Monday, May 4

Once confined to fantasy and science fiction, time travel is now simply an engineering problem. ~ MICHIO KAKU, Wired Magazine, Aug. 2003

lazy entry today. though i find myself boastful i have remembered to update at all. such low standards!

If we could travel into the past, it's mind-boggling what would be possible. For one thing, history would become an experimental science, which it certainly isn't today. The possible insights into our own past and nature and origins would be dazzling. For another, we would be facing the deep paradoxes of interfering with the scheme of causality that has led to our own time and ourselves. I have no idea whether it's possible, but it's certainly worth exploring.

CARL SAGAN, NOVA interview, Oct. 12, 1999

the rest is all just me pontificating as usual. is also copy/pasted, because my facebook message conversations are like this by nature.

****

i assume that Time is the fourth dimension, and subscribe to the block theory that it's like space; we cannot be in more than one area of the dimension at once, and therefore cannot know both past and future. since we're in the middle of the tesseract though, instead of masters of it, as we are the third dimension, we can't see beyond the trees we've past and the ones we're currently staring at.

from that standpoint, time is a measurement not of the volume an object takes up, but the distance between the initial displacement of empty space and the replacement of it (as far as we can understand it, anyway). would manipulating the past then be like affecting an object's mass or girth: impossible (without understanding how to manipulate quantum mechanics)? we instead manipulate our recollection of time, via apologies and histories, much as we blur our account of space with guesstimates and analogies.

that's just talking about the actual possibility, though, not the potentiality.

i suppose the point of time travel (and anything into which effort is put) is to ensure that something of ourselves gets left behind, becomes irrevocably entangled with the universe as is, and therefore finds immortality. and for those who can't actually claim eternity through Achievement or Attachment (which leads into my presumably professional assumptions about human nature + moral psychology, as opposed to this topic, so i'll not detail that) time travel would just be an extension of faking it.

therefore, to answer your question, a perfect paragraph, short though it may be, is technically all we ever strive for. what do you expect to be written in your eulogy, a character testimony which only a relative few will ever hear, as opposed to your obituary, which seeks to notify complete strangers in few words and with little effort, that you have died, and perhaps they might give a shit (forgive morbidity) as opposed yet again to encyclopedic entries, which would detail your relevance in terms of objects/thoughts/etc that you have gifted to the general populace.

my questions are thus: for which reasons would we attempt time travel? to cement our place in the global history, or in the memories of those we have loved? and if we could all access time travel, would we learn to distrust even our own experiences in the face of the outside world? how would we relate to one another if everything was in flux? would we be bolder, knowing that we could simply buy a do-over? or would we cradle more closely our moments with one another, and a lover's promise become "i would never relive this day"?

Friday, April 24

soon, robotic beings [or zombies] will rule the world, and none of this'll matter

today's anthropology discussion has my mind attempting to secure the gold medal.

roll your eyes and navigate away from this page if you can't sit through three paragraphs of this before i get to the topic at hand, but i just want to interrupt myself to interject that i think it's rational enough to believe in God and evolution. few people would disagree that evolution is the right course of scientific thought, but many have gotten it into their heads that once someone adds God to any equation, the person who did so expects everyone else to stop working with numbers and watch a bunny pop out from the other side of the equal sign.

one believing in God does not change what happens in the equation, only how the equation itself came to be. as no one really knows what inspired the Big Bang, God is as viable a source as 'one day the not!universe got really really bored...'.

i suppose the real dilemma comes in trying to figure out what to do about studying the origins of the universe if they did actually happen to be caused as opposed to random; some cosmologists might find themselves unable to continue working on their projects if even one answer was supernatural.

i suppose there's always evolution to fight about, which is the track i intend to switch to after this horrific excuse for a transition sentence is out of the way.

