Skip to content

2004

  • in personal
  • 5 min read

meta gadu

radosc

solo (0:20)
Zmierzam do tego, ze lain miala fajnego OSa w tych swoich maszynach
solo (0:20)
lol, zboczenie.. imie z malej, ale OS z wielkiej
.mK (0:20)
no wlasnie... w maszynach czy w glowie?

solo (0:21)
Ha, no... to zbyt trudne pytanie, chyba... Sam nie wiem, co tam sie dzialo
.mK (0:21)
A ZAUWAZYLES, ZE JAK KTOS PISZE CAPS'AMI TO USZY BOLA?
solo (0:21)
Nie, jednak jest to irytujace
.mK (0:22)
no... mi sie wydaje, ze moj rozmowca krzyczy i staram sie go zawsze uspokoic
.mK (0:22)
chociaz czasem zupelnie nie o to im chodzi
solo (0:22)
Dokladnie
solo (0:22)
Jakis czas temu zagadala mnie pewna dziewczyna na GG, ktora nawijala capsem ciagle
solo (0:23)
I rozmawialo mi sie z nia troche niewygodnie, bo kazda jej wypowiedz odbieralem... jakos tak zdecydowanie nienaturalnie
solo (0:23)
Pewnie dla kogos, kto nie mial wielkiej stycznosci z czatami, nie sprawialoby to roznicy - i taki i taki tekst bylby tak samo odbierany - jako tekst
solo (0:24)
Natomiast ja, gdy czytam to, co ktos do mnie pisze, rozumiem to jakby do mnie mowil
.mK (0:24)
no... to ciekawe... powoli wytwarza sie nowe zjawisko... psychologia rozmow tekstowych...
niech no tylko sie do tego dobiora jacys psychologowie, to bedziesz mial "pokaz mi jak piszesz, a powiem ci kto cie molestowal w dziecinstwie" psychoanalize
solo (0:24)
Niewykluczone
solo (0:25)
A co ciekawe
solo (0:25)
Pozniej sie z ta dziewczyna widzialem, bo prosila o korki z matmy (zreszta wszystko zakumala od razu) i tak sobie pogadalismy o tym i o owym, miedzy innymi o naszych rozmowach na GG
solo (0:25)
Przyznalem sie jej, ze odebralem ja jako zupelnie inna osobe
solo (0:26)
Nie powiedzialem, ze jako glupia blondynke, ale dalem do zrozumienia, ze uznalem ja za wartosciowsza osobe po spotkaniu IRL
solo (0:26)
Powiedzialem o tym capsie, ze pewnie przez to tez, a ona sie wytlumaczyla
solo (0:26)
Powiedziala, ze pisze capsem, zeby nie musiec pisac wielkimi literami 'Ty', 'Ciebie', imion, etc
solo (0:26)
sic!
.mK (0:27)
nom, a ciekawe jest wlasnie to, ze probujemy zintepretowac litery tak jak rozmowe, starajac sie odebrac przeslanie emocjonalne, charakter, nastroj, itd... wszystko co normalnie odbieramy z mowy ciala, tonu, fizjognomii
solo (0:27)
Jasne, bo tu litery sa jedynym kanalem komunikacyjnym
solo (0:28)
Dlatego czasem ciezko sie jest dogadac nowemu i staremu
solo (0:28)
bo nowy olewa znaki interpunkcyjne, olewa szczegoly wypowiedzi, ktore zmieniaja znaczenie, etc
.mK (0:28)
no, my tez sporo olewamy: duze litery, polskie znaki, kropki na koncu zdania
.mK (0:28)
Wiec nawet jak ktos pisze w ten sposób, to "brzmi" to inaczej..
.mK (0:28)
ja mialem long-distance relationship z dziewczyna, z ktora bylem przedtem kilka dobrych lat
.mK (0:28)
no i jak tylko "spotykalismy sie na gadu", to za kazdym razem sie klocilismy
.mK (0:28)
w koncu zrezygnowalismy z tej formy kontaktu, bo nie moglismy sie tak dogadac
solo (0:29)
A to w ogole ciekawostki sa
solo (0:30)
Ja np. strasznie nie lubie, gdy ktos pisze kropki na koncu zdan w wypowiedziach na czatach
.mK (0:30)
nie lubisz kropek?
.mK (0:30)
to ciekawe, ja nie zwrocilem na to uwagi
solo (0:30)
Nie lubie...
solo (0:30)
a zwlaszcza, gdy ktos nie uzywa wielkich liter na poczatku zdan, a zakancza je kropka.
solo (0:30)
takie wypowiedzi sa dla mnie pozbawione pozytywnych emocji.
solo (0:30)
wrecz negatywne.
solo (0:31)
stanowcze, zimne.
solo (0:31)
Chyba wzielo mi sie z tego, ze czesto ludzie, chcac podkreslic stanowczosc swojej wypowiedzi, pisza ja wlasnie z kropka na koncu
.mK (0:31)
kurde... widzisz...
.mK (0:32)
tak wiele odbieramy z tak niewielkiej ilosci informacji. to niesamowite
.mK (0:32)
a najgorsze jest to, ze wytwarzaja sie silne "dialekty" czatowe
solo (0:32)
