My Old Poetry Notebook

As all the cool bloggers do, I attempt to digitize any media I own that isn't viewable on the internet. Here is a poetry book I found in my closet today. All these poems were written outside AC before a poetry reading night about 2 years ago.

The rest is blank.

My New Superhero Alter-ego

Fearless Stranger

I was walking out of the LBJ building the other night after visiting the Office of Disability Services. Hobbling around on me (apparently unnecessary) walking boot, a man appeared next to me as I was focused on getting my ipod turned on. He asked me what happened to my foot and I explained that I broke my ankle recently [Note: not actually broken.]. Looking back on it now, I'm convinced that he is a direct descendant of Jeff Spicoli, but for now I will call him dude. Dude empathized with me about about the trials and tribulations of ankle pain, explained his own difficulties in the past, and as we reached the end of our mutual course, he wished me luck. I turned to the left with a dreamy look in my eyes. "Wow, having a walking boot on is apparently much more interesting than just plain 'ole shoes. I love running into people on campus randomly." I then took my ipod out of my pocket once again, unlocked in and hit play. Fearless by Taylor Swift came on; I took the song as an aptly timed omen.

Get it?

New Things

Going to be writing some short stories of my recent past in the upcoming weeks and days. The future will have to wait until I get there. The past is in front of us all.

Random - 1/17/08

Jeff Hogan - Synonym 13369

Reaction Paper #1

In the excerpt from the book Utilitarianism, John Stewart Mill explains the ultimate aspiration of utilitarianism, and answers common perceived flaws in that aspiration. In utilitarianism the action which produces the greatest happiness overall is the best moral action. He goes on further to make a distinction between the happiness that is achieved when man's mental facilities are pleasurably satisfied, and base physical pleasures that mankind shares with non-sentient animals. The former being the more desirable happiness in most circumstances. Two moral qualities that are commonly used as arguments against the idea of one ultimate moral good are presented. Mill's method in both cases is to examine commonly agreed upon statements about those moral qualities, and use those statements to show that at their base level, the qualities boil down to a promotion of an individuals happiness rather than some other end.
My belief is that Mill makes a strong argument that all moral actions that are striven for ultimately end in increased happiness for some party. It can be a good guideline for making personal decisions on what actions are good for one's own self to take. However, I'm not satisfied with stating that is the most effective way of deciding the ethics of a society. One of his important points is that the happiness generated for the individual isn't as important as the happiness contributed to society as a whole. This creates a very vague line in many situations. Take the case of a murderer condemned to death through the law system. When the pleasure and pain from that mans death is weighed, many elements are brought to mind. Firstly there is the pleasure of the victims family, they most likely will be happy to see what they consider justice carried out. However it is hard to tell if this pleasure is enough to outweigh the mental anguish the murderer experiences knowing his life will be over. Additionally, what happens to all future pleasure that the murderer might have experienced. It is even possible that under some circumstances the murderer might undertake some action that increases the happiness of a large population of people in the future. For example, he might experience a religious reform while imprisoned, be paroled, and through his contribution to charities and social programs, give pleasure to a far-reaching group of individuals. Any event that may seem to have a clear measure of pleasure and pain in the short-term, might have far reaching effects that cannot be judged. This is one of the core problems I have with Utilitarianism. Using the end result of actions as the deciding factor in ethical decisions is very difficult when no person has the ability to see into the future.
Even when based on prior experiences we have the problem of varying derived happiness from actions. In the case of a masochist, they are compelled to cause pain to their-self, and in doing so they also cause their-self mental pleasure upon fulfilling a need. If you accept the argument for the superiority of mental happiness over physically happiness, then clearly, as far as the masochist is concerned, they are doing more good than harm. A person that has never experienced such a desire, is in no position to make a judgement on the morality of such an action. A regular person will make the judgement that causing self-harm is a morally wrong action, even though for some individuals that is not the case.
The examples I have used, don't necessarily work when society is deciding on the best course of action as unified entity. Yet, they still work on a personal level. The murderer could make a judgement on whether it is right for him to continuing living. If Mill is right that almost all men desire mental pleasure over any other. I don't see how anyone would judge giving up the pleasure entirely as the right course of action. Of course, having criminals decide their own punishment is unreasonable, more likely I would recommend some alternative moral philosophy. The masochist is clearly in a position to decide whether their self-harm is justified. Others may decide for themselves if it is justified in their individual case, but have no right to decide on the part of the masochist. While many of the base ideas of Utilitarianism are perfectly valid. Expanding those ideas backwards and forwards in time, as well as expanding them to society altogether, leaves me unsatisfied that the right action can be carried out in every case.

