Keeping a Schedule

crimsonLeave a comment

I have been aiming to post every Sunday. This is Tuesday. Clearly, I’ve been unable to keep my desired schedule.

My excuse is that I was away on a trip. I actually brought my laptop with me, and I did log in with every intention of writing something. However, as I was on this trip, my mind was elsewhere. I decided it would be better to let it go and try again later. Hence, why I am here today.

This topic seems incredibly silly. Talking about keeping a schedule seems quite pedantic. However, I think this topic might be a good lead-in into a topic that is of great interest to me. When asked what skill or quality I possess that is among my greatest strengths, I have been indicating of late that flexibility and adaptability are the strengths I aspire to. This blog, and the schedule I have been trying to keep, present a significant example of what I am referring to.

I do agree that having and keeping a schedule are important for one to do. I pride myself on being a very reliable person; someone who’s word is extremely reliable. If I say I will do something, you can rely on me to actually follow through and do that something. So is the case with this blog. If you are following my blog, then you can expect me to post once a week, and probably on Sunday.

However, if I embrace this schedule too rigidly, I may find that I do not have something significant or valuable to post. I may simply start rambling about silly topics. (You may consider this topic quite silly already.) Alternatively, I might adopt a bit of flexibility in my schedule. I can still aim for once a week, for example, but not necessarily always on Sunday. Perhaps it is best if I aim for Sunday to write something of value, but if I do not have anything worthwhile to say, I may wait a couple days until I am ready to write. This is what it means to be flexible and adaptable. To not hold a position that is too stubborn or rigid. To be able to alter my path, even just slightly, in order to better accomplish my projects.

It has been my observation of this world that being too rigid or stubborn tends to have negative consequences. Rigidly holding onto a particular path often leads to disappointment and failure. My first time attending university is a good example of this. I entered university with the goal of becoming a mechanical engineer. I had made this decision before I started my first class. No matter what, I was going to achieve this goal.

Unfortunately, as many of you may already realize, attending university (especially in the first year) is a complicated process of exploration. Most people are fresh out of high school, and still live with their parents. For some, they may be moving out and will be on their own (without their parents) for the first time. It can be a very stressful and uncertain time for a new university student. This was how it was for me.

I took many classes, as one who attends university often does. Some classes I really enjoyed and excelled in. Others I did not. However, my goal was set. I held on rigidly to that goal. I was going to be a mechanical engineer, no matter what. Many things occurred in my personal life while attending university. Most of these things were experiences of personal growth and evolution. I was changing as a person. I was starting to exercise independence in a way I had never done before. I had a lot to learn in this new arena. My grades in university reflected the significant changes that were occurring. To the point that in my fourth year, the dean sat down with me and we came to the agreement that I needed to spend some time away from the university. I had been kicked out.

Almost exactly twenty years later, I returned to university. It was a different university, as I had moved to another city. I had a different approach; a different goal this time. I did not enter university expecting to attain any particular degree or credential. I started out with a few philosophy classes, and some creative technology classes. I decided I would see what happened. If I enjoyed a class, I would continue taking classes in that area or field. If I did not enjoy a class, I would still finish the class, but I would not take more classes in that area or field.

It turned out that I very much enjoyed both philosophy and creative technology, but I also discovered I enjoyed philosophy a lot more. So over the terms, I signed up for more and more philosophy classes. In the last couple years, I declared I would be an honours student with a major in philosophy. This progression worked out very well for me. Not only did I complete the degree, but I also finished with high honours (my average for all my classes was above 85%). I accomplished what I was unable to accomplish my first time at university.

Some people have suggested I am gifted or special. I don’t agree. Perhaps I have an affinity for philosophy. Perhaps, instead of being rigid in my approach, I allowed the classes to guide my choices. Instead of saying I was going to go to university and get a philosophy degree, I said I would go to university and see what happens. I said I would allow my classes, instructors, my whole experience guide my path. I believe that was the secret to my success.

I recognize that some rigidity and stubbornness is needed. There were a few classes I took that were exceedingly difficult for me. I honestly do not know how I passed my second level Japanese class. I adopted a philosophy of still finishing classes that I signed up for, and in some cases that required a great deal of rigidity. But after those classes were completed, I also reflected deeply on my experiences in those classes. I allowed my experience to guide my decision making in subsequent terms. I adapted my schedule to those experiences.

This blog is for me to express myself. If you are reading this, then you are one of my readers. If you’ve read all my posts, then you are my followers. This blog is a reflection of my thoughts and experiences. And like the person I have evolved into today, this blog must remain flexible and adaptable as well.

In my next post, I am going to try to start tackling the most significant realization I’ve made in my life. The observation that I made in my youth that has helped me to become who I am today. The philosophy that has allowed me to be successful in so many endeavors, and has allowed me to find happiness in this often challenging world. The philosophy I call “Struggle and Sacrifice.”

Wearing Face Masks

crimsonLeave a comment

In North America, whether or not one should wear a face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial topic. It is controversial because there is no consistent guidance that has been provided by the various authorities regarding what the answer is. Toward the beginning of the pandemic, it was suggested that people ought not wear face masks. More recently, it has been suggested that people ought to wear face masks. So which is it? And how do I know what the correct answer is?

When I traveled to Japan for a vacation, I observed that a portion of the population there were wearing face masks. This was years before COVID-19, so they were not wearing masks in order to “flatten the curve” or anything like that. Upon further investigation, what I learned was that people in Japan would wear a face mask when they themselves were ill. In other words, those who were sick would wear face masks in order to reduce the spread of their own infections to the other people around them. The mask was chosen to protect others, not to protect themselves. This line of reasoning is not the same as the line of reasoning being used in North America presently.

In North America, when the discussion of face masks arises, most are concerned with whether the face mask will protect themselves from others, not with whether they will be protecting others from themselves. This is tantamount to the difference between egoism and what I might refer to as empathism.

Egoism is what I would call the world view held by a person who is primarily concerned with their own interests, at least when confronted with the interests of others. An egoist will make decisions based on what is best for themself. In the case of wearing a face mask, the egoist will decide whether to don the mask based primarily on whether the mask will benefit themself. If the mask will not benefit themself, then they are likely to decide not to wear the mask.

In contrast, I would call empathism the world view held by a person who is primarily concerned with the interests of others, especially when confronted with their own interests. An empathist will make decisions based on what is best for those around themself, possibly even following decisions that are detrimental to themself. In the case of wearing a face mask, the empathist will decide whether to don the mask based primarily on whether the mask will benefit those around them. If wearing the mask will not benefit others, then they are likely to decide not to wear the mask.

It should be clear that no individual is strictly and entirely either an egoist or an empathist. Each person will behave differently depending on their unique circumstances, personal history, and a plethora of other factors. However, it may be argued that most people, if observed for a period of time, exhibit traits that lean toward one side or the other of this dichotomy. For example, Donald Trump, the current president of the United States of America (USA), seems to hold a world view leaning toward the end of egoism, as most of his decisions clearly suggest that his primary concern is his own well-being and benefit. This is not to suggest that Trump never makes decisions which are primarily concerned with the benefit to others, just that more often his decisions are self-motivated.