No i wlasnie to jest niebezpieczne, gdy sie natrafi na kogos, kto sie posluguje zupelnie innym kodem, lub w ogole szumem, z ktorego ja wylapuje cos, co nie jest w ogole zamierzone
.mK (0:33)
hackerzy mowia w jeden sposob, zwylki uzytkownicy w troche inny, nowi uzytkownicy internetu w zupelnie jeszcze inny
solo (0:33)
czesc!! skad stukasz????? co masz fotke?????
.mK (0:34)
na przyklad
.mK (0:33)
no... to naprawde ciekawy temat... ciekawe kiedy pojawia sie jakies "badania" na ten temat
solo (0:34)
Psychologow jest sporo, a pracy dla nich chyba mniej, wiec pewnie niedlugo
.mK (0:34)
i szkoda, ze te badania przeprowadzi jakis lamer, ktory sam nie czuje tego o czym pisze prace
solo (0:34)
Tez prawda...
solo (0:35)
Ale czy z takich badan cos moze wyjsc? Czy ktos moze na nich skorzystac?
solo (0:35)
(mowie o wiedzy, a nie o samych badaniach)
solo (0:36)
Wlasciwie to na pewno moze, chociazby w kwestii 'poznania wroga', albo potencjalnej ofiary
.mK (0:36)
wiesz... mysle, ze tak... gdyby byly naprawde dobrze przeprowadzone i naprawde zbadaly szeroka grupe ludzi (a nie statystycznie wazne 30), to mozna by odkryc pewne kody kulturowe ukryte pomiedzy kropkami... a to pozwoliloby zrozumiec innych i uniknac tych dziwaczych konfliktow
.mK (0:37)
jak cos takiego gdzies zobaczysz, to podeslij linka
solo (0:37)
Nie omieszkam
solo (0:38)
Juz to widze.. W szkolach za pare lat sa zajecia z czatowania, gdzie pani dzieciom wyklada, jak niektorzy mowia (pisza) i jak nalezy ich wtedy rozumiec
.mK (0:38)
nie strasz... w pierwszej klasie obok lekcji pisania dlugopisem, lekcja pisania w sieci
solo (0:38)
Albo jak nalezy sie wypowiadac, by byc zrozumianym
.mK (0:39)
ale raczej w to watpie... prawdziwych rozmow tez nas expilicite nie uczyli
solo (0:38)
Ano
solo (0:39)
A wiesz, co mnie z tych wszystkich czatow, a zwlaszcza GG, najbardziej martwi?
.mK (0:39)
nie wiem
solo (0:39)
Ze ludzie w zyciu posluguja sie slangiem GGowym
.mK (0:39)
co masz na mysli?
.mK (0:39)
ze mowia "lol" jak ich cos rozbawi?
solo (0:39)
Mam okazje czytac wiele maili wysylanych przez abonentow naszej sieci do administracji, boku, etc i widze, jak niektorzy z nich pisza...
solo (0:40)
Pomijajac ortografie, z ktora wiekszosc jest, naturalnie, na bakier
solo (0:40)
w tekscie pelno jest '??'ow, '!!'ow', czasami jakies emotikony w '<>'
solo (0:40)
Do tego panuje tendencja, ze im wiecej '?' kolo siebie, tym lepiej
solo (0:41)
Nie, akurat 'lol' nie razi mnie tak bardzo - pewnie dlatego, ze sam tegop uzywam, chociaz nie w mailach do mojego dostawcy Internetu
.mK (0:41)
na 2 roku studiow mielismy zajecia z filozofii i facet, ktory je prowadzil byl bardzo w pozadku... pewnego razu kazal nam wymyslic liste 15 slow
.mK (0:42)
jak juz mielismy 15 slow, to nas zaskoczyl i kazal napisac ktorki wierszyk, uzywajac tych wlasnie slow
.mK (0:42)
w pewnym momencie jeden koles sie zapytal, czy moze uzyc emotikonow
.mK (0:42)
po 15 minutach tlumaczenia o co chlopakowi chodzi, facet stwierdzil, ze nie... ma uzyc tylko tych slow
solo (0:43)
Hehe
.mK (0:43)
nigdy nie zapomne, zawiedzionego tonu glosu i niedowierzania tego kolesia, ktory powiedzial "no ale skoro nie moge uzywac emotikonek, to jak mam wyrazic swoje uczucia?"
solo (0:43)
Ha, no wlasnie
.mK (0:44)
facet prowadzacy zajecia posmutnial, wspomnial cos o szekspirze... ale ogolnie byl niepocieszony sytuacja
solo (0:44)
To kolejne fazy lenistwa umyslowego... Smileye spowodowaly, ze nie trzeba sie bardzo pocic, by ktos zauwazyl, ze piszemy cos humorystycznie albo sie z czegos cieszymy - wystarczy, ze sie napisze ':)'
solo (0:45)
emitikony takie w GG, czy innych czatach, to krok dalej - nie trzeba juz wymyslac kombinacji znaczkow, ktore cos moga przedstawic, jednak przy odrobinie wyobrazni
.mK (0:46)
jeden "znacznik" tego typu mi sie bardzo spodobal kiedys...
oto tresc <subliminal> koniecznie odwiedz moja strone </subliminal>

