« 2006-02 | HomePage | 2006-04 »
20 March 2006
New Poem
"Miracle"
She moves in fire and lightning,
Arcing Creation
Setting the wind ablaze
She wears its radiance
Upon her skin.
Her arms upstretched, clothed in light,
Her eyes a barely concealed flame.
They hide strength.
She dances among the stars,
Amidst the raindrops
The fabric of the universe
She wraps around her
As a robe.
Time and space slip between her fingers,
As her eyes gaze heavenward,
With the wonder of a child.
She stands, swords unsheathed,
Eyes blazing
Stands fast, sure-footed,
Clad in strength and dignity
In armor clad.
Her back strong, her heart pure,
Her eyes resolute, fixed,
Unmoved by fear.
She falls to her knees,
Arms stretched heavenward
In her eyes the fires of Creation,
She wears her wild nobility
As a crown.
She rises, head unbowed,
Secure in the image of another,
Lightborne, Lightbearer, Lightbringer.
10:10 Posted in Poems | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
15 March 2006
Probability and Causal Necessity
Given two events that have both occurred, for which probabilities can be assigned, where one of these events is necessary, and the other exists as a function of the necessary event, the event which is by far the most unlikely will tend to be the necessary event, and the other contingent. This is especially true if the gap between the two probabilities is statistically significant, as the probable can be molded to support the improbable far easier than the other way around.
Mathematical Formulation:
Given an extant event with probability n, and a second extant event dependant upon that first event with a probability kn, a ratio of stochastic balance exists of k:kn. Whichever side of this balance is smaller will tend to be the necessary event, and the other dependent, determine kn as the relative probability (assume n=1, k will be equal to the event's probability assuming n to be true.) Proof: both events exist; therefore can be assigned a probability. Given events a and b, where b requires a to exist in order to exist, hypothesis 1 would be that a is necessary, therefore given at a probability of 1. B would then be assigned a probability given a. Then b would be assumed to be true and a would be given a probability given b. As a's relative probability given b will always be 1:1, as b cannot exist without a, when we comparing these two relative probabilities, the relevant probability of b to a will be 1:b. If b is a stochastic event, the stochastic balance will be 1:(nb). If a's side of the equation is heavier, a exists as a function of b (even though b requires a,) and vice versa.
Lottery Example:
Positing a global lottery will allow us to test this theory. There is a global lottery not correlated with population, and there is a winner to that lottery. We can assign odds to this lottery, and clearly the lottery is logically (but not necessarily ordinally) necessary for the winner to exist. We can then use relevant probabilities to evaluate which of these two events are ordinally necessary, and which contingent. For our first lottery, we have odds of one in a million, and our n=6 billion. Looking at our stochastic balance, we see 1:1000, given the lottery, there should be about 1,000 winners, so the fact that someone won is not surprising. We can attribute the winner to random chance (if they didn’t win, someone else would have,) and we call the lottery necessary and the winner contingent. For our second lottery, let's posit odds of one in a trazillion. Our stochastic balance is 1:(1/zillion.) The fact that someone won is surprising, under random chance, no one should have won at all. Instead of the winner just being that lucky, the lottery was probably rigged for them to win. Therefore, the lottery was for the winner, rather than the winner for the lottery: the winner is necessary and the lottery consistent.
Anthropic Argument, Terrestrial Formulation
Looking at the existence of the Earth, we see a similar example to our lottery example. The universe's existence is our logically necessary event. The existence of a life-supporting planet is our second event. Our sample is all planets in this universe. Originally, we assumed that the probability of a life-bearing planet was relatively high, given the number of planets. The Anthropic Principle has shown that life-bearing planets are statistically very rare, on the order of 10^121. Generous estimates of the number of planets in the universe are in the range of 10^60. The stochastic balance then favors the extremely unlikely existence of a life-bearing planet as the necessary event, and the universe as the contingent event. This, of course, begs the question that if the lottery was fixed, then who fixed it and why? Which is, of course, a metaphysical question outside the bounds of this discussion, but regardless the answer is self-evident.
