considered a real car.  Sure you're moving toward a destination, and yes, you did make the choice to travel to that destination, but you don't have to do anything to make that happen.  It just sort of happens to you.  You don't get to do anything that hasn't been plotted out along this pre-determined path.

Absolute knowledge is not a good thing.  It's an impassable brick wall.  It is a force that destroys your, and anyone else's, ability to find anything new, to learn, to progress.

Imperfect knowledge is what should be embraced.  It means we still have the potential for discovery, the potential to forge on into new worlds of possibility.  We still have the ability to create things never before seen, never before known. 

 And without that, what do we really have?

Perfection

I think perfection is a grossly misunderstood concept.  It is something people strive for, something to achieve.  It is an ideal that is lauded as worthy of pursuit.  But boy howdy are people wrong.

First of all, perfection is an ill defined term.  We have the colloquial use of the term, such as, "Man, that cheesecake was perfect!"  Yeah, what you mean was the cheesecake was awesome, and you're being hyperbolic.

Okay, well, there's also the version of perfect that is used to describe the ultimate version of something.  So, let's talk about the ultimate cheesecake.  There are a lot of different ways to make cheesecake.  Who gets to be the authority on which is the best?  Everyone has different tastes.  So what metric would we even use to determine that?  Perhaps the objectively perfect cheesecake is only actually enjoyed by a few individuals?

What about people that don't like cheesecake?  What if their version of the perfect cheesecake doesn't even taste like cheesecake?  Is it even really cheesecake at that point?  We can't really start redefining things like that because then apples are steak and your car is a safety deposit box, and now everything is all fucked up.

And what about things even less objective than foods?  What about music?  What is the perfect way to play Bach's Brandenburg concertos?  Is it hitting every note with the right meter and length, or does it require a certain level of passion and flair?

Does time matter?  Is it possible for one to become perfect at something?  Consider the term defined as "without flaw and fully correct in every detail."  If that is the case, wouldn't past imperfections at a given activity apply?  Is "you weren't always perfect" somehow less of an issue than "you won't always be perfect?"  If making mistakes in the future would be grounds to invalidate your claims of perfection, why wouldn't past mistakes matter?
 
Okay, we're starting to walk down a path to a much larger existentialist discussion there, so lets take a step back and explore a bit more simplified version of the idea.  Let's take a simple activity like shooting free-throws in a basketball game, and say perfection is making everyone.  Let's not even worry about whether or not you'd still make a free-throw outside during a hurricane, or if you'd still make it if an MMA fighter was punching you in the bicep mid shot, though those are valid concerns.  Let's just talk about you in normal situations, making every free-throw you shoot.

Now what?  Well, if you are the only one aware of the fact that you're perfect at this, then things are pretty awesome.  You'll make every free-throw and be known as the clutch guy that can really deliver in those pressure moments.  People start saying cool shit like, "you've got ice water in your veins."  You're the hero.  Sweet.

But let's assume that everyone knows you're perfect at shooting free-throws.  Now things get way different.  Supposing anyone was stupid enough or unlucky enough to actually foul you, why would you even shoot the damn free-throws.  Everyone knows you're going to make them.  Do you stand at the foul line and make everyone watch while you go through the motions, or do we just chalk up two point on the board and move on with the game?  You're damn right it's the second one.

Your perfection at shooting free-throws has essentially made that skill wholly unnecessary.  You no longer have need to shoot a single free-throw ever again.  There's no real need to shoot them during a game, and you certainly don't have to practice.  Wait, remind me what your consecutive free-throw record was again?  Oh, it's all?  ALL!  Well done.  Good luck beating that record.

Your perfection at free-throws doesn't just annihilate the skill for you; it cheapens it for everyone else.  The best anyone else could hope for is an attempt at reaching perfection as well, which would do no better than to put them on equal terms.  So now, for all eternity, people in the future will either be equivalent, or worse, but no better.

