Psychophant's Rants
19.3.05
Beating Despair
One of the problems of being an atheist materialist is that, when you sit down to think about existance, it is mostly pointless. Compared to the Universe, or even the whole of humankind, what is there to make you suffer every day, or at least some days. As soon as things went bad, or difficult, pulling your own plug seems an easy way out. Or at least taking the easy way on things.
And yet, fortunately, seldom do. And yet, I see signs of this malaise in our society. Many people may be functional religious, but deep down many have killed God inside. Which gives us a plethora of spiritual alternatives, to show us that after all may be a point we cannot perceive from this side.
Others take the hedonist's way, and most do tend towards hedonism. It is a great help to get through the day if you know some pleasure waits for you later. Advertising works great with this, promising a better world, better life, more pleasures, without the shadow of doubt. Embrace the propaganda, and you will not need to ask yourself questions. Or join the leisure society, and be so busy that you have no time left to worry (one of my favourite anti-despair techniques: books, games, media...).
A few just use a strict order and method to get them through life, so that they become machine-like to keep functioning longer.
And some create their own Ethics, and use that to rule their behaviour, hopefully including reasons to keep persevering against adversity and to deal fairly with others, although many personal ethical systems tend to be quite harsh with people that are not close to the subject, which makes us functional in this over-informed society, instead of reacting to all the evils of the world.
In the end, the person becomes its own yardstick if he/she manages to avoid surrendering to external influences. The likes, the perceived rightness of actions, the pleasures.
I, of course, am a firm supporter of codifying your own system, and adhering to it. In the end, I have to live with that fellow in my skull, so I better give him what he wants. The code then becomes a series of boundaries, both for the present and the future (giving you some control on that unknown existentialist that will look from your eyes in the future), and to judge the past, both giving teeth to some regrets, and making others harmless.
And yet remember there is no need to judge. There is no right or wrong. There is, and there is not. Which is why we are materialists. And why we need a right or wrong of our own making.
Enjoy life. It is the only one we are sure we have. Only you can find what you like, as there is no answer for everyone, and then do. Most of us enjoy helping people, so please do, as that might help me. But do not worry about lost opportunities, make new ones. Or not, if you enjoy self-pity and living in your memories. After all, memories are mostly harmless. ¶ 7:49 PM 0 comments
One of the problems of being an atheist materialist is that, when you sit down to think about existance, it is mostly pointless. Compared to the Universe, or even the whole of humankind, what is there to make you suffer every day, or at least some days. As soon as things went bad, or difficult, pulling your own plug seems an easy way out. Or at least taking the easy way on things.
And yet, fortunately, seldom do. And yet, I see signs of this malaise in our society. Many people may be functional religious, but deep down many have killed God inside. Which gives us a plethora of spiritual alternatives, to show us that after all may be a point we cannot perceive from this side.
Others take the hedonist's way, and most do tend towards hedonism. It is a great help to get through the day if you know some pleasure waits for you later. Advertising works great with this, promising a better world, better life, more pleasures, without the shadow of doubt. Embrace the propaganda, and you will not need to ask yourself questions. Or join the leisure society, and be so busy that you have no time left to worry (one of my favourite anti-despair techniques: books, games, media...).
A few just use a strict order and method to get them through life, so that they become machine-like to keep functioning longer.
And some create their own Ethics, and use that to rule their behaviour, hopefully including reasons to keep persevering against adversity and to deal fairly with others, although many personal ethical systems tend to be quite harsh with people that are not close to the subject, which makes us functional in this over-informed society, instead of reacting to all the evils of the world.
In the end, the person becomes its own yardstick if he/she manages to avoid surrendering to external influences. The likes, the perceived rightness of actions, the pleasures.
I, of course, am a firm supporter of codifying your own system, and adhering to it. In the end, I have to live with that fellow in my skull, so I better give him what he wants. The code then becomes a series of boundaries, both for the present and the future (giving you some control on that unknown existentialist that will look from your eyes in the future), and to judge the past, both giving teeth to some regrets, and making others harmless.
And yet remember there is no need to judge. There is no right or wrong. There is, and there is not. Which is why we are materialists. And why we need a right or wrong of our own making.
Enjoy life. It is the only one we are sure we have. Only you can find what you like, as there is no answer for everyone, and then do. Most of us enjoy helping people, so please do, as that might help me. But do not worry about lost opportunities, make new ones. Or not, if you enjoy self-pity and living in your memories. After all, memories are mostly harmless. ¶ 7:49 PM 0 comments
17.3.05
Scientific Writing, a confusing art
Now that I have finally finished an article that has been driving me mad for three weeks, it is time to look back on that strong barrier to understanding, Scientific writing.
Most of the standards in writing are the same since the 1950's, and the system of referees and peer review so prevalent in scientific journals have helped ossify the form and structure so that breaking from tradition puts at risk your publication possibilities. Adding that most of the writers and referees are not native speakers, and the surrealism in texts can be outstanding.