Statistics and Faith
As a sidebar, faith expressed in statistics is to take the object of faith as given, and to evaluate all other probabilities in reference to this given probability of one. Faith must assume a probability to be a certainty, but all probabilities are referenced to a certainty. Faith merely chooses which certainty should be used as a reference frame.
13:40 Posted in Boring Theories (Sciences) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
12 March 2006
Stubbs' Theorem (Genders in Relationship)
Male-Female Graphical Relationship Models (Nodes and Linkages): (Sorry that I can't draw.)
2 Person Relationship Model
Male View (Top), Female View: (Bottom)
Larger Social Network view (Same transformations exist):
Circles = Nodes, Lines = Linkages.
Male Default:
Relationships are composed of two or more nodes which are linked.
Female Default:
Relationships are composed of a linkage that is between two or more nodes.
Note: These are trends and tendencies, not necessarily categorically true, and not true to the exclusion of the other.
Implications:
1) System Analysis: Point math is simpler than relational math. Far less variables involved, far more static a system. Intuitive analysis (chaos math?) is required when variables are unmanageable, manageable variables can be addressed with concrete analysis (linear math.) Therefore, females (linkage primacy) use more advanced math in there analysis, and hence rely more on intuition. Accordingly, they can draw conclusions where concrete analysis would find insufficient data, but these conclusions would be reached slower and with less certainty. Males (nodal primacy) use less advanced math, and hence rely on analysis more than intuition, limiting their horizons, but cementing their conclusions and allowing them to act more decisively (if less precisely.)
2) Information Acquisition (Questions): Acquisition from nodal primacy is simpler than from linkage primacy, as it generally takes the form of a query rather than a stimulus. Males are usually querying for information when they ask a question. Females, better able to understand social networks, are perturbing the system, providing a stimulus in order to observe the response and better understand the interaction, or alternately moving the system to produce the desired response. This can lead to misunderstandings, such as where a female asks a question of a male desiring a certain response, and he sees it as a query, and responds with data, when the female was really analyzing overall systemic health in his response. Or alternately the male may become frustrated when they feel that they can not get a direct answer to a query. Consider a male asking a question more as administering a multiple choice or true/false 'ScanTron' test. Consider a female asking a question more as plucking a guitar string, and determining if the guitar sounds in tune or not.
3) Relationship Valuation: From a nodal standpoint, the other person and their attributes (and the self) are primary in the relationship. Examples: 'She's so hot, she's smart, I'm lucky to have a girl like her.' From a linkage viewpoint, the shared thoughts and experiences are primary to the relationship. Ex: 'We have a lot in common, he likes what I like, I like who I am with him, I’m so lucky to have a relationship like this.' Hence, males are typically more concerned with being with the other person, and females are more interested in developing a relationship with the other person. Both aspects are necessary, hence it is more a difference of focus.
4) Power: Nodal Primacy leads to a direct understanding of power, often based in the hypothetical catastrophic/eucatastrophic. To a male, the idea that he may save the day is his default understanding of power. Power is applied to another node, whether to fix a problem, build up that node, or neutralize a threat. A healthy application of this power enhances the health of other nodes or overall systemic health by neutralizing malfunctioning nodes. Linkage primacy leads to an indirect systemic understanding of power, power as actual influence. The ability to reshape the system in small changes over time, rather than the hypothetical catastrophic/eucatastrophic changes all at once. This power can be used to enhance overall systemic health by strengthening the relationships in the system, or alternately to reduce the power than malfunctioning elements wield through their relationships. Nodal power is expressed in the 'big stick' rarely realized but decisive interactions. Linkage power is in the constant subtle changes, and the two forms of power can be complimentary, where the small changes set the stage for the eucastrophic change.
4b) Abuse: A nodal primacy abuse of power uses the direct application of fear from the threatened application to serve the node's own ends (greedy, arrogant, power hungry people wield their power to cow others rather than to build them up.) An indirect abuse of power likewise seeks to establish control over the system, but does so by twisting the system over time, and poisoning the relationships of the system, decreasing overall efficiency to enhance individual control (manipulation.) Refer to the Genesis curse.
