Friday, August 12, 2005

[Blazing Questions] Inferior Imitations (Part 2)

The first post can be found here.

I left off with four possible scenarios concerning two criteria.
Having an understanding that something is an imitation and having an understanding that the thing is inferior to the original, with either of those criteria possibly not being understood. The first of the scenario is posted below.

"1. The consumer is ignorant of the thing's being an imitation and therefore does not see, or possibly does not even look for, a difference in quality between the imitation and original. (See: Fake Drugs)"
As the article I posted shows, this situation is inherently dangerous. We can all imagine what it would be like be thinking we are receiving penicillin or Lipitor, but unknowingly only be receiving half the dose we are supposed to be getting. Mis-diagnosis or some other flaw, not a fault of the drug, easily explains the resulting loss in efficacy. We (for the most part Americans) as consumers assume that what something is labeled is what it is, and rightly so as we have thinks like the Food and Drug Administration (Link, Wiki) whose overarching mandate, according to Wikipedia.org, is "to regulate the multitude of medicinal products in a manner that ensures the safety of the American public and the efficacy claims (label) of marketed drugs."

So the question becomes is our confidence misplaced?
Most people at most places at most times would agree that the purpose of government (in the contemporary Western sense) is to serve and protect the people through administrations like the FDA and as such a certain amount of trust from the people must be placed in such constructs. So what does this have to do with imitations and their inferiority? While the FDA requires a certain amount of trust in people, such protections of the people are not all covering. Not everyone has the consumers best interests at heart. What results is complacency among consumers with regards to the quality of their products. This complacency is most apparent when normal systems of protection (read: FDA) are circumvented by alternate methods of appropriation (in the context of the above article, the Internet). Consumers seem to be forgetting the ageless Latin phrase, "Caveat emptor" or "let the buyer beware."

Ok, but this isn't just about pills and products right?
I would extrapolate this Latin phrase through the entire discussion of imitations, but am attempting to lay the ground work that many people have take the legitimacy of their things be it ideas, feelings and products, for granted. The pills is only a microcosm but one that can be magnified to show the state of the entire paradigm. The ultimate responsibility for what one buys, does or believes does not fall to the FDA, ones parents or ones church (though these are very helpful institutions providing resources that the individual doe not have), but rather, it is the responsibility of the individual.

Why is this responsibility important?
Ultimately, it is the individual who deals with the consequences, such as the woman who bought hot McDonald’s Coffee and spilt it, the juvenile delinquent who’s offences dictate trial as an adult, or the individual sinner who must answer to the Almighty for their life in this world. It is our responsibility as consumers to use the resources available to us to ensure that the status and quality of the things we consume is genuine and good because it is we who must answer for that.

Where does that take us?
Having laid down now why the issue is important and why we must be responsible consumers of genuine things, the other three scenarios remain to be examined as well as to categorize some common decisions or examples of situations to see where what we usually consume falls in these categories.

If anyone has any questions comments or interjections, please speak out in the comments or email me (address at the bottom of the blog) as I wish to make this series of thoughts as accurate and correct as possible.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

[Other Peoples Questions] Two Hat Tips, Head Nods or Other Gratuitous Gestures

First... Curtis at a-sdf, has done an excellent job laying out the a cohesive look at the War In Iraq for all its good, bad and ugly sides. Check it out Here.

Second, Bill Dan has an amazing artistic video called "Unbalancing." You can find the full video here, but make sure to visit his blog (though theres not much on it right now) and say "Hi!" for me. (from BoingBoing.net, their article)

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

[Personal Questions] What do you want for your birthday?

A common enough question at this time of the year. So I created

THE AMAZON BIRTHDAY WISHLIST


(GASP)

Enjoy!

[Stupid Questions] Ding Ding, Round One!

I have found possibly the most innane, useless and possibly evil endeavour conducted by a major company on the internet.

Witness AIM Fight... Where your not good enough if your friends arn't good enough. Ugh!

Apparently if your not socializing with the right people... its game over man, game over. I fail to understand why someone would value something like this? It is absolutly meaningless as the number of ones contacts means absolutly nothing.