The question I need to consider here, when trying to decide whether wearing a face mask is something I ought to do, is how wearing a face mask benefits (or does not benefit) myself and others. This can be established rather quickly with a simple analysis. If I wear a face mask, it benefits myself in that I gain a small amount of filtering of the air around myself when I breath, though unless I am wearing a specially fitted and designed face mask, the amount of personal protection I receive from the mask is quite limited. Having been wearing a face mask, I also have observed that I receive less of the particles from the air, such as pollen (I have hay fever), so there is that benefit as well. Unfortunately, wearing a face mask is uncomfortable, restricts my breathing (this is especially noticeable when I exert myself), and makes me hot in this summer weather. Thus, for me, it seems like whether I should wear a face mask depends on the particular situation I find myself in. If I am outside my home, it provides some benefits. If I am at home, it does not.

I must now consider the effects on others. If I wear a face mask, it benefits others by preventing most of the larger particles that are ejected from my mouth to spray out into the air around me. Droplets are caught by the mask, and generally absorbed by the cloth material of my mask. This is particularly noticeable when I sneeze or cough. I no longer need to find a free hand to cough into, which may be challenging while carrying bags of groceries. Furthermore, if I happen to be ill, my infection will not spread so easily, for the very reasons I have just described. Like the people I observed in Japan, the mask seems to provide significant benefits to those around me. And if I happen to be ill, but I am not aware of my illness (perhaps I am asymptomatic), wearing the mask will again benefit those around me.

There are a few detriments to others when I wear a face mask. My face tends to be fairly concealed when I wear a mask, such that others may not be able to easily identify me. If my identification is important to others, the mask reduces their likelihood of accurately identifying me. It is also harder for others to hear what I am saying. If I am talking to someone who is hard of hearing, and especially if that someone has learned to read lips to communicate, my mask will pose significant problems to our interactions.

It seems that it is unclear whether wearing a face mask is of benefit to others, and may require careful consideration of the situation I find myself in again. Like for myself, it seems like I ought to wear the mask when I am outside my home, but I can relax my mask wearing when I am at home. After all, when I am outside my home, I am not generally engaged in a lot of conversations, and I am not doing anything that really requires others to identify me. Of course, other people may find their particular situations quite different than mine, and so their personal assessment may end up quite different.

I began this blog thinking that this discussion would clearly suggest that face mask wearing was the correct choice, especially if considering others and not just myself. I was outraged by Trump when he refused to wear a face mask when visiting a face mask factory in Phoenix, even though the facility’s guidelines insisted it was the correct action to take. His arguments against wearing a mask, it seems to me, expressed an egoist viewpoint, and what seemed to me was a blatant disregard for others. However, after the brief discussion I have just posed, perhaps I am being a bit hard on Trump.

In the end, I still do believe it is in the best interests of others that I wear a face mask, especially outside my home. And I do believe a world view closer to empathism is important in our world. However, perhaps it isn’t as clear that these views are the correct views. Certainly not as clear as I had hoped. I will have to return to this line of thought in a later post.

Control

crimsonLeave a comment

In the part of the world where I live, among the most valued traits a person can have is freedom. The freedom to choose for themselves their destiny. The freedom to choose their path in life. It is considered a sign of strength if a person is able to exercise their freedom, and do as they please in all situations. Often, however, in order to actually succeed in one’s projects requires that others take up those same projects in the same fashion. That is, if I desire to build a house, it makes a lot of sense to convince others to help me in building that house. If I am unsuccessful in convincing others to help me, I may still be able to build a house, but it may take me much, much longer to complete that project, and I may also be limited in the size and complexity of that house. Consider how difficult it can be to lift a large 4-by-6 plank of wood by one’s self, never mind placing it with accuracy while fastening it to other structures.

In many cases, in our modern world, large projects cannot reasonably be completed alone. Those projects require many different people working together to accomplish the project. The group of people who come together to work on the large project are all individuals in their own right, each with their own ideas about what precisely the project is that needs to be accomplished and how best to go about completing that project. Through deliberation and negotiation, agreement is hopefully reached in how best to proceed. But complete agreement is rare. Compromises need to be made. Some, if not all, of the participants cannot entirely have everything they desire in the project.

People can be stubborn. In this part of the world, people often do not want to compromise. People embrace a culture where freedom is all that is really important to them, and the exercising of that freedom is the ultimate goal, no matter the cost. One ought to be able to do whatever they desire, uncontested and unchanged. How do multiple people with conflicting projects fully realize their individual freedom uncontested? The answer is they cannot. Someone, and often everyone, will not actually be able to realize their projects. At least not as they may have envisioned them.

There are many ways for me to ensure the success of my project. The most obvious solution is to convince others to change their projects to match my own. If their project matches mine, then the probability of my project’s successful completion increases dramatically. Furthermore, if I can convince others that my project as I envision the project ought to be their project too, then I can probably convince them that they should defer to me in decision making regarding that project. If it is my house being built, those workers who help me build the house ought to come to me to ensure the bathroom is located in the correct part of the house, as I am the only one who really knows where it ought to be. In a sense, I am the project leader. I indicate precisely what the project is and its parameters, and I direct precisely how the project ought to be completed. I can defer to experts who may know more about what materials ought to be used in the house’s construction than I do, but as the project leader, I still decide whether to follow the expert opinion or not. I could always disregard the expert opinion and make my own choice with regard to materials to use.

There are many ways I can convince others to take up my projects. Force is a common approach. That is, I could literally grab your arms and move them myself. This, of course, will only work if I am stronger than you are. After all, if I am not at least as strong as you are, you can resist. Thus, if I spend my life ensuring I am the strongest person among my community, I can force others to follow my projects. The biggest problem with using force is that there are any number of ways that others may use to resist this approach. For one, the others could band together, agreeing to a contrary project of opposing my project, and if they work together successfully, I will need to be stronger than all of them combined. Hercules was said to be as strong as “ten ordinary men,” but he was also part god (according to myth). Most of us are not part god, and most of us are unable to be even twice as strong as the person next to us.

An alternative to using force is to use coercion. That is, I can threaten others to take up my projects. The threats can be any number of undesirable events that I could suggest will take place if those others do not take up my projects. The most common example that is used is to suggest I could hold a gun to someone’s head. The threat is that I could pull the trigger, which is presumed to result in the death of the individual. As an undesirable event, the person ought to be inclined to take up my project as their own. Guns may be popular in the part of the world I live, but they are far from the only tool of coercion used to convince people to take up projects they might not otherwise take up. Politicians frequently describe to voters the undesirable events that would take place if their adversary is elected instead of them. Elect me, otherwise all those undesirable people will take your house away.

The greatest weakness with both of these approaches is that most people can see that I am trying to manipulate them. If it is clear that I am attempting to convince you to change your projects to mine, you are likely to resist as you will recognize the affront to your own projects and to you as a free individual. And so I may wish to consider another alternative. If I can convince you that my project is your project, perhaps that it has been your project the whole time, then you will definitely take up my project as your own. That is, if you believe that my project is in fact your project (in all the important ways) then of course you will take up my project, because it is actually just your project. This is, in some fashion, the heart of what the 2010 film Inception was all about. With all of its fancy special effects and mind blowing concept of dreaming within dreaming, the ultimate purpose of the inception was to convince someone to change their mind, thinking that the new idea was in fact theirs all along. The team’s goal was to change the target’s project into the team’s desired project. In the film, the team would know they were successful if the target believed the new project was his own.

The film was quite popular, and the concept quite insidious, but it does not require entering into the dreams of others to change their projects in this way. The field of marketing and advertising do this sort of altering of projects constantly. It is often much more difficult for me to detect the attempts at changing my mind about what brand of automobile I ought to purchase, but the automotive companies spend an insane amount of money on all those commercials I stumble upon when watching television, or the billboards I see while driving around town. They often refer to it as “brand recognition,” the simple idea that when I think about that particular brand, I get a positive feeling of some kind. It can work in reverse as well, making me feel a negative feeling about a competing brand. All with the goal of adopting the company’s desired project: that I should purchase their automobiles.