****

someone says "evolution" and i think of Darwin (and for some reason that puts me in mind of the Dewey Decimal system) and primates and the ol' Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon debate. i think of the only way we'll ever see it in action; through adaptation. i consider global warming and how which species will weather the storm (which is perhaps two puns for the price of one!) ahead.

what if it happens and all of our predictions turn out incredibly wrong? we wonder about our species and how it will evolve, but what if it develops all of these different traits - more alleles, a third strand of RNA - and eventually Homo sapiens sapiens splits into other subspecies? will it be, instead of environmental factors, due to a long line of the same sociological choices, like vegans propagating with vegans and producing children who eventually stop having canine teeth? or who's teeth and digestive systems develop into something more herbavoric than what we have now?

****

it's not just the future that's murky; the past is all in a fog as well. there are all sorts of wild theories about how modern-day humans got so modern (dandruff shampoo and the invention of the banana daquiri), but even the prevailing theory is mired in debate.

personally i think what happened was the RAO theory, except i would account for the differences in specific traits via a moderate level of interbreeding with the Neanderthals. i don't think there was enough mixing of subspecies to go the Multiregional route, however, because there just aren't enough people walking around with clearly Neanderthal traits.

i mean to say, the structure of modern-day human bodies is anatomically Cro-Magnon. if there was a significant amount of interbreeding - so much that a new species emerged in the wake of the other two - there would be evidence of it in our general population, not just in specific areas. unless i am much mistaken about the theory, the MRE posites that Neanderthals (and perhaps H. erectus?) mingled with the Cro-Magnons all over the globe, and that we have slightly varied traits (what traits, i'm never quite sure, which may be my problem) because of it. Were two different subspecies with subtle but noticable differences in cranium, shoulders, pelvis, leg proportions, etc to interbreed, i would expect their resulting children to have more than little variances; i would expect some people to have a longer skull and others to have a shorter one. i would expect variance to be everywhere, including bones, and therefore obvious in bone structure. i would expect this to be reflected in today's population.

****

evolution - we know it's about natural selection and the phrase "survival of the fittest" and the consequences of mutation. we know it's our only response to an ever-changing world, and that all evolution does for us is help us catch up, not keep up. we know it's involved with genetic drift and we can trace the matrilinial heritage of a species back to its ancestral representative millions of years ago, and plot a timeline of the past's changes.

we don't know how to plot the future. we don't know what sparks a new species from an old one, or where the biological lines blur between two already existing ones.

what is evolution, really? will we ever get the chance to find out - before it happens to us?

Wednesday, March 18

the child is grown, the dream is gone

i felt the need to jot down the following observations i and a conversational partner made today, but i am too lazy to actually restructure the comments we said into paragraph format. therefore, you, Nonexistent Reader, shall simply have to muddle through the discourse.

Laskuraska:
Remember when cartoons used to have jokes in them that were meant for adults?
I miss that
New cartoons don't usually have them
but the older ones did, and watching them as an adult is just as fun

Zen:
well i love Butch Hartman cartoons
like Danny Phantom
Fairly Oddparents
they've got that thing where the audience isn't just kids but teens and adults too
not as cracktastic and glorious as Freakazoid or The Animaniacs, but they're the classics, so, you know.

Laskuraska:
yeah
Animaniacs was fucking great
I miss that show too
the thing is though- I don't want them to try to make new ones.
They'd ruin it ;-;

Zen:
indeed
the era has passed
it's like getting ska bands back into pop culture

Laskuraska:
yeah

Zen:
you can't. the need for them in america is gone
you can fuse some of the reggae sound, but the personality of america has changed

Laskuraska:
the question is what do we need right now, really. We're not getting it or we'd be less violent anf ig'nant.

Zen:
grown up.
indeed

Laskuraska:
We need to find out what we need and take it.
Maybe we need a big bowl of post-post rock
lol
whatever it is we need, it
's probably not here yet.
Someone needs to make it.

