"Misology is defined as the fear or distrust of reason or logic. In that sense, it is the hatred of argument or debate or even speech. It is also defined sometimes as anti-intellectualism."

Our administration, anyone? I equate this to be completely juvenile. I guess the bumper stickers that tout Bush as a baby have some just, strongly deep underpinnings.

--

If we try to rationalize any object or any thought to the ultimate, we come to the same 'place'. That being infinity. In more explicit terms, why is it that we can never exactly pinpoint an atom’s position? The uncertainty principle says its location is determined by a probability distribution! In cosmology, ask what caused the big bang? What caused what caused the big bang? We can not define a first cause because such an idea would entail something that caused it. Therein lies the contradiction.

In our everyday lives, how are we to judge or make a decision on anything knowing all this? For an assertion implies you understand the whole interconnected and elegant summation of all moments that preceded before you, to infinity. By judging, deciding, or articulating you say you understand it all. But how can you understand an indeterminate infinity? Clearly no one person can understand it all. I am contradicting reality by asserting this very point. Is it best left unsaid then? Yes and no. Yes because communication is essential. Interaction makes the world go around. No because this indeterminacy can easily lead us and our future decisions astray. I’ll elaborate on this in the near future.

I think the Buddhists and other eastern traditions are the closest to the practice of this understanding. In their minds they can articulate the infiniteness of everything better than anyone else. I think they live the least contradictory lives and as a result, are scientifically ‘happier’ than the epitome of a western human. Why do you think Ghandi’s outward nonviolence approach worked so well? He took down the British, the Empire, with, what I think, a very clear and sound understanding. In a truly peaceful way.

Putting this in a Western context is, what i think will make a big difference. The internet has already contributed largely to this effort. Entities like Wikipedia, youtube, and this very site I am writing on allow for things like complete transparency, low barriers to entry, and what I think, the idea of a pure collective (un)conscious being. It allows people, if they want to, the ability to question everything in a pure sense. This type of knowledge really is power.

The opensource movement is what embodies all this. Just today, the NYT wrote an article about how OpenCourseWare at MIT and iTunes U is bringing physics and more specifically, things like quantum mechanics into the realm of young starving American minds. Furthermore, in other parts of the world communities are organically growing in this fashion.

—

Personally, I am outlining future endeavors with this assertion.

"Gonzalez's depictions of the favela in Brazil are daring and clever and not only evoke a sensibility about how places of urban poverty can be seen as humane but ultimately captures an image of the contradictory landscape that lurks within these sites as well."

I sympathize with Rand for reasons that will not be fully expressed here. Her thoughts are very powerful and, I think, get to the root of our nature. I do not agree with her entirely though.

People fell under her will because they did not understand the thing she was expressing (contextualize this with current happenings). She understood more than they did. She understood that understanding is very circular and because of this, certain priorities as an individual should be established. Her 'cult' members were close to the idea, but clueless. She may have played along with this, but her intentions are irrelevant. At least for the sake of this post.

I do finding striking parallels with Rothbard's description of a cult and some of my surroundings here in Madison:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Ultimately, it is your choice.

listen, think

there are people who rightfully 'know' and should be able to share their qualified opinions. others should listen and trust them. these people are often in the minority

then there are people who think they 'know'. repeating tired propagandistic arguments and trite cliches. these people maintain status quo and ask nothing more of themselves or others. they are often in the majority.

there needs to be some collective understanding that you --those who think they 'know'-- are not an expert and that you are not always correct. in most cases you are not correct. that you can not rightfully assert your opinion. this is ok and you should not be afraid to say 'i dont know'.

what is 'correct'? as with anything, there is no absolute. it only something we can strive for. but there has to be someone who can assert their opinion when decisions are to be made. those are the people who are qualified, right. who have spent their lives trying to understand one facet of our universe. they are as close to the absolute and should be listened to, with great respect.

amateurs who think they 'know' are the ones who need to stop talking and listen. they have to learn how to quell their ego and let someone else take over. instead these amateurs try to compensate with their money and power.

this merely stifles our progress.

never again

no one should ever, EVER, forward spam they thought was funny to everyone in their address book.

i dont care if it made you LOL.

death by bike

snow, ice,ice,ice. bike lane, ice, ice,ice, slip, ice, ice, car.