Most of the time is used in the crafting of adequate bibliography. As well, due to the citation effect, you are well advised to cite as many of your own publications as possible. Probably you will have to add some of the referee's publications as well, to get a good predisposition towards your piece. And of course as many recent publications as possible, to show the piece is "state of the art", and that you spend more time reading than working. As well, it helps to the slow build-up principle of the advance of Science, rather than sharp breaks.
Then the elaborate structure, that forces you to some mental juggling when there are no conclusions, because all you have are weird unexplained results, or how do you say in an acceptable way, that someone was a moron that probably falsified the results, or that you know that this is right, but you have no explanation for it. Ah, gratification.
In a way, it is frustrating because it works, but clearly could be improved. Getting all the scientists publishing results to agree on what changes should be done makes the task impossible, and the few changes arise from accretion. If we add the fact that most journals are glad to have enough papers to get a number out, and that means that literary quality is seldom a factor.
Anyway, after seven years without writing a paper, I have finally submitted a draft to an editor, and I suppose in several months I will be published. I should keep doing it, or the next paper will be again a torture, deforming the language to unnatural levels. ¶ 12:30 PM 0 comments
Now that I have finally finished an article that has been driving me mad for three weeks, it is time to look back on that strong barrier to understanding, Scientific writing.
Most of the standards in writing are the same since the 1950's, and the system of referees and peer review so prevalent in scientific journals have helped ossify the form and structure so that breaking from tradition puts at risk your publication possibilities. Adding that most of the writers and referees are not native speakers, and the surrealism in texts can be outstanding.
Most of the time is used in the crafting of adequate bibliography. As well, due to the citation effect, you are well advised to cite as many of your own publications as possible. Probably you will have to add some of the referee's publications as well, to get a good predisposition towards your piece. And of course as many recent publications as possible, to show the piece is "state of the art", and that you spend more time reading than working. As well, it helps to the slow build-up principle of the advance of Science, rather than sharp breaks.
Then the elaborate structure, that forces you to some mental juggling when there are no conclusions, because all you have are weird unexplained results, or how do you say in an acceptable way, that someone was a moron that probably falsified the results, or that you know that this is right, but you have no explanation for it. Ah, gratification.
In a way, it is frustrating because it works, but clearly could be improved. Getting all the scientists publishing results to agree on what changes should be done makes the task impossible, and the few changes arise from accretion. If we add the fact that most journals are glad to have enough papers to get a number out, and that means that literary quality is seldom a factor.
Anyway, after seven years without writing a paper, I have finally submitted a draft to an editor, and I suppose in several months I will be published. I should keep doing it, or the next paper will be again a torture, deforming the language to unnatural levels. ¶ 12:30 PM 0 comments
1.3.05
Enigma
Enigmas and open questions have a strange effect on me. I tend towards obsessive behaviours, so an enigma is the kind of challenge that I easily obsess about. And yet, with my experience about this things, nowadays I tend to avoid them, just because I know how deep they can pull me.
In a way, my love for thinking computer games, books and science is just a way of facing off against enigmas, in the case of books with the added advantage that most of them have an expiration date, when you finish the book. Science has the advantage that no matter how baffled a question makes you, there are other, easier to apprehend problems waiting.
The new viral marketing ploys in the internet, however, I avoid like the plague, because if you combine the time sink of the internet with an obsession fueled quest for information and I can stop being functional for a while, just seeking answers, or just one more question.
And yet, once the question is answered, or just when it has resisted my inquiries enough to let the obsession find a new target, all the interest disappears. Suddenly the burial customs of the Skythians or the list of all scientologist speakers in Southern California have no further interest for me. Which also means that I am very bad with real tough questions, as I probably will lose interest before I get to the answer, while I am quite good with the moderately difficult ones, as I can swing from one to the other smoothly. ¶ 11:09 AM 0 comments
Enigmas and open questions have a strange effect on me. I tend towards obsessive behaviours, so an enigma is the kind of challenge that I easily obsess about. And yet, with my experience about this things, nowadays I tend to avoid them, just because I know how deep they can pull me.
In a way, my love for thinking computer games, books and science is just a way of facing off against enigmas, in the case of books with the added advantage that most of them have an expiration date, when you finish the book. Science has the advantage that no matter how baffled a question makes you, there are other, easier to apprehend problems waiting.
The new viral marketing ploys in the internet, however, I avoid like the plague, because if you combine the time sink of the internet with an obsession fueled quest for information and I can stop being functional for a while, just seeking answers, or just one more question.
And yet, once the question is answered, or just when it has resisted my inquiries enough to let the obsession find a new target, all the interest disappears. Suddenly the burial customs of the Skythians or the list of all scientologist speakers in Southern California have no further interest for me. Which also means that I am very bad with real tough questions, as I probably will lose interest before I get to the answer, while I am quite good with the moderately difficult ones, as I can swing from one to the other smoothly. ¶ 11:09 AM 0 comments