  • in personal
  • 3 min read

Moral truths vs. moral relativity

There have been times in my life when, whilst trying to argue the case for postmodern, liberal virtue of tolerance I was accused of having no 'moral backbone'. My interlocutors believed that if I have no indissoluble, universal set of moral values, then I'm merely a moral relativist, merrily changing my stance as I see fit. Today, during an inspiring lecture on Bioethics I mentally returned to that discussion with a new set of arguments...

What is an indissoluble and universal moral value? It is only that which can be called a moral truth, ergo an absolute. I have written on truth many times before and I strongly believe that any kind of truth, even if it exists is unattainable for us. This argument is especially valid for moral truths, because there is no way to prove that something is objectively good or bad. Moral truths are usually derived from religions and they vary from one religion to the next. In my opinion arguing that one must base ethical judgments on a moral truth is an invitation to making ethics arbitrary. Not only that, it is also an excuse for that arbitrariness, because each person can choose his moral truth and then argue that only his stance is valid to the exclusion of all others. This may work in a small group of people, fundamentally believing a holy text, but it is not a solution for a global society.

The other stance is that of moral relativity. I will try to argue, that paradoxically this view is less arbitrary then the former one. What does moral relativity mean? Despite what it's critics try to say it is not a careless attitude, which allows you to make one kind of judgment today and a contradictory one tomorrow. Moral relativity means that your moral judgments are relative to something. What that something might be is another question. In our democratic century it could be, for instance, the common moral stance shared by the majority of people. The majority-stance is not timeless, it may change from generation to generation; it is also not universal and may vary from one society to another; but it is a basis for moral judgment. If all your decisions were in compliance with the views of the majority, you should not be rejected, but rather democratically embraced. Ideally, this is how laws are created in democratic societies.

Ethics would not be ethics however if it only played such a descriptive role, it would then be sociology. Ethics requires a normative component, to be able to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Postmodern ethics of moral relativity, as far as I understand it, tries to employ reason and an almost scientific methodology. The ethicist tires to reconcile the complex innards of the majority-stance by creating a moral model. For instance, "Why is it okay to kill a carrot or a cow and not okay to kill humans?" One model could say that it is only okay to kill beings that do not feel. This works fine for the carrot and humans but fails for cows. Another model could claim that it is only okay to kill non-humans. This form of chauvinism (I heard it called species-ism) seems to work fine in our example, but has some other drawbacks. A third model, which was described in today's lecture talked about 'moral agents', meaning being which can control their destiny, those who are conscious subjects, not merely biological objects... This could work out fine if only we could tell how conscious a cow actually is...

Whichever model you choose, you have to test it, like in science against what the majority of people actually believe. Ideally you should find a model, which fits the majority-stance, you could then use it to resolve conflicts, which have not yet been determined by referenda, and also use it as a convincing argument to persuade the remaining, skeptical minority.