4c) Threats: A nodal analysis of threats will find a threat in another node that has the power/leverage to threaten that node's potential pursuit of ends, especially if ends are at odds. Therefore, the male will be threatened by the guy who is smarter or stronger, 'eg. 'he could kick my a$$.' A linkage analysis focuses on actual influence, rather than potential power in a hypothetical interaction. As opposed to potential threats, which can be rapidly reconcil3ed when the confrontation is over, and can also rapidly escalate (i.e. guys can fight then be friends a day later,) actual threats tend to be over a longer timescale and a longer accounting of wrongs. With small, precise changes, relatively few people with different agendas (esp. Ones at odds with each other) can simultaneously successfully influence the system. Hence, the perception of females as 'catty.' This stereotype is a function of competition for influence over the network as a whole, and is very strongly expressed in relationships with a high degree of intimacy, where the female views herself as the sole subtle influence in the equation.
4d) Leverage: Nodal values the potential catastrophic/eucatastrophic ('save the day') interaction, therefore direct potential power (strength/knowledge/etc.) is seen as leverage. Linkages values the means by which indirect influence occurs ('the husband is the head, but the wife is the neck, and the neck turns the head') such as beauty, understanding, robust linkages, etc. The male hits things with sticks, and the female likes him for it. Direct is the broadsword, catastrophic when used, but unwieldy. Indirect is the dagger, causing a small amount of damage, but deadly when used at the right time.
5) Genders in Community: A better model is possible than this world's mutual abuse/conflictual model. The curse of Genesis made direct power difficult for males (your labor shall be painful,) and indirect power for women difficult as well (birth shall be painful; your husband will lord over you.) It is the direct power that holds back the waters, and the indirect power that builds a home (healthy social networks) inside the area carved out. The male has the most direct power, but all his power is for naught without the female, as without her, there is no continuation, no new life. He protects her in the now, and she brings the future. Only in both direct and indirect power can completeness be achieved. Therefore, both need each other, both on the micro and macro levels. He is traditionally seen as the greater, but in many ways, she is the greater: a woman gave birth to Christ. Without the man's role, the woman's cannot exist, but without her role, his has no purpose. In his justice, and her mercy; in his strength, and her beauty; in his clarity, and her mystery, the wholeness of God is revealed.
6) Biological Explanation: Perhaps this differentiation of thought has something to do with the chemical wash that bifurcates the brain of young males. Having analysis and reflection split creates simpler, more decisive math. The good CEO is generally not the super-genius, but rather the one who is comfortable making confident decisions with little data. These same traits may make him a poor analyst or engineer. The skillset for chess is vastly different than that for football, as is the decision-making process. The female, with the more unified brain, exhibits more complex processing ability, but this complexity in understanding may prohibit her from hasty actions she would consider clumsy and inadequately thought through. Hence, she sees the situation in more detail, as one coherent entity, as unified as her biochemistry. Hence, she may shy away from snap decisions that lack the concomitant level of understanding. The male, with the bifurcated brain, has far less of a problem simplifying the situation, as his understanding is usually to a more coarse level of detail. Hence, he is more comfortable making snap decisions on incomplete data. The two biochemistries are complimentary, much like the executive and legislative branches of government.
10:45 Posted in Boring Theories (Social Sciences) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
09 March 2006
Epic and the Pathways of Vicarious Life
Societies need symbols upon which to project their definitional self-images. These symbols provide for a simplified corporate identity experienced vicariously. These symbols begin the transition to myth as they are imbued with the values, hopes and aspirations of those claiming them. The original real nature of the thing becomes canvas upon which the mystical and metaphysical are painted. (i.e. A flag) When the physical reality of the thing is forgotten, then it has completed its transition to symbol. However, this transition can leave the thing changed not just in nature, but also in essence. Things can be re-invented, and their original nature can be lost. (i.e. Che Guevara shirts.)
Often, these symbols can be people. The symbol cannot work without the capacity for identification, without a pathway for vicarious identification. Herein lies the complexity of a human symbol. Humans exist in reality, not in myth. We breathe in and out real oxygen and carbon dioxide, not glowing strands of ether. A human must be re-invented to in becoming the bearer of myth. In their beatification or vilification, they lose some of the complexity that comes from being a being of actuality and potentiality (Aquinas) inside of reality. In increasing magnitude, the symbol loses depth. (reference wave physics -> Doppler filter) Initially this may involves little change of intent (Sandino->Sandinistas) but over time can diverge tremendously from the original intent (Susan B. Anthony -> second wave feminism.) This is especially true when the reinvention is intentionally driven by those who seek to control the power structures built upon the social capital of the symbol.