Zen:
hahah
we're just getting into post-postmodernism
give us time

Laskuraska:
hahaha
Yes. We're not ready for that many post-posts.
And see here is my issue with calling stuff "modern" or "post-___".
Now modern means like 60 years ago, and we're post-post-modern, And that's rediculous.
I mean, modern is supposed to be a word that refers to the state of the world right now, in'nit? As in "in modern times we use hummers instead of cars usually."
"- because we is ig'nant"

Zen:
pretty much yes
it was also supposed to be about the mindset though
instead of reminiscing about "the good ol' days" it was about moving forward
1950s was the supposedly Golden Era Of American Advancement
everything was supposed to shape up and we'd defeated the economy and hitler and we were heading to the stars
it was all go go go
until we realized some of us were falling behind
and some of us were chained to the floor
and still more of us said 'fuck you stars' and went off slamming their doors, playing loud music and practicing their Pretentious Twat Smirk in the mirror while salivating over "art" from marcel duchamp

Laskuraska: hahaha yes.
A few of us tried to build elevators
but they were like "hey no blacks and women allowed on my elevator" and then the other white guys pissed on the engine and broke the elevators because that's what you get for being a giant dick.
And the Asians were like "Hey can we not live in concentration camps anymore? The war's been over for like ten years"
and the white guys who peed on the elevators were like "Ok guys come on out"

Zen: precisely
you stole that from a history textbook.

i wonder what our descendants will say about post-postmodernism, once society has grown enough to shed the cultures of this era and don the idiosyncrasies of the next.

Wednesday, February 25

my fair lady

once, i laid down the bill for some customers, discretely as any dutiful waitress, and by some chance glanced down at my fingers, still gripping the corner of the bill holder. one of the men already had a hovering hand awaiting my self-removal from the tableside, and i recall thinking about the image in my mind of a thick hand on a bill vs. a smaller, softer one with chipped polish on the fingers instead of hairy knuckles. the juxtaposition seemed strange to me, like my hand shouldn't have been on it. it took me a while to realize why, but in all my time as a waitress, i have only rarely seen a woman pay for the food when her company also included at least one grown man.

my own father fits the same profile, so i suppose my socialization is to blame for why the reversal of roles would stand out to me. i don't assume something so daft  as that a female breadwinner (or bread-payer-for, at any rate) would destabilize society, but it would certainly break a mold i still have yet to see reshaped.

****

as a child, rarely ever did i dream of marriage. 

actually, that's not true. i never imagined my wedding, which is what one hears about little girls, isn't it? a mother walking in on her daughter, all overdolled in makeup until she resembles more a clown than a lady, stumbling around in too-big heels and a trailing dress, and she doesn't frown at the hurricane that's blown through the room, but coos because her little girl has been properly socialized, and in the end that's the only job of a parent. 

but such a comment is for another post.

i wonder how many girls thought about marriage, as opposed to the ornate quality of their wedding decorations. how many pondered who would raise the children; whose job would be the force behind any migration of familial location; who would do the driving and the paying and the speaking to members of society outside the family unit. because that's as much a matrix of choices in marriage as is picking apart one another's guest list when planning a wedding.

all this post-postmodern world has bequeathed to its generations is the cliquifying of individuality, the recognition of even the most obviously androgynous traits (and those who insist on viewing them as such) to the LGBT community's claims department, and the polarization of all behavior any woman exhibits (or inhibits) in light of the 'type' of woman it makes her. to someone with only two decades marked on the bingo scoresheet of life experiences, even the willingness to wear an engagement ring, as opposed to the demand that her fiance wear one as well, is some Epic Revelation Regarding Her Opinions Of Her Ancestors' Fight For Her Right To Be Masculine. 

not-so-secretly, all i want to be is me, and to hell with gender roles and societal expectations, but even i can squint through my cloud of idealism well enough to recognize reality right before it boxes my ears. history is a tale spun by the victors, and if we aren't always fighting then the story isn't deemed interesting enough to tell, so sometimes we just make it up. 

it's because we cannot let anything exist without letting everyone dig a fingernail into it that my marriage - assuming i ever actually meet someone i could imagining myself willing to spend a lifetime With Me as opposed to just around me, like my dearest and most prized friends - would be niggled at and prodded with and stipulated upon before i even agreed to undertaking it. 