I take that back... This site does demonstrate ones complete dependance on AIM or AOL, making it still as if not more deplorable as if it didn't mean anything at all.

[Before the Questions] Changes to the layout

I spent some time today fixing up the layout of the blog. The previous template was flawed and when I replaced it, I lost all my links and other fun modifications. But I finally got it all up and working, including my new AdSense banner and search module. Call me a sell-out but I prefer the term starving college (not currently a) student. So patronize the links as you feel lead, but due to the eclectic nature of the blog... I have no clue what you may be seeing!

I am also attempting to get some "Tags" running for my posts as an easy catagorization system. I don't know if I will ever get it automated, but the titles of the posts will now bely more than the usual witty quip.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

[Blazing Questions] Inferior Imitations (Part 1)

Started this post on Aug. 4, set it aside and decided now would be a good time to finish it. I seem to be on a blogging roll... I hope my readers will keep up.

Being bored at home, I decided to troll around AOL for a bit looking for interesting conversation. As I revisited my old virtual haunts from my high school era I found them deserted and empty. As I ventured down into the electronic depths I soon discovered the mass majority of activity dedicated to offering or gaining the pleasures of lust. Weather it was SxyGRL80809 offering me a view of a 21 year old virgin on a web cam or TllDrKnHndsm looking for 19/f/pic, it was almost entirely dedicating to vicious pursuits. I finally was able to strike up a good conversation with a young woman from VA, which proved very interesting about the objectivity of art and why The Mona Lisa is smiling. This got me thinking back to the good'ol Plato dialogue about imitations and their inferiority ( I will assume for the sake of the discussion that imitations are inferior, if you would like to dispute that… Talk to me). So I devised a bit of a thought project along those lines.

Why do imitations work?
Because they are accepted on some level by the consumer (general term I will use for recipient, consumer, audience, viewer, etc).

Why are they accepted?
Acceptance seems to be based on two criteria. The first, an understanding that the thing ( I am using" thing," though I think these are in fact general principles that apply not just to physical objects, etc but also to emotions and actions) is in fact an imitation of another. Second, an understanding about the thing's quality, based on the first understanding.

Ok, so we have four possible scenarios, right?

1. The consumer is ignorant of the thing's being an imitation and therefore does not see, or possibly does not even look for, a difference in quality between the imitation and original. (See: Fake Drugs)

2. The consumer is ignorant of it's being an imitation and knows or discovers a difference in quality between the imitation and original, which would probably cause one to immediately suspect the first criteria. (See: That Prada Bag may cost you)

3. The consumer understands the product to be an imitation and does not realize or understand the inferiority of the imitation, probably due to an ignorance of the original being imitated or a lack of careful examination of the imitation (though I am very open to other possibilities).

4. The consumer understands the product to be an imitation and acknowledges its resulting inferiority.

I will continue to expand on the possibilities of these four scenarios including examples that apply and the ramifications there of. If anything comes to mind, please suggest it as I hope to branch this topic out for a while.

[Chilling Questions] Backbone? Anybody?

Once again, the American public shows its lack of fortitude to stand for
anything. CBS tells the story here.

Associated Press reports about two jurors jurors in the Michael Jackson case who have now changed their story, within weeks of announcing book deals. Here's what they had to say for themselves according to AP:

"Cook and Hultman said they agreed to go along with the other jurors when it
became apparent that they would never convict the pop star. The two denied
being motivated by money and tried to explain why they were coming forward
now. "

Now correct me if I am wrong... But isn't the purpose of unanimous jury voting and
the possibility of a mistrial there to prevent this sort of thing? I held out for 3 hours once during a trial

alone

just because the sentence was too weak! (Long story, will detail later if asked) Not because I'm just that stubborn about my own way, but because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO! Someone who has committed a crime needs to be punished accordingly, and you need to stand for that even if the other 11 MORONIC INDIVIDUALS don't give a rat's posterior! So what if your not going to convict him... Hanging a jury sends a message too! As a juror, its your responsibility to the the victim, the people and even the defendant!

Chilling question: Does the lack of fortitude amongst the American people demonstrate a gradually increaseing failure in the U.S. justice system?

PETA off its rocker...