Which brings me to my point: perfection equals mediocrity.  With perfection on the board, we have "this" and we have "shittier than this."  That's it.  If you look up the word mediocre, you'll find things like, neither good nor bad, undistinguished, commonplace, ordinary.  You want to know what dictionary.com lists as antonyms?  Extraordinary, superior, uncommon, and my personal favorite, incomparable.

My fear surrounding perfection has always been about that wall.  That point that you hit where you're done, and you can't go any further.  Without progression, I don't see the point in continuing to do things.  Not progressing means the things you are doing are mediocre, and being mediocre is lame and not worth wasting your time on. 

Let's not strive to be perfect; let's strive to be better.

Role Models are Important

Role models are important.

(Yes, I said it twice.  For emphasis.)

We are born into this world, nowing nothing, and needing help from everyone around us for survival.  As time goes on, not much changes.  Sure, we have our own experiences, and discover things for ourselves, but the vast majority of our nowledge comes from other people.

We learn values from our parents.  We are taught things in school, ranging from the simplest of language rudimentaries to complex mathamatical and scientific principles.  We go to church and learn the concepts of morality and ethics to help us interact with others.  College teaches us even more complicated principles, focesed around the specific subjects we are interested in.

But I think there is a valuable teacher in society that we have a tendency to overlook, and even undervalue.  And that is the the Role Model.

I'm not talking about the weird guy down the street that volunteers at the food bank.  I'm not talking about the nerdy professor at your high school that stays after class and helps kids.  I'm not talking about the young naive politition who things he can actually make a difference if he can only win office.  I'm talking about real role models.

Sports stars, successful rappers, Hollywood actors.  These are the role models we need to be encouraging our children to admire.  Bear with me here.  Compare the people I mentioned above to the people mentioned in this paragraph.  There is one glaring stark differense I think everyone can see.  One group is successfull, the other group is not.

We live in a practical society.  These aren't barbarien times where we have to catch our own food and build our own houses out of sticks and stuff and sleep outside and not have TV.  This is the real world.  We're a global socity now and there are two things, and two things alone, that are important now.  Success, and money.

You can't get anything on your own anymore.  You need money.  All of the important necessities cost money.  Shelter, heat, smart phones, cars, clothes, food, and shelter all cost money.  And without all of those things, you die.  Without these basic amenities, we simpley cannot survive in today's world, and well die.

These successful Role Models can go along way towards teaching our children the virtues of, and dare I say, path too, success and riches.  Sports stars show us how important it can be to be exceptionally and rediculously good at games.  Rappers show how successful it can be to surround yourself with 'bitches' and say "uh, yeah, what?" a lot.  And movie stars, more than anything, have shown how beneficial it can be to simply not be yourself.

If any of this sounds rediculous to you, take a moment and look at your life, versus there lives.  What happens if something breaks in your house?  You might have to take out a loan to fix it, they can buy a completely new house.  What if someone in your family gets sick?  You'll have to file bankruptcy to pay for it, the doctors probably won't even make them pay for it.  What happens if you make a mistake with drugs or firearms?  You're going to go to jail forever, but Role Models will likely just get even bigger in the public eye and maybe even get more work.

If you think any of the first situations are better than the after situations, then you are an idiot.  Clearly, having more money is better.  Instead of worying about education (which never really helped anyone, BORING!) we should expose our children to these real Role Models so they can gain some real skills.  Just ahve your kids practice acting cool, saying "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money" (repetition is key) and playing with balls, and you'll now that your children will be fine, and your retirement is taken care of.

Random Thoughts II

• I just heard of a great new place where you can go tanning for free. It's called outside.

• Remember when you used to be able to go outside at night and see the stars? I hope they're still out there. 

• It seems to me that often the people who want to teach abstinence only are also the people who believe that Jesus was immaculately conceived.  Not quite 100% effective, is it?

• Why is it fun to pet kitties, but it's work to give people massages?

• Is the neighborhood ice cream truck EXACTLY the same as the creepy van full of candy we warn children about?