The final technique of convincing that I would like to briefly discuss is argument and debate. In this technique, I simply engage in conversation with you, providing you with evidence and reasons that you should take up my project. You are aware that I am attempting to make you take up my project, and that I may be undermining some of your projects in the process. But I don’t try to make you believe that my project is your project necessarily. Instead, I try to convince you that if you are a rational being, practicing good reason, that my project simply makes sense for you to take up. This is insidious in its own way, as it suggests you ought to take up my position because otherwise you would not be considered a rational being. However, it does also leave open the opportunity for you to flip the argument against me, suggesting that perhaps my evidence and reasons are not themselves reasonable, and then perhaps I am the one who is not being a rational being at all. It can become a contest in sophistry; who can fabricate the most convincing evidence. Ultimately, it can be seen as a measure of the contestants’ respective levels of intelligence (especially knowledge of the world) and skill (ability to successfully negotiate their position).

In the end, through whichever technique I decide to use, I try to convince others to take up my projects. If I am successful, my projects are likely to be completed successfully. If my projects are often completed successfully, regardless of whether others take up my projects or not, I am said to be in control.

The Challenge of Being Free

crimson2 Comments

As I suggested with the first blog, I had a plan regarding how I would proceed when I created this website. I wanted to talk more about time, what I think it is, and what the repercussions such a view of time would have. Perhaps I will get to it eventually, but not any time soon. Like all the other things that happen in my life, there always seems to be forces at work pressuring me to do different things than I want to do. This blog is no exception.

A good friend of mine recently started his own blog. You can find it here. He has decided to share his experiences in his attempt at “financial freedom.” So far, it sounds like he is doing quite well. But I would suggest he may still be in the “honeymoon phase” of his project. The real test of success, as I’ve observed, is the commitment to continuing in one’s project for the long term, especially when faced with distractions and outside pressures that interfere with said project. I have high hopes that he will succeed, but only time will tell. I just have to wait and see.

His project is well timed for my current discussion on freedom, and with regard to Black Lives Matter. In both cases, much of the discussion revolves around breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. In the case of Black Lives Matter, the issue is that there is a traditional world view that puts certain humans at a disadvantage with respect to other humans, in this case in particular, that black people are at a social and economic disadvantage with respect to white people. The social structures that support this fabricated dichotomy are complex, and changing them will certainly be challenging. To change them means breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. To change them means breaking the social structures, and possibly completely destroying them.

As for freedom, if freedom exists, its expression is literally the breaking out of the causal sequence of events. It sounds simple, but really is not. What I might call true freedom, the sort of freedom I’ve been trying to describe in the past few posts, requires making choices that are not determined by previous events or conditions. The very thought of such a freedom is challenging at best.

When my friend wants financial freedom, he is talking about this sort of freedom, though focused specifically in the area of his finances. He wants to no longer belong to the causal chain of events that has been preconstructed by the structures that exist around him. In this part of the world, consumerism and capitalism (at least in some form) run rampant. These structures, and many others, influence the decisions made by those individuals who exist within those societies. One simple and very insidious example of such a pressure is in the form of always carrying debt. In this culture, it is not only considered acceptable, it is considered necessary to always be in debt. Consider how one needs to behave to improve their credit rating. As I was instructed in my youth, one needs to have a credit card, use said credit card (thus entering into debt), and then immediately paying of that debt. In other words, those with the best credit ratings are those who constantly enter into debt, but immediately leave it as well, frequently, likely demonstrating that they are capable of some sort of self control, and that they can be relied upon to pay back what they owe when it is demanded of them.

A part of my friend’s attempt at financial freedom involves removal of all his debt. The very act of not being in debt contradicts the pressures society has placed upon him, but that is also why it is considered a freedom. To not be in debt is to contradict the traditional role of the individual in his society. To be debt free is to be financially free.

It is here I would like to introduce another example of freedom that I think is even more insidious, and yet even more telling. I drink water. That may sound particularly uninteresting, but I assure you it is not. I prefer the consumption of water over all other beverages. I prefer not to consume alcohol, soda, coffee, tea, milk, juice, or any other beverage you can imagine. It is true that I do engage in the consumption of non-water beverages occasionally, and that is part of why this discussion is so interesting to me. However, if given the choice, I would only ever consume water as a beverage for the rest of my life.

Just last year, in January of 2019, a new simplified Canada Food Guide was released. In it, it suggests I “make water [my] drink of choice.” I was quite happy in discovering this change, but others have not been so impressed. For example, politician Andrew Scheer expressed concerns regarding the new food guide’s removal of milk as a beverage of choice. This simple question of what people ought to drink has sparked a great deal of controversy in many circles.

Regardless of the scientific or health benefits associated (or possibly not associated) with the consumption of water, what I find most interesting is how the structures of society pressure me to not drink water. Commercialism would have me believe that there are a plethora of superior options to water that I ought to consider when the time comes to quench my thirst. If I am exercising, I ought to drink a sports drink. If I am at a pub, I ought to drink alcohol. If I am sitting at home watching television, I ought to drink a soda. Even at breakfast, as Scheer would likely suggest, I ought to drink milk.

It does not seem to matter at all what my preference is. When I hang out with friends in a restaurant, if I ask the server for water, both the server and my friends give me looks and make me feel guilty for my choice. After all, the server is working hard, and so I should choose a beverage that presents a cost that will support the effort they are putting into getting me something to drink. Furthermore, being in a restaurant represents a luxury from the monotony of being at home, so I ought to get myself something to drink that is more than I might otherwise do if I were at home. I am scolded for my choice, often in subtle ways.

If the restaurant is also a bar or pub, then alcohol becomes the topic of discussion. I ought to have a drink. It does not matter whether I like the taste of the beverage (I cannot explain it exactly, but I can actually taste the alcohol, and that flavour is very unappetizing to me), I ought to drink an alcoholic beverage in particular. In that I am taken to be of the masculine sex, I am frequently scolded for not drinking beer, a beverage that is strongly associated with masculinity in the society I belong to. In my youth, I was told by a friend that “no one likes beer, we all just get used to it.” That one was expected to build up a tolerance to the bitter taste, as a show of one’s manhood.

I didn’t always drink water. In my youth, I tended to drink flavoured beverages like most people. I didn’t even think much about it for a very long time. However, after some fairly significant events in my life, I decided to switch to water exclusively. Initially, I was put off by the taste; water was flavourless and uninteresting, and I missed the previous thrill of a mouth full of sugar. But after about a month of strictly drinking just water, I stopped missing the sugar, and started finding the refreshing features of water to be more palatable. Furthermore, I found my body responded positively to the change, having more energy and less “heaviness.” I figure what I was feeling is similar to what some people consider as “detoxifying.”

It was a challenge to switch from other beverages to simply water, but it was much easier than I expected to switch myself. I like water. I prefer water now. However, the ongoing challenge is not from within but from outside me. As I have described above, social pressures continue to be exerted against me, suggesting I ought to do otherwise. I am strange, and perhaps less healthy as a result of my choice. As Scheer suggested, “the idea that these types of products that we’ve been drinking as human beings, eating as human beings for a millennia—that now all of a sudden that they’re unhealthy, it’s ridiculous.” This represents an incredibly powerful pressure against my choice to drink water, especially after discovering that milk itself seemed to be the culprit to years of heightened allergic reactions to dust and other debris in the atmosphere.