Fuzzy bunnies and baby seals are one thing... but this is too far gone!

This is amazingly strong evidence of what happens when peoples epistomologies get seriously out of wack. If taken too far such trends could begin to bear resemblance to the anti-natural actions of homosexuals. I'll expand this thought later if requested.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)

EDIT:
curtis said...
"More on topic: Yes, well. That's PETA for you. I've always had a problem with
them not so much for their views, but because they just sort of assume them
without very much justification. I've yet to see a single PETA member explain
why animals deserve ontological status as people. I've even had one person tell
me in a private email exchange that it is "the divine right of f***ing God!", so
I doubt it will get better. Meanwhile, PETA continues its charade
of hypocrisy
.

Me again... If that's their understanding of divine rights... Lord help us all when Irish Setters, Domestic Shorthairs and Holsteins have a greater right to life, liberty and pursuit of property that we do! "Yeah!" for good intelligent animal stewardship... but let's leave it to those that can intelligently steward and doen't require a litterbox.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Broadband is beautiful thing!!!!

We just got wireless access to the Camp's WAN internet connection. So we went from dial-up to 11 Mbps in the plug in of a USB adapter.
Ain't technology grand!

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Some thoughts on Dante and Justice

I am in the midst of Inferno this eve so pardon me, as I may wax poetic a fair bit in this post (Sayers Translation is a beautiful thing). It struck me as I was reading just how different our Western society has categorized Man’s crime and sin than the hierarchy Dante sets out which seemingly the greater the sin the greater the punishment. In Western Justice, probably the worst offence that one may commit is typically viewed as Murder; qualified as the worst by what most would consider the harshest punishment possible, death. However, in Dante’s hell, Murder is less severe than most other sins, including simony, usury and theft, which receive comparably light sentences in life. This part of this discrepancy could be due in part to the difference between life and death or between “crime” and “sin” because of the differing justices, which met out punishment. But with regard to active sin, fairly observable, describable and quantifiable by most men, punishment seems most out of balance. Should not the sin that is the most affront to God or your fellow man warrant the greatest punishment regardless of the sphere your soul currently dwells in?

It has been said that martyrdom is the easy way out for the persecuted one, at least among Christians. Much harder, most would say, is the continually persecuted life, in which one receives none of Paradises blessings, is the epitome of taking up your cross and following Christ. If that is the case, then is capitol punishment, which allows the criminal passage to the next life (what ever that may be for the individual) actually the easiest sentence as the individual is hastened to eternal judgment rather than having to bear the stigma of his crime for the rest of his terrestrial life? I would have to say “no” as to hasten ones reckoning with The Almighty is not a light punishment at all and could possibly preclude that souls salvation (though this ultimately rests in God’s hands) condemning not only the death of the body of the criminal, but the soul as well. Blessed it seems are the men who are granted reprieve from such a sentence that they have more time to recognize their folly. May they not be ignorant of such things and perpetuate their mistakes.

Continuing the question that ended the first paragraph, it seems that at least one differentiating characteristic between the justice administered in either sphere would be the objectivity with which such decisions could be rendered. This is a possible explanation for the absence of law with regards to the sins of incontinence, such as lust, gluttony, and wrath. The violent and malicious sins, seem to similarly, be based on objectification, as it is typically much easier to recognize a murder and murderer than it is to recognize pandering and the pimp and again easier to identify a pimp than a counselor of fraud. Thus the decreasing severity of the sentences could reflect the parallel lack of certifiable objectification.

Interestingly, the worst sin one can commit in Dante’s paradigm is that of Treason, either to kindred, country, guest or lord, hence Satan’s position at the very center along with Judas Iscariot as well as Cassius and Brutus. However, the sin of treason is rapidly loosing its place as a crime in our society due in large part to the recognition and acceptance of a self-centered value structure. However it seems that Treason could be the most easily recognized sin, but the twist comes in that if successful, the treasonous individual becomes the more authoritative source, inverting the value structure on which Justice is based and making it the most heinous of crimes or sins.

Friday, August 05, 2005

The difference in education...