I believe that such a model, if we can develop one, would be a great asset to scientists. The public, whose ideas about science and its consequences are often surprisingly different from our own, constantly confronts us. We cannot hope to convince them to our point of view by a chauvinistic ideology, which claims that science is good per se. We will have to use moral relativity, we are after all postmodern.

  • in personal
  • 2 min read

The year of the documentary

I don't know what it is exactly, but during the past months, a large number of very interesting and influential documentary films have been released or re-released. I don't want to analyse why this is happening, I'll just make a list of films worth watching if you like the "non-fiction" category.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism A great documentary, which bases almost exclusively on footage from the FOX news channel. The film analyses how a giant propaganda machine does it's work, distorting and manipulation information for a very specific political agenda. http://www.outfoxed.org/

Uncovered: The War On Iraq This film analyses how information was manipulated in the run up to the war in Iraq. It's filled with interviews with CIA intelligence analysts, but the film makes it's point even more clearly, by showing us all the things Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al told us about the certainty of Iraqi weapon stock-piles. http://www.truthuncovered.com/

The Corporation If corporations are legally human, what kind of people are they? This is a great film, which shows us the paradoxes of corporate power. A thorough analysis of the issues at hand, with appearances by Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Michael Moore, etc. as an added incentive for watching. http://www.thecorporation.tv/

Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara Rober McNamara, secretary of defense in the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson. Called one of the most controversial politicians of the cold war, he now is able to talk about many issues of that long and dangerous conflict. He is a man, who is able to admit mistakes, and who is able to teach us a lot. Original musical score by Philip Glass creates a thought-provoking atmosphere. http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar

Fahrenheit 9/11 I have to mention also Michael Moore's newest film. http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Supersize Me What happens to someone who eats McDonald's food? Only McDonald's food... Watch this, you have been warned. http://www.supersizeme.com/

  • in personal
  • 4 min read

Why we must stay in Iraq...

The troops in Iraq, my fellow Polish citizens and others are caught up in a terrible quagmire. Under siege, under fire, under the scorching desert sun. Shot, wounded, dying every single day. Such is war. Of late, voices could be heard calling for a withdrawal of soldiers form the "Mess-o-potamia", but I don't think that would be the right thing to do now. Even though, I have been strongly opposed to this war since before it started, I will try to present here my case for why we must stay in Iraq.

It is interesting to note, that the voices calling for withdrawal are not heard that much in Poland. We have always been very fond of America and the prominent feeling here is pride that we can be a part of a great American-lead international operation. You do here those voices from the States, where people seem to be afraid of repeating the experience of Vietnam.

My personal conviction is that the war was started for wrong reasons. The reasons given by the Bush administration did not hold up and this has to be becoming evident, even to the most vehement war-supporter. The alleged links of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda turned out to be a fabrication. The imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs, which Saddam could deploy in 45 minutes, which left no time for inspectors to look for them, turned out to be based on nothing. The last of the reasons given for declaring war - the need to free Iraqis from tyranny, to show the rest of the Arabic world that an Islamic country can become a stable and free democracy, is slowly crumbling.

It is for the fear that this final reason could fail, that we need to stay. Admittedly, this last reason is not enough to start killing people. If it was enough, then the US could start waging war on any non-democratic country: China, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Libia, maybe even Russia. This has to be clearly stated and for this reason the Iraq war can and should be denounced. But if we were to withdraw from Iraq now, we would be giving the whole world a sign, that a coalition of democratic countries can attack any other country and wreck it in a meaningless adventure.

I can't even begin to fathom the consequences this would have. The situation in the Middle East is dangerous already and it would only get worse. If you think that the world is now safer from militant Islam terrorism, just consider how things have changed in Europe. If you haven't been in Europe lately reflect on this: Poland has always though itself to be an ally of America, even it's friend (the joke here today is: "I wonder if the Americans fingerprint all of their friends, or just the best ones..."). And yet, if you ask many people here who the biggest threat to peace in the world is, many will say the United States. In fact over fifty percent of Europeans view US as the world's biggest threat. A situation like this, just would not have been possible under Clinton.

So consider all this newly created anti-American sentiment in Europe (amongst friends) and imagine how the people who considered you their enemy must now feel. And just try to imagine what would happen if we now left the stirred up Iraqi bees' nest. The only way the US is safer now is due to fact that the terrorists have a place where they can "bring it on".