Vertical Symbology is the pathway of traditional myth. It reaches back into history, or forward into fantasy to find vessels. These are the ubermenschen, the Luke Skywalkers, the Beowulfs, the George Washingtons, also the supervillians, the Grendels, Palpatines and the Hitlers. This pathway is in some way simpler, as it does not have to manage the dual life of a breathing myth; its vessels exist solely in the malleable past, or the infinitely rewritable imagination of the myth-maker. This pathway grants a society temporal continuity to its vicarious self-image: its epics of history either affirm or show progress toward the self of now, its epics of fantasy grant longevity to the society's dreams (or nightmares... Apocalyptic fantasies exist alongside Utopian fantasies, and many exist in between, in the catastrophe or the eucatastrophe.)
Lateral Symbology is the pathway of contemporary myth. It reaches across the now and finds its vessels in the prominent figures of its time: the kings, the celebrities, the controversial revolutionaries. These are the politicians, the musicians and the sports heroes. They are the stars of the imagined Soap Operas and the real soap operas. These may lack the clarity of the vertical myths, but a society can watch with bated breath as their lateral epics unfold. (For this reason, the lesser angels of our nature often inhabit these contemporary myths: the pettiness of our celebrity journals, and the eagerness with which we consume them, speak to this.) The difficulty with lateral symbols is that they still breathe. The symbol and the flesh must coexist. And this leads to a dual life for the lateral symbol. On one hand, they are known by a small group as a real person, on the other hand, they are know to the world as a mythical figure. This realization leads to ritual (or marketing) being used to manage (or package) the mythical nature. Lateral myths allow dynamic myth, myths still resolving their dynamic tension in conflict. For this reason, many who are contemporary heroes to some are contemporary villains to others (sports players, politicians.)
These pathways of symbology are society's means of creating a simplified meta-narrative of its identity. Hence, the symbols (and pathways as derivatives of symbols: derivative = flow over time) are only effective insofar as they as linked to that society. This is hardly a problem with a small society, where identification with the symbols is simple. For the Saxon villager, with most of the world shrouded by myth and encircled by monsters, it is not difficult to imagine Beowulf having lived in a neighboring village. For the tribesman who grew up in close proximity with the chieftain, it is not difficult for him to identify with the chieftain. Herein lies a problem for contemporary American society. Imagine symbology as a canopy of a tent hanging over the society. If the area the tent covers stays small, the canopy of the tent stays within reach. The symbols are easy to identify with. However, as the size of the society grows, the tent needs to cover a larger area. The growth of mass media provides more material for this canopy of symbology. However, even though the tent has enough material, the larger the tent you have, the higher the top of the tent becomes, and the farther is becomes from those under it. With the combination of growth and mass media, the society feels farther and farther from its symbols. If the symbols are no longer tied to the society, they no longer serve their purpose, and can be blown away with a gust of wind. Returning to our analogy, the society must find ways to fasten the canopy securely to the ground. Linkages must be created whereby the society can identify with the symbols again.
These robust pathways allow the society to maintain its symbology even as the gap between the represented and the representation increases. Such a robust linkage must provide the whole of society a means of identification to its mythical and historical symbols. To bridge the gap between society and symbology, this linkage must demonstrate the capacity of the society, specifically the everyman, to become symbology. This is achieved either by demonstrating a transition between everyman and symbology, or a coexistence between everyman and symbology. Through demonstrating this capacity for transition or coexistence, the robust linkage reinforces the idea that the symbols are of the society. This reinforcement is required when these symbols seem distant.