Today was a rather interesting day. I was able to participate and observe what I consider to be the best and worst forms of education in action here at camp (to fill you all in I am at home at Woodleaf till my birthday on Aug. 12 after which I will be moving to Seattle; yes Jace you will see me again).
I will attempt to start with the worst and how it played out, but this will require a bit of background knowledge for those of you unfamiliar with the Young Life ministry. Young Life is a high school outreach ministry aimed at unchruched teens by way of relationships with older Christian leaders, either career adults or college students. Part of the program is the opportunity to come to camp in the summer, either at Woodleaf where I live or at one of the other 22 properties across the US.
So today camp was in full swing... Day six of seven days and there is typically a significant trust bond (though fairly manipulative, though I will get to that in a sec) between the program staff (think comedy and skits) and the speaker (think message/gospel). Apparently, there was a integration of a seminar on "Sex and Dating" into this weeks schedule, something I was not completely familiar with. Other staff has done it with varying degrees of success based upon the set-up either a Q and A panel composed of staff with differing experiences or split gender discussion groups in which campers can voice their own opinions. Not so with today's seminar. Straight-up lecture. UGH! Not only did the speaker do the whole "society has lied to you, abstinence till marriage cause of STD's, pregnancy and emotional damage" schpeal these kids have probably hear thousands of times but went on to give some rules for "how far is to far." I was incredulous! I wanted to run up to the speaker, grab him by the shoulders and yell "DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING?" at him as loud as I could. For all of you out there that think that I am off my rocker for knocking an abstinence position, allow me to explain. While being doctrinally correct that sex is only appropriate inside of marriage, such a talk falls woefully short of addressing why the teens are pursuing sex in the first place. In addition, such an information dump is entirely based on the kids trust in the speaker. If that is degraded by anything or wears off, the entire talk goes out the window. The converse is also true. If a kid is highly resistant to such a talk, it may damage what little credibility the speaker has for the greater message of the Gospel.
Remember I said that the trust was in large part manipulated? This is done a variety of ways but the main way is to have the teens jump off a High Ropes Course pole while on a rope held by the speaker. Voila, instant trust builder. But if that manipulated trust is seen through or challenged and fails... The gospel message and anything from a sex talk goes out the window. The speaker dug himself in even farther by telling the girls "you dress like hookers" and then laying the burden of men's lust on their clothing choices. Now I am all for modesty from the fairer sex, but the responsibility for the content of my and any young mans mind is their own, regardless of what is being worn. Later after we'd split genders, he talked to the guys about masturbation, pornography and girls self-image and proceeded to chastise the guys about objectification of women and that we were causing their eating disorders. Now let me make myself plain. I am all for a cohesive supportive Christian community in which brothers and sisters in Christ are conscious and considerate of each others weaknesses and do their best to build them up. But piling responsibility for another's weakness on already weak shoulders seems counter productive to me.
The best experience I had was with my Dad tonight. I very rarely had a good discussion with him growing up as it was typically necessary to just yield to his authority. Tonight after a rousing discussion of both abstract and concrete topics with Mom, whose always been a good conversationalist, Dad came in and we picked up a bit of a Calvinist vs. Arminian debate. While not academically trained in bible or theology I dare say my dad has one of the best memories for verses and references I know of and we wrestled through it for a bit. We didn't push for closure on the issue but moved on to a discussion of what it meant to have " a ready answer for ones faith" which was a concept Mom had picked up from 2 Timothy, possibly incorrectly. So we checked the passage and tried to determine what an adequate "answer" would be. I didn't like the sense of certainty associated with "answer" and suggested "hypothesis" instead. This lead to a discussion over the nature of knowledge and belief, as well as the marketplace of ideas and why one should hold their opinions loosely. It was amazing... Not only was it challenging for me to think through the ideas that I have picked up from Torrey lectures and such and express them on my own, but being able to hear Dad's opinion and thoughts on the subject were GREAT! I think that I learned so much from that... Not only that but I can articulate it myself which illustrates the disparity between the lecture earlier and the discussion I had tonight. The talks sole basis and justification is the trust between the leader and the camper versus the justification of coming to the realization of my own theories and beliefs and being able to clearly elucidate them to myself and others.

That's enough for one night!