I sincerely hope that Iraq will soon find peace. Hopefully within 10 years or so, all of the local strongmen and their armies will be eliminated or pacified, the nation will elect a government, adopt a constitution, establish and enforce a set of laws. Hopefully a decade from now, Iraq will look like today's Afghanistan, or even more optimistically will be on it's way towards something resembling a Turkey-like secular democracy. I hope that will happen, but it will require time, patience, lives, money and strategic planning overwhelmingly more intelligent then that of the Bush administration.

If my optimistic vision comes to pass, we will be glad, because another democracy will join the ranks of the global order. Even other Arabic states will have to admit that Iraq was given a new chance, a choice and freedom. Whether this will be a good thing or not is a matter of personal belief. Many people in the Arab world do not consider a secular democracy to be the best of all political systems. If you look at Turkey, you will see many people promoting a tighter integration of religion and state. Many believe that personal liberties in the West have become overly exaggerated. They condone near-nudity in advertising, liberal attitudes toward sex (at the beach many of their women bathe in clothes!), pursuit of money above all else and other attributes of the "Great Satan".

And yet we tend to believe that democracy can be exported as a package deal. Here, have voting rights, freedom of speech and "Sex in the city". We (especially Americans) need to realize that there are countries in the world, which may not wish to import our lifestyle wholesale. There are even some countries which are doing very well without democracy... Are we going to attack China because it is a communist state? Or will we try to be their friends and look the other way when they suppress the their citizens' human rights, because they are a good trading partner? There are countries in the Middle East which need our help, but not all are ready for it. The countries which need us are not Iran and Syria, but Israel and the-future-state of Palestine.

The conclusion is that even though the war in Iraq was a huge misjudgment, we must now stay there for as long as it takes. There is no hypocrisy in saying this, just common sense.

Fahrenheit 9/11

I have just attended the Polish premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 and it compelled me to restart my blog.

What can I say about the film? That it's biased and one-sided? Yes. That it's manipulating facts? Yes? That it's deceitful? NO! Michael Moore has done his best to manipulate the information that he has chosen to put forth in a manner which communicates a specific message. He has done exactly what the television channel FOX News has done during it's war coverage, he has done the administration of George W. Bush has done before the war. He only did it in the other direction.

There is one thing which I would like to add to the film, because I feel it is important and I feel it has been left out. It concerns the vice-president Dick Chaney and of course his former employer Halliburton.

When the first George Bush was president Dick Cheney was in charge of defense and when the first war in Iraq started he decided to hire a private company to conduct some of the services the army needed, such as food, communication, logistics. Soldiers of course could be used for all those purposes, but there aren't that many soldiers to go around and a private contractor would potentially be more economical. It seemed like a good idea and the company Halliburton was hired to do the job.

When president Bush's term of office ended Dick Cheney was hired by the company he hired as it's chairman C.E.O. All's well that ends well, right?

Not quite. Eight years later, amazingly another man named George Bush was elected president of the United States. And in an even more spectacular twist another war in Iraq came about. This time around Dick Chaney was the second-in-command, the vice president. As should be expected he hired his own company to do the reconstruction and war-assistance work in Iraq. The money involved is astronomical, go ahead and Google it up.

And this time Halliburton was not just cleaning latrines and cooking. The firm was hired to do everything from oil-drilling and reconstruction to active military service. This means that armed employees of Halliburton are working alongside regular soldiers. The main difference between them is that the mercenaries are there of their own accord, they earn about three times as much and are able to leave whenever they wish.

The reasoning behind the decisions which led to this situation is well in line with the ideals of the American Republican party. They wish to eliminate 'big government' in any form and to privatize everything from health insurance to... war.

There is just one problem with this situation, because it creates a new class of people on the battlefield. People who earn their living thanks to war, people who have no reason to wish the war would end. In fact it would be much more beneficial for them if the war lasted, because otherwise they are out of an extremely lucrative job ($10'000 per month does not come easily, with no higher education required).

This is an extremely dangerous situation!!!

On a somewhat different note: Do you know the American word "cronyism"? It sounds so nice, and is derived from the word 'crony', which means a close friend and sounds almost as cute as 'pony'. It's intriguing that that is the only term used in American public discourse to describe half-legal closeness of ties between giant business and politics and politicians.

I guess plutocracy is too hard a term to grasp.