Where Is The Future Coming From?

This monkey has the right idea.

I've been devoting a lot of my idle brain cycles lately trying to intuit what the next biggest development in technology is going to be. I'm feel we're in a slow slide into information ubiquity. That is a good term for the purposes of this post. We can see the initial vestiges of information ubiquity with the current technology stock, 3G smart phones, wimax, web 2.0, kindle's whispernet, emerging neurological science, and augmented reality developments. The fundamental change is going to emerge with developments not in traditional interfaces, but in radically new ways to receive and send information. One sign that this is the right path to look towards is the queasiness factor for the idea in a normal person. Imagine the general populace's confusion over sending emails instead of regular physical post, then follow a line trailing from that point to the present day, where people of my generation express disgust over the percieved lack of merit in using the latest social networking websites. It is my predilection that truly great ideas often shake societies enough that they are often decried before they can be accepted.

Imagine the braincap idea from Clarke's novel 3001. That is where we are headed in no time flat. With absolutely no research or sources to back up these traits, here is what I predict for the age of information ubiquity.

• The ability to access information anywhere on the globe at anytime.
• Information access without having to defer from any other task. A retinal implant or direct neurological connection.
• Transmitting information with a direct interface to the brain.
• Context aware delivery information.
• The physical world and electronic world experienced as a singular entity.
  
  

Perspective - The Optimist's Cookbook

Yeah, that's the idea.

An issue that I have been pondering for quite some time is that of perspective. It seems that its all I can think about in dealing with others. Every idea is wrapped inside varying layers of biases and scope. A contemporary example of this phenomenon is Michael Jackson. I have nothing to say about any of his personal details, mainly because I don't feel I have anything appropriate to add. At the grocery store people engage each other, and often myself as well, in conversation about one aspect of some tabloid cover or another. I wish no part in it, not only that, but I feel a very strong aversion to such discourse. Its obvious that no one is qualified to appropriately discuss his motivations. In the truest sense of the phrase I consider him larger than life. Not in the sense that he life was somehow larger than others, but that all of us are larger than life.

Lately I've been responding to status inquiries concerning myself by saying "I'm doing better now than I ever have in my entire life." The amazing truth is that I've locked myself into believing those words. The formula for seeing truth in loving the present ends with an ending, my ending. What has haunted me recently has been an image of me on the very verge of death. I do not fear dying however, I fear regret. I know that leading up to, and even at the very moment of death, a thought is going to occur to me: "That was so quick." It is a popular image, a cliche image, but its undeniably true. In a more restricted perspective, it is having weeks fly by, months fly by, years fly by. It is having slices of consciousness that were once present and in stark relief becoming vague and undefined around the edges. It is the ultimate, final extension of this situation. A customer said in response to my unrealistically cheery status response "Yeah man, that is why it is called the present, it is a gift." I love axioms, maxims, sayings, and the like. I love that they can distill a great meaning in a small package. I love saying a sentence that connects strangers and myself on a deeply personal level. "Shoot, I need every penny I can get." "I feel you, brother." I love phrases like this, but I think the one about the present I love most of all. It is adorable in its naivety, but that is what being optimistic is all about. The naivety to believe there is no way to see the world other than as an optimistic. The thing about having every moment being the best moment in your existence is that such an idea still allows for other emotions beside happiness. You can take joy in being sad, because you're alive. Regardless of any concern for an afterlife (for the record, I can wax philosophical on the subject, but ultimately a dead person is gone, dead, forever), we have a extremely limited time to be alive.

I can't finish this. I'll leave on this note, all I want out of life is to be immortalized in history past my death. Its the only goal I have to accomplish before I die. As a fallback plan, I'll have a child, but I would rather it not come to that. I want to improve the world through my intelligence and be remembered for it. So I can delay death past the end of me.