For the vertical pathway, there is no ability to transition or coexist as a historical symbol. Therefore, in order to reinforce the vertical pathway, we look forward to fantasy. Here we find the everyman-hero or 'superhero.' Many of these undergo some transition from a normal person to superhero. (Batman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four) These superheroes coexist as people and symbols by living double lives, often expressing the same problems in their 'normal' lives as in their 'superhero' lives. (Spiderman, Superman, X-Men (sort of).) This transition or coexistence anchors the symbols to the society. [This coexistence may be expressed in different ways, such as Hercules in Greek myth being human but also a son of Zeus.] [This coexistence may be the ultimate synthesis of symbol and flesh, the corporeal and ethereal. Interesting xian Corrolary.] Both transition and coexistence reinforce the vertical pathway, but coexistence is the stronger.
The horizontal pathway is reinforced also through both, but transition is the stronger. In order to tie the breathing symbols to the people, the people must believe that they can become breathing symbols themselves, and the breathing symbols are still people. The coexistence is attested to by the paparazzi, exploring the humanity (flaws) of the stars. Here is also The Osbournes, where Ozzy lives a real life as well (not the idyllic world of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but a celebration of petty daily conflict) When the real life seems lost, the power of the symbol suffers. (Baseball strike, and disenfranchisement of fans.) The transition is the stronger path. Herein is the NBA Draft, where normal people join the ranks of superstars. Herein are the bootstrap stories, where the narod achieves symbolism by the sweat of their brow. And finally, here is the reality show. American Idol, where one comes off the street and becomes a musical superstar. Survivor, or the multitude of 'Real World' shows, where normal people get more than their 15 mins. of fame. By displaying the humanity of the symbols, and the capacity to gain symbology, the lateral symbols' connections to the society are reinforced.
As with all things, any design choice has consequences. The good consequence of the strengthened linkages is an increased carrying capacity for the society, where the society can accommodate a larger population without coming apart. The downside is that these strengthened linkages introduce more capacity for abuse. Tension that is created as a function of discrepancies between the beliefs of the society and the beliefs of its elites can be used as a corrective mechanism to realign the two groups. Although this tension can break catastrophically (Fr. Rev.) it can also serve as a more positive impetus toward change. In buying off or shaping these pathways, the elites can maintain their position while constructing a facade of alignment between the elite culture and the larger culture. Ultimately, these linkages are designed as a relief valve for societal tension caused by friction between the human symbology of the elites and the reality of the collective whole. Herein lies both the capacity for good or abuse.
Corollary: Deconstrutivism dismantles myth by taking apart the reality upon which the symbology is based. More precisely, it seeks to deny that the symbol has any bearing on reality, (and hence questioning reality.) This typically works with human symbols, as our real forms are so fallen and flawed. In viewing the reality of the individual, that individual becomes in a way de-beatified or de-vilified, and hence can no longer be the bearer of symbology.
Corollary: When this happens upon the one True Myth, it doesn't work. Science circa 1900 tried to do that and screwed up. They thought that in explaining the origin of the pages upon which the Story of Everything is written, they would disprove the intentionality of the story, in the same way postmodernism dismantles myths. They failed, as the stage upon which the drama is to be constructed was so exquisitely complex and perfect. This does not undo the idea of the Playwright and the Drama, but enhances it, for if the stage is so exquisite how much more breathtaking must be the drama.
Corollary: Man is the fusion of matter and symbol, flesh and spirit. We screwed up. Christ is fusion in synergy. Deconstrutivism works cause we are not a perfect fusion. Ultimately, He is the ultimate breathing epic, as He exists in reality in all the complexity that the flesh brings, but with none of the disappointment inherent in flesh. He then is perfect to bear His own divine nature, which is equally perfect. This is not to say there are two natures, but rather that one being existed completely as (true) myth and as flesh at once. The two expressions of the same nature required each other, and built off of each other; the perfect Image Bearer, and the perfect Imago Dei. We, even in the redeemed state, are but reflectors of this. However, because of this, there is some perfection to be reclaimed. In reclaiming the original perfection, we move beyond Deconstructivism. Deconstructivism points out that no one in this world is worthy to bear the myths society builds upon on them. Reconstructivism recognizes this, but looks to the shadow of the myth to find the truth of the myth bearer in the light of their original (intended) perfection.
04:35 Posted in Boring Theories (Social Sciences) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this