Nieograniczona wolność

Nieograniczona wolnosc niszczy sama siebie. Znaczy ona bowiem, ze czlowiek silny moze znecac sie nad slabym i ograbiac go z jego wolnosci. Dlatego wlasnie domagamy sie, by panstwo ograniczalo wolnosc do pewnych granic tak, aby wolnosc kazdego czlowieka byla chroniona przez prawo. Nikt nie powinien byc na lasce innych, wszyscy natomiast powinni miec prawo do ochrony ze strony panstwa.

Otoz uwazam, ze rozwazania te, pierwotnie zastosowane do dziedziny brutalnej sily i fizycznego zastraszania, nalezy rowniez zastosowac do dziedziny ekonomii. Nawet jezeli panstro chroni scych obywateli od przemocy fizycznej i gwaltu, moze ono zniszczyc nasze cele zaniedbujac ochrone przed naduzyciami wladzy ekonomicznej. W takim panstwie czlowiek posiadajacy wladze moze ciagle jeszcze naduzywac swej sily wobec czlowieka jej nie posiadajacego i moze odebrac mu wolnosc. W takich warunkach nieograniczona wolnosc ekonomiczna moze byc rownie samoniszczaca jak nieograniczona wolnosc fizyczna. Ci bowiem, ktorzy posiadaja nadmiar pozywienia moga bez uzycia przemocy zmusic tych, ktorzy umieraja z glodu do "dobrowolnej" sluzby. A jezeli przyjmiemy, ze panstwo ogranicza swoja dzialalnosc do likwidowania przemocy (i do ochrony wlasnosci), ekonomicznie silna mniejszosc moze w ten sposob wyzyskiwac ekonomicznie slaba wiekszosc.

Jezeli ta analiza jest sluszna, to jasne jest, jaki typ srodkow nalezy zastosowac. Musza to byc srodki polityczne - srodki podobne do tych, ktorych uzywamy przeciwko przemocy fizycznej. Musimy zbudowac instytucje spoleczne powolane do zycia przez wladze panstwowa dla ochrony ekonomicznie slabych przed ekonomicznie silnymi. Panstwo musi stac na strazy tego, by nikt nie musial godzic sie na niesprawiedliwa umowe ze strachu przed smiercia glodowa lub ruina ekonomiczna.

Znaczy to oczywiscie, ze trzeba zrezygnowac z zasady nieinterwencji, z nieograniczonego systemu ekonomicznego; jezeli chcemy zabezpieczyc wolnosc, musimy zadac zastapienia polityki nieograniczonej wolnosci ekonomicznej planowa interwencja ekonomiczna panstwa.

-- Karl R. Popper "Spoleczenstwo otwarte i jego wrogowie"

Dzien

Anonimowi chlopcy stoja pod blokiem, starajac sie wmowic sobie sile wlasnych osobowosci. Stoja na ugietych nogach, gotowi skoczyc do gardla nieobecnemu zagrozeniu. Jak mlode wyzly, jak dzikie psy nieokrzesani zyciowym doswiadczeniem.

Dziewczyna rzucila mi spojrzenie ukradkiem, katem oka. Zrobila to tak, bym zwrocil na nia uwage, ale myslal, ze ona mnie nie zauwazyla. Zgodzilem sie na ta gre, spojrzalem na nia dlugo, wyczytujac z jej postaci projekcji wlasnych marzen. Odwrocilem wzrok, teraz ona mogla mi sie przyjrzec. Wtem nadjechal autobus, autobus w moja strone, ale nie moj... jej. Nagle moment osiagnal szczyt swojej intensywnosci. Napiecie, wahanie, podniecenie, wsiasc? Nie wsiadlem i moment sie skonczyl. Jej juz nigdy nie zobacze... Siedze i czekam na kolejny moment, na kolejna osobe z ktorej zyciem przetne swoje nie zamieniajac slowa. Znow przyjezdza jej autobus, ale pusty.

Pierwszego dnia nie wydarzylo sie nic. Znow szedlem ulicami, ktorych znam tylko fasady, cieszac sie kolorowa szaroscia codziennosci. Otaczali mnie ludzie, ktorych twarze wydawaly mi sie znajomo obce. Szedlem i sluchalem strzepkow rozmow, w ktorych nie uczestniczylem, starajac sie z jednego wyrazu odczytac dusze.