The point of this discussion is not whether water is healthy or not healthy as a beverage, or whether science agrees or disagrees with such statements. The point is that the social structures of my community are focused on influencing my choice of beverage, using whatever tools are available to them to encourage me to behave in a very particular way. Like when my friend encourages me to drink beer because it is the masculine thing to do, a politician encourages me to drink milk because it is the traditional thing to do (and because it will support local businesses as well).

My preference to drink water, and my actually being able to do so, expresses my freedom. What makes it more apparent that it is a freedom is that it seems to be in direct opposition to the pressures that take place around me. Were my preference to be aligned to the social structures of my community, it may not be as clear whether it was a freedom expressed, or a conforming to outside influences. So freedom might be understood as the situation where one contradicts the pressures and influences. But then there may not be a way to determine if a freedom can be (or is) expressed when it happens to agree with the pressures and influences.

Returning to my friend, why we might understand it as “financial freedom” is not necessarily that it is free. We might interpret it as suggesting he simply wants to practice his personal economics in a manner that is unlike the that which is practiced by most people in our society.

Freedom

crimsonLeave a comment

I would like to return to my discussion on time, but it just isn’t the right time for it. There is, in my opinion, a more pressing topic to discuss. On the heels of Black Lives Matter, there is the discussion of freedom. I might suggest that it is actually an underlying concern, rather than something that follows from it.

I think the question of freedom is key to almost all that is going on. Without freedom, none of these other discussions have any meaning. As has been said to me about ethics in general, without freedom there is no ethics. That is, without the possibility of individuals “doing otherwise,” I cannot hold those individuals blameworthy nor praiseworthy. After all, if they are simply doing what they must, without the ability to choose otherwise, how can I hold them responsible for choices they have not made?

It seems like freedom is tied closely with choice. That is, in order to have the ability to choose, one must be free to choose. This is significant in the face of the predominant overwhelming evidence that seems to contradict the existence of freedom. If I look out upon the world, I am immediately aware of a pattern of events that occur. I see events followed by other events, but those sequences of events are not at all random. Certain events seem to be followed quite regularly by certain other events. This regularity has been referred to as “constant conjunction” by the 18th century philosopher David Hume. He called it this in response to what he believed was a mistake made by others in thinking this regularity had a more deep connection: causality.

Causality is a controversial topic in philosophical circles. As Hume suggested, I may notice that certain events seem to always (or almost always) be followed by certain other events, with a regularity that is unmistakable, but I cannot see an actual connection between the event that comes before and the event that follows. There is nothing that I can observe that actually connects the two events. If I watch billiard balls on a table strike each other, I may recognize the nature of the movement of those balls. I may, with confidence, predict how they will move around the table. However, no matter how closely or carefully I watch, I cannot observe the actual connection between the movement of one ball and the movement of another ball. I cannot see any transfer of inertia from one ball to the next. I may believe the connection exists, but I cannot see it. I cannot see causality, I can only assume its existence.

Most of our modern lives depend on this assumption, the assumption that causality exists. This computer that I am using to write out this blog post depends on the assumption of causality to function. Otherwise, how could I rely upon the fact that my pressing the keys on this keyboard would result in these characters being added to this webpage. A lot of things have to take place between my pressing a key, to the point where a very specific and anticipated set of bits in memory are added to a database which results in this blog post that you now read. If causality did not exist (or my assumption of it), it would be incredibly challenging to explain how this blog post came to exist at all.

Most of my world is built upon causally connected events. I say causally connected not because I know with certainty that that is how it came about, but because I have to assume it in order to make sense of my world. I can plan my day because I expect certain events to reliably occur when I expect them to. I expect the Sun to follow a path across the sky each day, illuminating my world in its light. I would be greatly surprised if the Sun did not rise tomorrow morning.

This brings me to the idea of freedom. I refer to it as an idea because there is not a lot of evidence to support its existence. Like I have been saying about time, freedom is a way for me to make sense of my world. It is a way to describe an aspect of my world that I assume must exist, for without it, many of the aspects I take for granted would not make any sense at all. The most noteworthy example is the one I began with, the issue of choice. The simple act of making a choice is an expression of freedom. If it were not, then choice as an idea would itself also make no sense.

In the course of my life, I have had many heated arguments with people regarding my ability to predict human behavior. At various jobs, I have suggested that if we followed a particular course of action, our clients would react in a particular manner in response. I have been told in most of those cases that I cannot know for certain that such things would happen; that human behavior cannot be predicted in that way. However, time and again, the actions are taken, and the clients reacted as I predicted. It is true, I could simply be lucky. It could simply be a situation of hedging my bets. But if that is true, it seems to fly in the face of the clients’ freedom to choose to act differently.

In philosophy, a world that is entirely causally connected is referred to as deterministic. Determinism suggests that all events are connected to all other events by a causal chain that stretches infinitely forward and backward. I once heard said in my youth that if you could know the positions and velocities of all the subatomic particles in the universe at any point in time, you’d be able to predict every event to the end of time. Consequently, you could also determine the history of the universe with perfect accuracy as well. All this would only be true in a purely deterministic world. If my world is such a world, then that suggests no freedom exists. And if that is true, then I am not free to choose anything. All my alleged choices are an illusion, and my actions are in some sense predetermined.

The alternative is that freedom, in some sense, exists. I say in some sense, because freedom can manifest in various ways in order to escape determinism. In fact, for some, freedom does not even need to contradict determinism at all. Alfred R. Mele received a $4.5 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation less than 10 years ago in order to try and shed some light on this situation. In his book entitled A Dialogue on Free Will and Science, Mele discusses a number of these different manifestations, relating them to grades of gasoline at a gas station. For me, the most interesting thing about the book is how it is still unable to answer the question of freedom; that is, I can describe freedom as not being deterministic, but that is about as far as I can go.

To be fair, Mele’s book is very good, and I do recommend reading it if you get the chance. It is short (108 pages), and quite easy to read. You can find it here if you like. In it, the lowest grade of free will, often referred to as compatibilism, is not really freedom in the sense I am referring to in this blog. In compatibilism, what is referred to as freedom is simply the ability of an individual to make a choice without being coerced or unduly influenced. The individual is free to choose. However, with pure determinism in play, the choice can be predicted. Furthermore, one can argue whether anyone is every truly in a situation where they are not being influenced. When I sit on this couch writing this blog, there is no threatening man with a gun to my head forcing me to type. However, I am still influenced by all that takes place around me. Even the fact that I watch the news and am familiar with the Black Lives Matters movement has an influence on my choices and actions. To suggest I can ever make a choice without some sort of influence going on is a mistake in understanding the nature of humans, or of conscious beings in general.

That leaves me with less clear descriptions of freedom. As Mele suggests, one way of viewing freedom is like random chance. That is, when faced with a choice, freedom may be as simple as a completely random selection. The way this is described is that if I somehow were to go back in time and replay the events again, when faced with the same choice, a different choice can be made, again completely at random. While it may be tempting to embrace a freedom of this nature, it doesn’t seem to follow from observations I make of the world. I do see the patterns of regularity, and this includes a regularity in the choices made by individuals. Choices do not appear to be completely random. Choices seem to involve some forethought. Choices seem to follow something related to causality.