• You will totally get in trouble for looking up a girls dress, unless she's dancing. Then it's practically encouraged. 

• Don't make vocal noises while in a public restroom.  It's unnecessary.  The only noises should be coming from your pelvis.

• Hey Guy with Big Truck.  Places that aren't parking spots aren't parking spots.

• Use the bannister.  Dick.

• Hey ladies, every man you've ever encountered has looked, is looking, or will soon be looking at your boobs.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

• Smokey the Bear needs to stop pressuring me.  Bitch, I have a job, and I don't really like to travel.  Are you telling me that out of seven billion people on the planet, you can't find ONE other person to prevent forest fires?  What am I supposed to do?!  Run around the forest slapping matches and lighters out of people's hands!?  That's assault, dude!  I will get ARRESTED for that shit.  Besides, there's a lot of acres of forest out there, and I don't see how I'm supposed to cover all of it on foot.  I'd need an ATV of some kind, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not paying for that out of pocket.  That's something YOU are going to need to provide.  And I'm going to need some kind of gasoline allowance, especially with prices these days.  Oh yeah, and I'm not liable for fires started by lightning.  That's bullshit.  Lightning does what it wants, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not jumping in front of a lightning bolt just to protect the forest.  Not that I don't like the forest and all, but you've seen how uppity and belligerent lightning gets, and it seriously gets like that ALL THE TIME.  I have sensitive skin, and I'm not looking to get it all dried out by third degree burns.  So why don't you and your little bear friends take your One Man Forest Fire Fighting plan to someone else, because I'm not down with your crazy.  I haven't the time, the energy, or the legal immunity necessary to complete the task as you've laid it out to me in our many correspondences.  Get off my ass already, because seriously, dude, it's not happening.  .....anyway, stay safe out there campers.

You Have to Have Gay Sex...

....if you're going to be gay.

Okay, maybe I jumped the gun a little.  Sorry, it's my first time, and I'm nervous.  Seriously, this never happens to me.

So, I've been thinking.  We as people identify ourselves as many things.  Race, religion, political beliefs, and even hobbies.  (I'm a gamer, and I pretend to be a basketball player, mountain biker, and writer.)  But it seems one of the things we identify most with is our sexuality.  It's very core to who we are as people, not only whether we identify with the feminine or the masculine, but also which group we find ourselves sexually attracted to.

I am a heterosexual.  (It's not a choice, I was born this way.)  I find myself attracted to women, and I've mentioned at least once on this blog that boobs are the greatest thing ever.  Couldn't explain it to you though.  It's just the way I am, deep down into the core of my being.  I love women.

However, it was a long time before I had my first full out sexual encounter with a woman.  (No, I'm not going to tell you how long.  No, I'm not going to tell you who it was.)  Up until that point, I had still considered myself a heterosexual.  But should I have?

As children, we are pretty much asexual.  We don't really understand the concept, and we haven't really begun to develop those kinds of feelings for the opposite (or same) sex.  As I progressed through puberty, into Junior High and High School, I started noticing girls, and having those desirous and sexual feelings about them.  But how could I possibly consider myself as heterosexual without actually having had sex with any of them?

Consider this: I've often thought about being a stunt driver.  I like cars, I like stunts, and I like to think I might have a bit of a knack for it.  However, I have never done stunts in a car.  No one would ever refer to me as a stunt driver.  Why?  Well, because I'm not.  Thinking about something does not that thing make.

I've thought about being in the Olympics.  But it would be ludicrous to call me an Olympian.  (Especially considering how fat I am.)  I've thought about being a filmmaker.  But I don't have any films that I've created.  (Yeah, not even that one from college.  I lost it.)  I've thought about being a superhero.  Yeah, I don't think I need to continue.  (I am a superhero though, so fuck you guys.)

I bring this up because of a religious idea I heard recently: "It alright for you to be gay, as long as you don't act upon your impulses."  Basically, be as gay as you want, just don't do any gay things, namely having man on man sex.  (Or woman on woman.  Hot.)