Nie jadlem 24 godziny. To nie dlugo, ale dosc aby odczuc glod. Glod jest jedynym pierwotnym odczuciem, na ktore mozemy sobie jeszcze pozwolic. W glodzie jestesmy prawdziwi, jestesmy naturalni, w glodzie po raz ostatni jestesmy homo, a nie sapiens. Zadne inne odczucie nie pozostaje tak nieodwolalnie bez tabu interpretacji. W glodzie jak w ciszy lub ciemnosci mozemy szukac nieskonczonosci.

Dookola mnie siedza ludzie zmeczeni i glodni, ale oni nie akceptuja ani swojego glodu ani zmeczenia. Czekaja az autobus zatrzyma sie w ten szczegolny sposob, ktory znaczy 'Dom'. Gdy wroca zaczna jesc i odpoczywac, wypelnia swoj czas czynnosciami, ktore wydaja im sie potrzebne. Zyja w wielkiej iluzji naszych czasow, iluzji ktora pomieszala kategorie moc i musiec.

Pierwszego dnia nie wydarzylo sie nic. Kazdy dzien jest pierwszy.

the new dichotomy

I love the 21st century. All you need to know is someone's name and you can find them just like that... no more loosing touch, no more lost friends, no more loneliness. And yet, paradoxically people seem more lonely now then ever before. Real bonds between neighbors, peers, people on the bus seem gone. Maybe that's the way of the future - to have many friends from all over the world, but none from next door. There is a certain sadness to this reflection... bits and bytes of a person can't replace their sight, sound, smell, touch. The future seems sensorily deprived and the future is now.

All this said, I still love the 21st Century, I must be the 21st Century Schizoid Man ("Nothing he's got he really needs"). It is the century for men like me, virtual men, whose only strength is their brain, who can do everything at all, as long as it can be done with a computer. Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but not too much.

In this century the new human will be born. The evolutionary paradigm - 'survival of the fittest' has changed. It is now the survival of the most digitally able, the most net-empowered, the most global... survival of those who can harness the power of the digital revolution, filter information from dis-information and use it.

On the other hand it is the age of the lost, the ones who have been immersed in the overflowing melting pot of the world and who have drowned their souls in ever-fleeting whimsy of the consumer market. If things proceed like this we will have two societies in the world and the new dichotomy will be an informational one.

  • in personal
  • 3 min read

Darwin the Scandalist

"The influence of Darwin's theory can partially be explained by the fact that at its time scientific debate reached wide audiences. The main explanation however, lies in a human factor: in the uproar caused by consciousness that all people are not descendants of Adam, but rather of a monkey." - Norman Davies

That's probably very true and certainly quite incredible. Just consider the implications of the sentences above: one of the most influential theories in modern science (the most influential one according to "Scientific American") gained it's popularity because it caused a stir, a sensation, a scandal... It wasn't even that revolutionary. Most people forget that Darwin was not the author of the theory of evolution, he just added the factor of natural selection as it's driving source. Many people before him talked of progressive evolutionary change, but it was Darwin who challenged the religious fundamentalists' version of Genesis and thus became incredibly well known and forever remembered by history.

This is an interesting event in history and in philosophy of science. Many philosophers since Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" try to explain what influences and drives scientific discovery, but I'm not sure if their theories can adequately deal with the evolutionary revolution of Darwin. This is not an event that can be explained by logic, because it has to refer to the human emotions involved. It is rather a field for psychologists and sociologists.

One thing is certain: Darwin caused a revolution not because he challenged contemporary science, but because he disputed popular religious views. Religion is not scientific and religious beliefs are not subject to the same tests as scientific theories, but many young scientists know how much emotion and heated debate can be generated by (mis)applying scientific verification to religious scripture.

It's interesting to ask why that is. Why are we so fascinated by that which causes a scandal? Why do we get so excited when someone says or does something which goes against the rules? Answering this question would not only help us understand the reasons for Darwin's huge influence on the 20th century, but also let us understand things much closer: popularity of gossip magazines, why the TV news always looks like it does, etc.

Perhaps this scandal-curiosity is a fundamental human trait? Or perhaps it can be broken down and explained by something else... I am no psychologist, but it seems to me that if this field is ever to become scientific, it needs to identify the 'forces', which it deals with. In physics the forces are well defined: electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces; and all physical theories always base on them, which makes the science understandable and invalid theories easily identifiable.

I'm not trying to say that psychology and physics are comparable, but in this particular respect the former could try to follow the latter. As it is now, it seems that every psychologist school identifies one fundamental human trait as the fundamental driving force and tries to explain everything by it. Is that possible? Of course it is, everything can be explained by "need for happiness", but we have to ask ourselves whether such an over-simplified model is very useful...