Mele does not discuss in much detail what the high grade of free will is. He suggests I relate it to the idea of a soul or spirit within me. In some way related to René Descartes’ mind/body dualism, where the mind is some sort of immeasurable aspect of my being. However, the old argument against Descartes by Princess Elisabeth resurfaces, and we are left wondering how something immeasurable could interact or influence the measurable. If freedom is somehow disconnected from a purely deterministic world, such that freedom is not bound by the rules of determinism, how does freedom inject a cause into the deterministic chain of events?

There is no doubt that I need to believe in freedom. I need freedom to exist. I need the possibility that individuals can make choices freely, so that I can hold them accountable for those choices. They must be blameworthy or praiseworthy based on their own freedom. There must be a difference between how one is, and how one ought to be. I must be able to choose otherwise. Because if that is not the case, then I am simply a cog in a very big and very complex machine. And I don’t like that idea very much.

From my observations of the world through the course of my life, I have seen very little evidence of freedom existing. I have been able to trace back choices and decisions, giving me confidence in understanding why a particular chain of events has occurred. It is true that I cannot see the causal influence directly, but it has worked for me with such reliability that I feel I cannot ignore it. But at the same time, despite the lack of evidence, I also feel I must have faith in the possibility of freedom’s existence. For without that possibility, there does not seem to be any reason for any of this.

Black Lives Matter

crimsonLeave a comment

I wanted to continue with my discussion on time, but with all that is going on in the world, I thought I’d take a break to discuss another matter. As you are probably aware, events in the United States of America (USA) have escalated and the pandemic has been lowered in priority in that country. This has occurred in some other countries as well. And the short response I would like to offer up is: it’s about time.

Actually, that response is far from complete. It is too short a response to really reflect what my feelings are on this matter. And, it is a little misleading, as the revolution that I think is needed is still a ways off. Peaceful protest, I believe, will be insufficient to affect the sorts of long term changes that are required by the human race in this situation. Allow me to explain.

While the following will be an over simplified view of humanity, I think it captures a lot of what has led us to this point. When I look upon the world, I am struck by what I see. I find that there are those things that are similar or the same as I am familiar with, and those things that are different. For example, there are these other beings that wander the world as I do; these other beings are very similar to me in some ways, but very different in other ways. The more similar they are to me, the more comfortable I might feel; the more different, the more uncomfortable I might feel. When I am comfortable, I tend to relax and trust. When I am not comfortable, I tend to fill with anxiety and become protective of myself.

Perhaps my personal history is unusual or unique, but I find that the differences vastly outweigh the similarities most of the time. I focus on the differences far more than the similarities. Personally, I don’t find many other beings like myself. Now, I could choose to be hostile to all these different other beings. I could choose to lash out and harm these other beings. But I don’t. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I was pretty well alone in the world—alone in that I cannot experience the world from the perspective of those other beings, and those other beings could not experience the world from my perspective—and so I would have to withhold my complete, blind trust from those who had not in some way given me a reason to trust them. I am paranoid. I am resistant. I feel compelled to ALWAYS assess knowledge and information for myself. This is a large part of the reason I was not cut out for military service; I am unable to blindly follow orders without first thinking about what is being asked of me, and assessing whether I ought to obey or resist the command.

For me, I exist in a world full of challenges and obstacles. Like the philosophical Existentialists, I desire to exercise my freedom to assign value in a world that I believe holds no intrinsic value. It is a lot of work assigning value to everything, but it is what I expect and I am comfortable in that situation now. But it also means that I am reserved in expressing my hostility and aggression as well. I am slow to make decisions, and I am slow to choose my actions. I’d rather take some time to “get to know” another being, before I pass judgement. I’m far from perfect at doing this, but I try my hardest.

Yes, my skin is on the lighter end of the spectrum. Furthermore, when others observe me, I am categorized in the masculine class of beings. And, as may be obvious by this blog, I think and understand in the language of English. This places me squarely in the category of the privileged. In my youth, I did not understand what this meant, but now I do. The world appears to me in a certain way. I understand the things I see in a certain way. I fear some things, and do not fear others. My privilege allows me to move through this world mostly unimpeded. My privilege allows me various advantages with things such as employment and commerce. My privilege is a large part of my world view. What I think is most important for me to always remember is that most of those beings around me do not share this world view.

In the USA, those beings with skin on the darker end of the spectrum than mine have become outraged because an authority figure—who happens to have skin on the lighter end of the spectrum—clearly and purposefully overstepped his authority in a situation that lead to the demise of another being—who happens to have skin on the darker end of the spectrum. The issue that is of concern is that the authority figure chose to behave in the fashion he did as a direct result of the world view that he holds, a world view that diminishes the status of those with skin on the darker end of the spectrum. In my personal opinion, those beings—who now hold frequent and vast peaceful protests in response to this incident—are more than justified in their actions. My largest fear is that the peaceful protesting is not sufficient to bring about the sort of change we appear to desire.

I admit, most of the conversations I usually have are not concerned about the colour of a being’s skin. My conversations more often are concerned with the configuration of the being’s physical body, and what categories those beings are assigned as a result of their configuration. I am more concerned with the issue of sex and gender than I am with the issue of “race,” especially as I think categorizing humans by “race” is completely ridiculous. It would be like deciding to categorize humans by the colour of their hair, or the colour of their eyes, or the length of their bodies, or any number of other physical qualities. There is no good reason to believe that these physical attributes have any direct correlation to other aspects of those beings, such as mental acuity, or ethical ability.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there isn’t a difference that occurs between those of various “races.” But those differences occur not because of direct differences in physical attributes; they occur as a result of social pressure, which is often related to cultural and political structures that exist in those societies, that have already categorized those beings and afforded different opportunities to those beings, which as a result provide different levels and forms of education and employment to the different “races.” In other words, the game is rigged, which is what the protests are all about.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the COVID-19 virus has disproportionately affected the black community in the USA, and probably in many other places in the world as well. The reason we ought not be surprised is because those people have more challenges and less resources with which to deal with the situation. Unlike those of us who are privileged enough to have a savings account, and are not living paycheck to paycheck, they cannot simply stay home and self-isolate to protect themselves and their families from a pandemic that is sweeping the world. This simple fact means that there are likely to be more black people wandering the streets, as they go to and from work, to and from the grocery store, etc. And there being more black people wandering the streets means that there is a much higher probability of an authority figure encountering such a person. And if that authority figure is already disposed to believing that a black person is more likely to pose a threat, and then happens to encounter that black person, they are more likely to manage the encounter poorly.

I’ll put this another way. If I tell you that it is considered a bad thing to hold a lit stick of dynamite, because it will likely be poor for your health in the long run, and then I hand you a lit stick of dynamite, because that is the only light source you are allowed to use while travelling in a dark passage, what do you expect is going to happen? You could refuse the lit stick of dynamite, citing my first statement, deciding that your heath in the long run is more important to you than being able to see in the dark passage. You could then muddle your way through, with great challenge, having to feel your way along the walls. Or you could accept the lit stick of dynamite, using it’s meager light to aid you in travelling through the dark passage, bearing the constant risk that the dynamite will explode in your hand, injuring you grievously. This is the situation of many people in our world, including black people in the USA.

So what is the correct answer? Well, how about “why do I need to travel through a dark passage?” Or, “why do I not have access to an alternative light source than a lit stick of dynamite?” Or, “can I talk to someone other than you for assistance, because you are not doing a very good job of providing assistance right now.” These “solutions” clearly don’t address the immediate concern—travelling through a dark passage. They point to something outside the immediate situation. They acknowledge, at least on some level, that there is something like a “bigger picture” that needs to be considered.