How exactly does one be something, without doing the things inherent to what that is?  You can go ahead and be a painter, you just can't use a brush to place paint on a canvas in the way you want.  Got it.  Oh wait.

I have some serious issues with this.  One is the idea that you can tell someone they can be something, but in the same breath tell them they can't do the activities associated with that something.  "You can be a boxer if you want Timmy, you just can't train, or fight anyone."  "Sure Reginald, you can be an astronaut, as long as you don't go to space."  It's disingenuous at best and downright emotional abuse at worst.  Fuck that shit.

Another is the concept of defining who we are by our thoughts alone.  I don't want to be arrested for assault just because I thought about punching some guy in the face for being a dick.  That's some serious 1984 shit there, and I am having none of that.

But my ultimate question here is why are we allowed to identify our sexuality based purely on our thoughts and feelings, not on our actions like is done with everyone else?  Is there anything else like this?  Or is this just a random exception to the rule?  Because unless we have good reason for feeling this way, maybe we should take a deeper look at it.

Anyway, doin' it and homos and whatnot.    ....yeah.

Hey! It's Not Your Story

So, we had the Academy Awards just recently.  It's something I only pay attention to whimsically as a footnote of pop culture.  I don't really put a lot of stock into the awards.  After all, every year, my wife and I craft our own little statuettes out of modelling clay and give them to the movies we like, so those bastards can go to hell.

Okay, not really.

These awards have no influence on my opinion of the movies.  It's really just a self-congratulatory pat on the back from the movie industry.  As far as I'm concerned, it exists as an interesting spectacle, and makes for some fun trivia for movie buffs, nothing more.

I am, however, curious as to what criteria are exactly taken into account when doling out these awards.  The Best Picture award in particular stymies me.  Most of the time, it ends up being a film I've not seen, and almost the entirety of the rest of the time, I disagree with the decision.

My personal opinions of the films themselves aside, there is one thing in particular that bothers me in regards to these, and similar, awards.  Hell, it doesn't even have to be an award.  I just don't like the idea of people receiving credit for the work of someone else.

Let me explain.  This year, Argo won Best Picture.  I've not seen the movie myself, but by all accounts it's a quality film.  Here's my problem: it's not their story.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure everyone involved with the movie worked very hard.  And clearly, they did a good job, based on the box office earnings, and, oh yeah, that award thing.  But again, it's simply not their story.

The story of Argo was already done once before in the form of a television movie back in 1981.  The story was also told in 2000 in a book.  I have also not read the book or seen the television movie, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits, but I have a feeling that the 2012 Argo is probably the best one.  You know, because of the awards and the money, again.

So, why shouldn't it have won, you might ask?  If it was the best version of that story, and it was best film of the year, then it seems to have earned that award, right?  Maybe.  But what is to stop anyone from doing that again?

In 2002, Chicago won Best Picture.  But Chicago was a play from 1926.  They made it a film in 1927.  The first musical Broadway production was in 1975, and then a bunch of times after that.  It's clearly a well established and well liked story.  So some people come along in 2002, make a "better" version, and win the Academy Award.

So, all someone has to do is take that same story, do it a little better, and they too, can win Best Picture.  I mean, if you can re-do a story that has won Best Picture, and make it better, there is no WAY it can lose.  Well, unless it's up against a bunch of other movies that are remakes of previous Best Picture winners.

Les Miserables is an even worse example.  It was first published in 1862.  In the 1900's alone it was a movie (1935), a radio adaptation (1937), another film (1958), a musical (1980), yet another film (1998), a TV miniseries (2000), and then even another film just recently in 2012, the one that was nominated for Best Picture.  With that much background, that much material to draw from, and with a story so beloved by such a large group of people, you'd damn well better be able to create a successful movie.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe these people have earned these accolades, these awards, this popularity, even if it is gained by standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.  After all, there's an awful lot of work put into making these movies, and I don't want to take anything away from them.