Endlessly musing... Perhaps this scandal-curiosity is a fundamental human trait? Or perhaps it can be broken down and explained by something else... I am no psychologist, but it seems to me that if this field is ever to become scientific, it needs to identify the 'forces', which it deals with. In physics the forces are well defined: electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces; and all physical theories always base on them, which makes the science understandable and invalid theories easily identifiable.

I'm not trying to say that psychology and physics are comparable, but in this particular respect the former could try to follow the latter. As it is now, it seems that every psychologist school identifies one fundamental human trait as the fundamental driving force and tries to explain everything by it. Is that possible? Of course it is, everything can be explained by "need for happiness", but we have to ask ourselves whether such an over-simplified model is very useful...

Endlessly musing...

  • in personal
  • 4 min read

May the games begin

This week marks the official start of the presidential election campaign in America. On Tuesday two important events took place, the first was a meeting of the Democratic Party in Iowa which held a primary election between the candidates, the second was president Bush's yearly State of the Union address to the nation. For whatever else this election may bring, it promises an exciting and important campaign.

The State of the Union Address is a very improtant media event in the United States. It gives the president a televised hour, during which he can talk about any issues he deems important. This year's speech was especially important, because it prepares the stage for the upcoming election campaign. One of the biggest television networks in America (ABC) devoted two hours of it's prime time to broadcasting the presiden's speach in a program called "The State of the Union Address and the Democratic Response".

The speach was prepared months in advance and the President was said to have spent weeks practicing his delivery. As usual with this president, it turned out to be quite a show.

With the economy in recession and the budget showing the largest deficit in history (See figure), the president had no choice, but to stand firmly on issues which made him. He spoke with confidence and zeal about the war he won and how it was the right thing to do.

Speaking in the American House of Congress, where the majority is held my his own party, Bush could count on a warm welcome. And warm it was. His speech was punctuated by exalted phrases such as "America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them?", and each one was awarded by a standing ovation from the representatives. I have a feeling that the hour long speech, would be only half as long if these cheers were ommited.

The president's prime focus was on War. War against Iraq, war against Afghanistan, war against Terror. In his speech he made clear the divisions which formed in the American political scene during his presidency. He said: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." He didn't declare a new war, but defended the one in Iraq at great lengths. The only thing, which remains unclear is the reason for the war. The key issue of weapons of mass destruction, has turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". He also remained confident about his decision to take USA to war virtually alone and he added that "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

In the speech however, Bush had a tendency to contradict himself. He said, that it is good, that America went to war on it's own, and then read out a list of allies "Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador" (all great military powers, as you can see). He said that the world is safer after 3 years of his presidency, but kept remainding the constant threats of terrorism.

The reactions to the presidents speech can be found in very many magazines online (Salon, Washington Post, Toronto Star). It is interesting to observe how differrent the opinions are, but there is a theme they share. The president seemed overconfident, while the issues in his speech were not very strong. Even the usually supportive Washington Post, called the president "cocky". It seems that the speech made Bush look like he's politically weakened and is trying to regain some of his popularity at the start of the election year. That didn't really work however, and his popularity ratings taken immediatelly after the speech were only 45% (Clinton's State of the Union address gave him 52% in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal).

The president also made an unfortunate issue of "sanctity of marrige". He said that the institution of marrige as the union between a woman and a man should be protected. That will of course turn the gay community against him, while it doesn't really satisfy his convervative voter-base, because they would like to see all types oh homosexual unions deligalized...

Overall, it was en extremely interesting speach, but it did't really give Bush what his campaing would need: a good start.

The other important event that took place this week was the primary elections of the Democratic Party presidential candidates in Iowa. This event turned out to be quite a surprise, because one of the main front-runners Howard Dean came in only third with 17% of the votes. This was a shock for many (me included), because his overall ratings usually placed him first or second.

I will not weep for Dean if he is replaced by another strong candidate. Maybe Kerry will be that candidate... One thing is certain, Howard Dean did America a huge favor. It was him who first openly opposed Bush's policies on such issues as the war, medical care, etc. It is thanks to him that people started to consider alternatives, and stopped calling everyone who disagreed unpatriotic. I'm looking forward to the results of the next primaries in New Hamshire.

For whatever else this year may bring it will surely give as an exciting and important election campaign in the US of A.