In the case of racism, peaceful protests may improve the situation marginally, but I do not believe they will provide a lasting, long term solution to the problem. Yes, change is something that happens slowly over vast periods of time. However, in some situations, change occurs very quickly and violently. And in those situations, it may be necessary to affect the needed change.

Putting this another way, what is needed is not policies of employment equity or defunding the police. While these measures may produce seemingly desirable results in the immediate, short term, the repercussions in the long term would be/are disastrous. What is needed is a cultural/political shift, and not a small one. Institutions need to be broken down. Marriage needs to no longer be a thing, because men don’t need an excuse to enslave women. And people need to not be judged by the colour of their skin, or any other physical features they possess. I would like to say that people should instead be judged by their actions, however, I am not so naive as to think that behaviors have only simple reasoning; that they may instead be extremely complex networks of perfect rationality if considered at length.

I do not have the answer to this issue for one very good reason; I don’t have an alternative. I can talk in negatives as much as I want, saying how things ought not be. What I am not able to provide is a positive response, saying how I think things ought to be. I do not know how the world ought to look. I do not know what world view is best to hold. I obviously privilege my own world view, but that does not make my world view the correct world view. This is simply the opinion of one individual in a world full of billions of individuals.

Time Pieces

crimsonLeave a comment

Time, at least on the larger scale, is typically “measured” in days and years, using the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun respectively as reference. When the Earth completes “one full rotation,” a day is said to have occurred. Similarly, when the Earth completes “one full orbit” around the Sun, a year is said to have occurred. However, on the smaller scale, a different reference is typically used.

The “most accurate measure” of time is kept by atomic clocks. An atomic clock is a device that counts very brief changes in atomic and subatomic particles. That is, in modern atomic clocks, when an electron changes energy levels it emits an electromagnetic pulse that the clock can detect; the atomic clock counts these pulses and determines that a specific amount of time has passed upon detecting the specified number of pulses. Putting this another way, through scientific inquiry it has been determined that electrons will change energy levels in certain elements (at very specific temperatures and other conditions) at certain specific intervals, thus the atomic clock, upon counting an appropriate number of these changes, can report that a specific amount of time has passed.

I admit that even this brief description of how an atomic clock works is over-simplified, but the basic structure of counting events is still present in the process of “measuring” time. If I assume that the event in question is sufficiently regular and reliable, then I can simply count the events to determine how much time has passed in a particular situation. Atomic clocks are considered to be very, very accurate—given that the conditions under which the atomic clock operates are kept as constant and unchanging as possible—when compared to other sorts of time keeping devices, such as wristwatches which often use a quartz crystal and count the oscillations of the crystal’s natural vibrations.

It is not strictly important to understand the very particular nature of physics and the universe to follow what I am suggesting here. Each situation of time measurement is essentially the same: find a naturally occurring event, one that is considered to be reliable and regular, and then count those events in order to determine an accurate accounting of time. Whether one uses the rotation of the Earth, or the vibration of atoms, in theory the end result should be the same. Variance should generally only occur if the reference I select is less reliable or less regular for some reason. It is generally considered the case that the vibration of atoms is much more reliable and regular than the rotation of the Earth, and thus those time measuring devices that use a reference of the vibration of atoms are considered more accurate and precise than those that rely upon the rotation of the Earth. And thus, if there is a difference between the time measured on different devices, the one that is considered more accurate should be used to correct the one that is less accurate. And this is where the idea of leap years and leap seconds enter into the discussion.

As I had suggested in my previous post, the rotation of the Earth about its axis, and the orbital period of the Earth about the Sun, are not consistent. How do I know this? Because when I use other methods of measuring time, I find that the time it took for the Earth to rotate, or the Earth to complete an orbit around the Sun, is different from one count to the next. If the last orbit of the Earth around the Sun occurred within 365.24221 days (according to a particular atomic clock), and the current orbit occurred within 365.24220 days (according to the same particular atomic clock), and then another measure from another previous orbit occurred within 365.24219 days, then I would suggest that either the orbital period is changing with each orbit, or the event that the atomic clock is using to measure time with is not as regular or reliable as I might think. Or it is also possible that both methods have error to them, and that neither event I am using as a reference is entirely reliable and regular. The general consensus by the international community of humans on this planet suggests I take the atomic clock as most accurate. If you want to learn more about this, I’d suggest starting here.

At this point, many of my friends and family will suggest I am being far too pedantic. That it is not so important to worry about such minor differences between everything. It doesn’t affect most people’s day-to-day lives whether one time measuring device is more or less accurate than another, so long as we can all agree to one standard. And, for the most part, they are correct. The standard that virtually all human beings agree to is that from the point in time the Sun is at its highest point in the sky, to the point in time when the Sun is again at the highest point in the sky is exactly one day. Most people are not interested in the measure provided by the atomic clock, even if science will tell us that its information is far more accurate. Furthermore, when the time comes to synchronize our clocks, it is the atomic clock that will be adjusted to conform its measure of time to the rotation of the Earth by adding or subtracting seconds to its value. These are leap seconds.

In a similar move, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun does not occur in a time frame that coincides nicely with the rotation of the Earth. That is, in the time it takes for one complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the Earth will rotate approximately 365 1/4 times. And again, when it is time to synchronize our devices, it is the year that is adjusted to conform with the day, hence why I get one extra day added to the year every four years, except every hundred years. These are leap days.

Thus, the agreed upon measure of time is actually the day, which in turn is measured by observing the rotation of the Earth about its axis. Furthermore, the day is not a complete rotation of the Earth about its axis, but something slightly more than a complete rotation, as the measure is made by observing when the Sun is at the highest point in the sky until it is again at the highest point in the sky. All other devices and measures are adjusted in accordance to this standard. Why this may seem unimportant to most people is that most people exist and spend the entirety of their lives on the Earth, where making such observations are so easy as to be unremarkable. However, if any humans were to leave the Earth, to perhaps colonize Mars, or to explore beyond our solar system, it becomes a great challenge to figure out what time it is.

Having now established how time is measured and maintained for humans upon the Earth, it is time now to take this discussion in another direction. I have some idea of how time is accounted for. I can say that it is Sunday, May 31, 2020 at about 2:41 pm, and I can feel quite confident that if you are a human being living upon the Earth, you will understand what I mean and when I mean. But this still doesn’t really answer any questions regarding what time might be in itself. In fact, the best I can say at this moment is that time, for humans on the Earth, is simply a count of various agreed upon reliable, regular events. So what is time in itself?

A Sequence of Events

crimsonLeave a comment

The past. The present. The future. These are all terms used to help describe time. They are relative references; relative to the now. The past occurs before the now; the present occurs simultaneously with the now; the future occurs after the now. But what is the now?

Now is a term I use to describe the temporal location when I am. It is hard to describe exactly, except to say that I am always in the now. As soon as I remember something, that something is already in the past, having occurred before the now. The future often includes those events I want to eventually occur in the now. When I consider my conscious self—what I often referred to as “I”—that conscious self always exists in the now. I cannot exist consciously in the past or in the future. Remembering the past is not existing in the past, just as expectation of the future is not existing in the future. My conscious self is always existing in the now. My conscious self is a reference point I can use; a reference to the now.