But something feels wrong about lauding these people for redoing something that someone else already did.  I think people have an under appreciation for original work.  I think that both creators and readers/watchers have gotten lazier and lazier in their approach to new things.  The people creating don't want to take the time, or the risk, of creating something original.  And the people that are watching, don't want to have to think.  They just want to be force fed something easy and familiar.

Perhaps we should take some more risks, start thinking a little bit more, and stop giving awards for repetition and mediocrity.

The Irony of Selfishness

Everybody is selfish.

It's natural.  We're supposed to be selfish.  A wholly unselfish person would give away all their food and clothing and eventually starve to death in the snow.  It's not a great model for success.

But we also do a lot of selfish things that don't directly contribute to our survival, and most of the time, it's fine.  When I'm playing Rock Band, a lot of times I pick songs that I like, not necessarily songs that the other players would like.  (Sorry Mom, Nickelback isn't good.)  I've eaten the last brownie before.  (Yeah, it was me.)  However, I've started noticing a disturbing trend where people are selfish to the point of causing themselves actual detriment.

It's odd really, since the concept of being selfish is supposed to give you the benefits while causing others detriment.  I think that these extreme self-destructive examples of selfishness are accompanied by a certain level of arrogance.  (I can't think of a personal example here because I'm such a great person.)  I have to believe that these people truly think they are the only person around, or that they're invincible, or some other such delusion.  Or, perhaps more accurately, there is a distinct lack of thinking involved.

There are a million other examples of this behavior.  Like idiot drivers turning left in front of people.  Maybe they're just in a hurry, maybe they're trying to get on the tail end of a turn arrow.  Doesn't matter.  If there is an accident, I'm going to slam directly into your body.  Not the front of your car, not the back.  There are only a few inches of plastic protecting you from the smashy force of my vehicle.  I'm going to be upset that I have to deal with the insurance company, and you're going to be upset that your organs are now full of bones.

Or what about people that decide to chat in a group right next to the door.  I'm telling you now, I clock one of those dipshits in the face with the door, and I'm not going to feel bad.  Or just about everyone who goes out on Black Friday.  (Sorry Jon.)  Or those people who don't clean all the snow off their car.  If someone behind you gets blinded by the blizzard you've created, wrecks their car, and sues the shit out of you, don't come crying to me.  I don't even care how cold it was that morning, or how late to work you were.  Doesn't seem worth it.

Here's my favorite.  At the building where I used to work, there was a public restroom that was an individual use bathroom.  One toilet, one sink, you lock the door behind you, blah blah blah.  Etiquette dictates that you attempt to turn the knob, and upon finding it secured, you move on, because clearly the bathroom is occupied.  I, in my endless neuroses, would go so far as to press on the handle ever so gently until the lock engaged, so as not to disturb anyone inside.

However, there are an alarming number of people who approach the restroom and then immediately ASSAULT THE DOOR WITH MONSTER TRUCK FORCE!!!!  I swear that some of these people put their fucking shoulder into it like a member of a S.W.A.T. team.

I don't know if these people are in an emergency waste removal situation, or if they're just not thinking, or if they don't understand the concept of barriers, but it doesn't matter.  I'm in there, asshole.  Whatever it is that you need to take care of isn't going to happen, because I'm sitting in there taking a dump.  Supposing you were able to break down the door with your sledgehammer attack, all that is going to happen is you're going to see my dick, or shit coming out of my ass, or something else equally disturbing.  Trust me, if that happens, no one is going to be happy.

Seriously, anyone who thinks they can break down a bathroom door, throw the occupant to the ground, and take a shit themselves, is fucking insane.  I'm not in law enforcement, but that sounds like a felony.

Look, we live in a society, which means there are a LOT of people around.  And we all know that I, maybe more than anyone, wishes that wasn't the case.  But it is.  So, if you're going to be selfish, that's fine.  But it might be a good idea for you to think about someone else every once in a while.  Because if you don't, you're going to end up getting hurt, or see something really unpleasant.

Like my dick.