i believe my...

struggle with 'novels' have ended. or maybe i should state; my struggles with reading.

as hume states in volume three of a 'treatise of human nature'...'in an age, wherein the greatest part of men seem agreed to convert reading into an amusement, and to reject every thing that requires any considerable degree of attention to be comprehended.'

amitabha...

and have a wonderful new year...i know i will...

the struggle with...

novels continues.

it became my 'goal' to sit down and get into 'atlas shrugged'; and the attempt failed. i only got to about page one hundred, and i couldn't take it anymore. i didn't care about the characters, their development, the story. ayn rand just sucks.

some people say 'well...she is a difficult read.' no, i get what she's saying...she's just full of shit. her writing sucks. as she introduces a new character; she then proceeds to give a fifteen page 'back story' of the character...what the hell? do we really need this? i really think she had no idea what she was doing, and just needed to fill pages; because she was just 'buying time' in between her (to be nice) liaisons.

i told a friend of mine my dislike of the book, and he said for fun to check out the 'cliff notes' on the book. well...we were in half priced books, and i found a copy and checked it out. now; as you know (if you have attempted to read this) the opening line is 'who is john galt?' in the cliff notes it states that he (john galt) is the main character in the book that doesn't make an appearance until two-thirds of the way in (that's a long freaking way considering how long this thing is). and as i leaf further into the notes it states that john galt is unable to be defined, understood...well; what kind of 'main character' is that? how then is rand able to write about someone/something that is unable to be defined, unable to be understood?

i just get sick of these self-righteous writers who think that they have their finger on the pulse of existence...but it's un-definable. this seems to take place in the twentieth century more than before. sure, people have always claimed to 'know' such things, but at least they were able to convey what they were talking about. a philosopher once stated...if you are unable to convey your ideas, then you have no idea what you mean (this is paraphrased, but the idea comes across).

the search continues...

amitabha...

for those of you...

that are of a literary background...i've got a question for you.

now most of you know i'm not a big novel guy. i'd rather 'curl' up with kant, carnap, russell, popper, etc. novels are very novel to me (like that?). i do have some that i'd like to read...a small stack by my bed, but they are not my main source of reading. so my question is this...

what to do if you are more than half way through a novel, and really don't care for it? is it o.k. to not finish it, and who cares? or should you at least finish it, like a bad movie that you've started? what is the etiquette for such a thing?

thanks...

amitabha...

what is needed...

for a being to hold a 'moral status'?

in the december issue of seed magazine; there is an article by ed yong entitled 'of primates and personhood'. where it explains that countries are taking steps to protect great apes from experimentation. that the organization the great ape project (gap) is at the forefront of this movement. demanding a set of moral and legal rights for primates.

peter singer (philosopher and head of gap) states 'it's a historic breakthrough in reducing the barrier between humans and non-human animals.' he continues...'all creatures that can fell pain should have a basic moral status.'

there are already many countries that ban ape research altogether, and the u.s. looks like it is next. spain has ape rights already on the books, and switzerland has what is called 'dignity laws'.

now, philosophical; i could go on for a very long time (in fact i think i will elsewhere, and for other reasons), but i just want to make a few points:

first, where are we to draw the line or 'barrier' that singer speaks of? will it be the outcome that my cat will have the same 'moral status' that i? what about the countless deer that are hit on our highways on a daily basis? if the moral status is equal, then once you hit a deer; then it becomes the same as hitting a person. a simple hit and run. criminal charges then have the ability to be brought up against you.

second, right vs. morality. a right is something given to you by your government; as we speak of legal rights. now these are privileges, and not absolute guarantees. meaning they are able to be taken away from you. just like how the government takes away your 'right' to vote if you are a convicted felon. not like morality. as we question...'is this the right thing to do?' what do we mean? many answers here. many long answers here. but my quick basic question becomes...are you willing to allow morality to be a privilege? something to be taken away, or changed? 'what is the right thing to do?' now we have the ability to argue about the situational aspects of this, but at the heart or center or it is the concept of 'morality'.

third, does the feeling of 'pain' constitute morality? we, as humans, believe that we have the ability to perceive pain in other creatures. an an anthropomorphism, from my point of view. but; what does it mean to 'feel pain'? if we measure pain by a creatures reaction to something 'unpleasant' then all things feel pain. my cat as it gets its insulin shot to the amoeba that 'moves' away from a needle, or something else 'unpleasant'. how about the opposite of pain -pleasure. how do we use this as a measuring device? the tomato plant (or any plant for that matter, i'm just thinking about tomatoes right now) that moves towards the sun for nutrients. what if i were to move that plant away from the sun; am i then committing an immoral action? how are we to 'measure' these things?

these points may seem silly, but they illustrate my point in this short 'rant', if you will. if the points seem silly, it is only because my larger point that morality being extented to 'non-human' existents is silly, and holds a great many fallacies.

here's a quick question that i want you to ask yourself, if you disagree with me...where would we as humans be without experimentation on animals? let me re-phrase that...medical experimentation. because i'm not arguing for 'hey, lets cut it open, and see what happens' ideas. this is not a 'experimentation' free for all, but with a purpose, and a point. not pointlessness.

amitabha...

advancement...

comes a long way in the technology field. we move from one technology to the next.

in music we had things like the seventy-eight, the thirty-five, the forty-five, the eight track, the cassette, the cd, to the mpthree player, the ipod.

photos have come a long way also. now i cannot go through such a list, simply because i do not have such a knowledge. however there are a lot out there.

we usually give up one technology for another. there are people who 'hang on', as it were, to phonograph players...in fact i need to pick one up.

mindlessness:

however, i do not want the music i have on my ipod to sound like a thirty-five. a thirty-five has it's own unique qualities. as does my ipod.

in camera world...if i want my given pictures to have a given quality i will stick to that medium. example...if i want my pictures to look like polaroids, then i'll use a polaroid camera. if i want digital pictures, then i'll use a digital camera.

well here you go...if you want your digital pictures to look like a polaroid all you need to do is go here, and then you are able to take your digital pictures, and make them look like polaroids. nice. thanks guys. because it's not cool to use a polaroid, but it's cool to make your digital pictures look like you do.

somewhere a philosopher cries.

amitabha...