Thinking in this way, I quickly notice that time is always relative to me, specifically to my conscious self. Every event occurs either before, simultaneously with, or after the now. Can I quantify these terms any further, that is, can I suggest that there is a long before and a shortly before? Saying long before seems to suggest a quantifiably large value of time, just as shortly before seems to suggest a quantifiably small value of time. However, as I will demonstrate, really all that is occurring is a larger or smaller number of other events between the now and the event that occurred either long before or shortly before.

Consider how we determine time. While I write this post, it is Sunday, May 24, 2020 at about 10:48 am. This is a very specific reference I am making, though I could be even more specific had I chosen. But what precisely does it mean? Sunday is a description of the “day of the week,” often considered the first day of a seven day sequence of days. The selection of the “first day” of a sequence of seven days is fairly arbitrary. May is the month, made up of thirty-one days, and is also considered approximately one twelfth of a year. The 24 is a reference to the twenty-fourth day of the month being considered. The 2020 is the year, counted from an arbitrary point in the past. The two terms that need further explanation are day and year, as both seem to tell us a great deal about the particularity of the values in this description.

So what is a day? It is suggested by most that a day is one full revolution of the Earth about its axis (given that the Earth’s axis is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees, though that value changes over time). If we assume this is the case, then when the Earth rotates a full 360 degrees, a day has occurred. It is suggested that a year is one full orbit of the Earth around the Sun. If we assume this is the case, then when the Earth completes a full orbit of 360 degrees around the Sun, a year has occurred. However, in both cases, the rotation and orbit of the Earth are inconsistent. That is, the rotational speed of the Earth fluctuates as does the speed at which the Earth orbits the Sun. Furthermore, the Earth’s orbit is not entirely consistent either, straying from the path it takes slightly upon each circuit. These variances can be accounted for by the influences of other celestial bodies. The Earth is not alone in the void of the cosmos.

While those variances are generally quite small, to be imperceptible and likely negligible, if I am to determine an accurate account of time, those variances need to be considered. Furthermore, there is reason for me to believe that these values are themselves suspect. Consider the motion of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth completes one full rotation, it is no longer in the same position it was in at the beginning of its rotation. Both rotation and orbit occur simultaneously. I will use the following diagram to emphasize my point:

When the Earth rotates about its axis, it moves along a trajectory around the Sun. If at one position (A), the direction the Earth faces relative to the Sun is with the arrow pointed at the Sun, at another position (B), the arrow will be pointed perpendicular to the Sun. That is, in each new position the Earth is in after completing a full 360 degree rotation about its axis, the Sun will appear at a different spot in the sky, if I am an observer standing on the Earth (assuming I remain stationary relative to the Earth).

This description of a day does not seem consistent with other ways of describing a day. For example, I have often heard a day described as the time it takes for the Sun to reach the highest point in the sky from when it last was at the highest point in the sky. Following from this description, if I suggest that the Earth will complete approximately 365 full rotations about its axis when it completes approximately one full orbit around the Sun, then a day is actually closer to a 361 degree rotation about its axis, or slightly more than a full rotation.

It is not important here for me to determine with perfect measured accuracy precisely how much of a rotation of the Earth constitutes a day, nor how many days there are in a year. What is important to notice is that all of these time determinations are all relative to events. In particular, not only are they concerned with what comes before, simultaneously, and after, but they are also concerned with counting relatively regular events, such as the number of times the Earth rotates on its axis, or the number of times the Earth completes an orbit around the Sun. The year 2020 is suggesting that since a particular prescribed event had occurred in the past, the Earth had completed 2020 orbits around the Sun. The date of May 24 suggests that since a particular prescribed event had occurred in the past, the Earth had completed 145 approximately full rotations about its axis. In order for me to understand what these descriptions mean, I need to know the particular prescribed events. I need to know that the reference for the year is relative to the occurrence of when Jesus had been born according to the Christians. I need to know that the reference for the day is relative to the arbitrarily decided upon event that is considered the beginning position of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

The description of 10:48 am can be described similarly, though instead of counting full occurrences of the Earth’s rotation about its axis, I will need to approximate the fractions of a rotation. For example, to say 10 am is to say that the Earth had completed 5/12 of a full rotation since the particular prescribed event of when the Earth was last facing away from the Sun (relative to my position on the Earth, based on time zone, etc). There are 24 hours in a day, so an hour is one 24th of a rotation. There are 60 minutes in an hour, so a minute is one 1440th of a rotation. There are 60 seconds in a minute, so a second is one 86400th of a rotation.

Therefore, when described in this way, time is simply a description of what is before, simultaneous, and after. In order to introduce some sort of quantifiable measure into the description, a count of regularly occurring events is added to the description. For example, long before will include a larger count of event occurrences than shortly before. This is one manner in which time is often described, however, it is not the only manner. As I’m sure you may already be aware, time on the smaller scale (minutes, seconds, etc) are not usually described by fractions of days, but by counting a different reference event. That will be the subject of my next post.

It’s About Time

crimsonLeave a comment

There are plenty of things to talk about, and I will get to many of them eventually. However, I will begin with the topic that I end up talking the most about: time. The more I read and study and discuss, the more I tend to think that it does not exist. At least, not in itself. That is, time is a concept I use to describe something, so it does exist as a way for me to describe that something. But as a thing in itself, like a book or a table, perhaps not. Or even as an intangible thing, like gravity or magnetism, again I am not convinced.

This is an incredibly controversial position to hold. But if one thinks about it, perhaps it is not as controversial as one might think. After all, no one has “seen the effects of time,” at least not directly. When one suggests they do, what they really are suggesting is that they see erosion, or they see wear-and-tear, or they see old age. They do not see time, nor do they see the “effects of time.” They see the effects of erosion or wear-and-tear or old age. Time is a literary tool used to capture the plethora of effects we want to describe, so time is a way for me to describe something. But I am still not talking about time itself.

So what is time exactly? Or, when I want to talk about time itself, what am I trying to talk about? I think when time is used, it is used in various ways, which further confuses what it might be. Sometimes, time is intended to be a position on a long thread, similar to the idea of a location in space. In this way, one might be able to “travel” from one position to another, able to affect things related to that position. Thinking about time in this way, I think, is most common, and influences many science fiction stories and discussions. However, like locations in space, to “travel” from one position to another, I first need to occupy a portion of time, like I occupy a portion of space.

In the case of locations in space, I describe my manner of occupation in terms of length, and width, and depth. I am an irregular object, about two meters in length, perhaps three quarters of a meter in width, and maybe a half a meter in depth, though I do not fully occupy all of these dimensions. In similar fashion, I occupy a portion of time. I might call this dimension duration. That is, I occupy a portion of time that is the duration of my existence. Presently, I exist, and so now is a part of my duration. Many years ago, I began to exist, and so my duration would have began at that time. When I cease to exist, that will be the end of my duration. I will occupy about 80 years of time, though until I cease to exist, I won’t know for certain. This assumes that my existence began when I was born, and ends when I die; if my existence goes beyond, like if there happens to be life after death, then perhaps I will occupy much more time than I think.

This occupation of time could make travelling to another position tricky. When one thinks about “time travel” one usually assumes that their present self is all that they are, and so travelling to other positions in time seems mostly unproblematic. However, if I occupy a significant portion of time, how then might I change positions successfully? Does my “past self” need to travel back 10 years when my “present self” travels back 10 years? If I dismiss that I occupy time, as is often the case, then it leads to various paradoxes where I exist multiple times in the same position in time. Again, many science fiction stories have fun exploring what precisely might happen given these circumstances.

It seems like I’ve created a big mess already, and I’ve barely scratched the surface. If time is like a thread, and if I occupy a portion of that thread, then it seems to bring with it a lot of complications. Is time a bit like an empty space along a path that I take? In my next post, I will put many of these crazy ideas to the side while I try to get a better handle on what time is by considering how time is used in the literary sense.

Why Crimson Cyborg?

crimson2 Comments

Probably the first question many will ask is why “Crimson Cyborg.” First, crimson is my favorite colour. Yeah, I know that sounds pretty lame, but it is true. It has been my favorite colour since I was very young. Not just red, but crimson in particular. Shortly after I had learned about the foundational colours—red, yellow, and blue—I learned that those applied to pigments. That is, red, yellow, and blue were foundational when it came to painting and mixing paints and inks. As most know, mixing red and yellow make orange, red and blue make purple, and yellow and blue make green. I know, I’m being pedantic here, but for me this is a big deal.

The problem, however, is that there is another foundational colour set—the foundational colours of light, which consist of red, green, and blue. In this case, combining red and green produce yellow, red and blue produce magenta, and green and blue produce cyan. What’s more interesting still is that there is a relationship between these secondary colours and the original pigment based foundational colours. That is, if you use inks of yellow, cyan, and magenta, you can mix them in combinations to produce red, green, and blue. If you have ever wondered what the CMYK means with respect to your computer printer, this is what it is all about: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and the Key colour (black).

Understanding all these particularities with colour, and how they are related to each other, I find quite interesting. It is part of why this website is constructed with such basic, simple colours. My very first website, back in 1995, also had a plain black background as well, in order to emphasize the colours as I saw them.

Upon discovering some of these properties of colour, I also learned how to explicitly define what colours I wanted to use with my website, and with graphics in general. Most computers, when determining what colours to display to a screen, define the colour using RGB. That is, by applying particular amounts of Red, Green, and Blue, one can display almost any colour they desire. On this website, colours are described using hexidecimal values. For example, the colour of this text is #B0C4DE. That is, there is #B0 amount of Red, #C4 amount of green, and #DE amount of Blue. I can further convert this, making it easier to understand, by saying there is 69.0% Red, 76.9% Green, and 87.1% Blue. In other words, of a possible total intensity of light being 100% intensity, the Red is only at about 69% intensity, the Green is only about 77% intensity, and Blue is only about 87% intensity. That gives you this particular colour as you see it. This colour is not necessarily a colour that exists on the natural light spectrum; it is a mixture of three colours, and your mind/brain is translating the mixture into something that you will probably describe as a steel blue.

It is interesting to think about colours that may or may not actually exist. H. P. Lovecraft wrote a short story called “The Colour Out of Space,” where an alien colour “invades” the Earth. It was the basis of the 2020 film Color Out of Space, starring Nicolas Cage, an actor known for his ability to convey “crazy” rather convincingly. In the film, the choice to use purplish colours seems quite appropriate, considering that purple itself does not exist on the natural light spectrum. It is further interesting that purple colours tend to be associated with royalty, suggesting that perhaps aristocracy might have an interest in separating themselves from the common peasants. Or it could be that producing purple dyes many years ago was prohibitively expensive, only allowing those wealthy elite from being able to afford such glorious colours. All the same, these colours are all, in some sense, impossible; at least impossible as pure unmixed colours for human consumption.

Understanding how these colours work, I set out to figure out what particular colour (or mixture of colours) I found most pleasing. I was also reminded of a toothbrush I had as a child, with a strange reddish/pinkish colour that I was quite fond of. I played around with various combinations, and settled for 100% intensity Red, 50% intensity Blue, and 25% intensity Green. That colour looks like this:

That is not crimson, though it is close. This is crimson:

The difference is subtle, but crimson is more red than the colour I had discovered. Furthermore, for those who embrace patriarchy in our society, the first colour is more feminine, while crimson is more masculine. Or, perhaps one might suggest crimson is more neutral, gender speaking. It is funny that a colour can have social associations. That a colour can be restricted to usage by various people, or have associations to various people. An amusing video discussing this can be found here.

So my favorite colour, the one without a name, is a colour that I discovered through a mathematical deduction: full Red, half Blue, quarter Green. But it doesn’t have a name. And it is charged with impressions, despite it simply being a colour. Crimson, being very close, is more neutral. Furthermore, crimson is a named colour. In fact, one can tell the website to display crimson, and that is what is displayed.

Thus, crimson became my favorite colour; at least my favorite named colour. The unnamed colour above is technically my favorite colour, but it has no name. On a website like this, a colour having a name is probably not a big deal. However, if I am to have a name, it will have to be based on a named colour. The #FF3F7F Cyborg just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

As for the cyborg part, that is actually much simpler. I’ve been on a computer since I was five years old. My first computer was a Texas Instruments TI-99/4A home computer. On it, I was able to play such classic video games as Munch Man, Parsec, and Tunnels of Doom. I actually crashed the computer by playing Munch Man up to level 41, and my entire family played Tunnels of Doom together, much as various people play role playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons today. That computer was pretty impressive for its time actually, sporting a 16 bit processor, when virtually all other computers had 8 bit processors for the next 10 years or so.

Being brought up on a computer played a significant role in my development. Aside from the improved hand-eye coordination that accompanies many video games, my mind was structured differently. My abilities with mathematics and analytics are quite well developed, and I believe the computers had a significant role. I would not say that I think like a computer. Only that spending so much time programming and debugging, and even building, computers allowed me to see things in ways different than most of the other people I encounter. My logical skills are quite strong as well, being able to connect statements together, or to say that such statements are not logically connected.

Relatively recently, I also came to the realization that while such skills are good at connecting assumptions made at the outset to conclusions one is trying to achieve, they do nothing for determining what initial assumptions ought to be made. It is fine to say that if Aristotle is a man, and all men are mortal, that it must be the case that Aristotle is mortal. However, was Aristotle a man? And are all men mortal? We might take these statements for granted presently, but there may come a time with either or both of these statements may not be considered good initial assumptions. Especially the second statement. If science and technology continue to progress as they have been, perhaps humans will no longer be mortal.

As such, I do not consider myself to be completely human. Aside from the constant rejection of many of society’s structures, such as consumerism and patriarchy, I also believe that I see the world in a way that others do not see it. There is no way for me to verify that this is actually the case, as I am not able to experience the world from another’s perspective, however, I frequently find that my ideas are met with confusion and even hostility when I speak to other people. I’ve been around long enough to be able to censor myself in order to avoid getting into too much trouble, but it remains that I have to censor myself. Even this website is intended to be a bit of an outlet for me to release the restrictions I have applied to myself. Not entirely, as there are those out there who do know my true identity. But enough to play a little more.

My dependence on computers and technology also contribute to my assessment of myself as a cyborg, in the more traditional understanding of the term. I have frequent doubts as to whether I could survive without access to some computer. It could be argued that this is the case for most people, certainly in this part of the world, and especially with the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, if the sun were to emit a strong enough electromagnetic pulse, it is possible that all our electronic assistants could be offline for the remainder of many of our lives. Could I survive in that world? I hope never to have to find out.

And so, I am the Crimson Cyborg. This is the aspect of me that I reveal to the world, that may someday reveal the thoughts and ideas that have thus far remained safely buried within my mind. This website is meant to be a way for me to talk, more freely. It is possible no one ever reads these posts. It is possible that I simply speak into the void, never receiving reciprocation for my efforts. But if that happens, that is okay with me. This is just for me. If others find benefit with my ramblings, then that makes me happy, but it is not required.