which, ok: writing the fine print before signing to the contract is always a wise idea, but i wonder just how many more conditions are set nowadays than in ye oldedayes, because so many women are under the assumption that if they list a quota on how many hours a week their husbands must allow them outside working and shopping, that they will be doing the foremothers of feminism proud. in the end, though, they're still defining themselves by their relation to men; drinking vodka martinis instead of beers on a raucous night out because they hold themselves at a higher class than men; wearing high heels and a slinky dress to work because they happen to have bodies that are less aesthetically awkward than men; hiring someone else to raise/watch/interact with the children because they refuse to be held down by domestic responsibilities any more than their masculine counterparts.

perhaps i am putting more thought into this than required (wouldn't be the first time i stuck philosophy in where it wasn't recommended), but i imagine the utmost a woman can do for marriage, or feminism, or for anti-discrimination movements anywhere, is to refine her self-concept (and her intentions, and certainly her values) internally. 

****

if i marry, it won't be because that's 'what you do' or because i intend to listen to any biological clock, or because i am secretly waiting for the one person in all of creation who, by his battered lonesome, can finish my puzzle better than the jagged pieces i collect from everyone else who has ever influenced me. 

if i marry, i won't change my name, and i won't ask my fiance to change his - not as some vehement feminist message about how i am tied but not bound, but simply because i've actively struggled against letting other people drape names on me like mantling.
unless it was a clearly superior last name, that is. then i would change it just to introduce myself and hear the syllables roll around in my mouth.

if i marry, i won't quit my job to raise children, and i won't pawn them off on a daycare center. mostly because i don't really want children (i rather expect to be an atrociously-tempered, inconsistent, impertinent mother, and why, if i could avoid it, would i burden anyone with whatever psychological scarring that would cause, thereby creating a vicious serial killer?). 
if i do end up reproducing, my husband can take off time or work from home and rear them, because he would be the one who'd begged for them in the first place.

if i marry, i won't keep an immaculate house. i wouldn't even have a house, since i much prefer more cramped dwellings like inner-city apartments (i can sacrifice living in a tenement, though). i would wash dishes if what i needed at the moment was unclean. i would sweep/vaccuum if i couldn't walk barefoot across a floor without wincing at the sensation of dirt squishing itself between my toes. i usually don't ever really clean until i get disgusted or i find myself in an obsessive-compulsive fit of tidiness. instead of worrying about what a 'bad' wife that might make me, i just chalk it up to artistic nature and move on.

if i marry, i won't have dinner waiting on the table precisely at mealtimes. mostly because i don't have a set meal time, i just eat when i am hungry, but also because if anyone's going to be enforcing a family dinner, it's whomever happens to be the better cook.

if i marry, i will continue to have friends my husband doesn't share, and probably a few he hates. as i imagine he will. i never understood couples whose lives suddenly revolve around one another, who think love is spending nearly every waking second together. nor can i understand why they are so shocked that the spark dies after being throttled for twenty years.

...and so many other stipulations, but after a while that just becomes another random list, and not something that matters to this post.

Tuesday, January 27

so, yeah, I felt so scared

why, i wonder, are our lives so defined by cycles?

wake, shower, eat, brush teeth, go [to work, to school, to ever-present errands], return, eat, vegge out, sleep, wake...repeat.
repeat.
repeat.

glance, see, dilate pupils, smile, prowl, approach, negotiate, take, have, lose/break, cry, scowl, leave, glance...repeat.
repeat.
repeat.

breathe, cry, eat/sleep/shit, discover, laugh, love, grow, bleed, break, heal, learn, [live], migrate, procreate [, teach, settle, fade, wither, decompose]...repeat.
repeat.
repeat.

all we can hope for is that we are not hamsters in wheels; fixed.
roll down every hill, tumble blindly past each valley - enforce a cycle
move the subject forward.

Saturday, January 17

get on with the fascination [each another's audience]

i wrote the following at 5am last week. the editing of my rough draft was a harrowing process, involving many a threat to just trash the whole thing and drop out of college. to forget i that i ever had such aspirations.
are all writers this self-loathing?
also: the title is a line from an Arctic Monkeys song.

****

it's the red wine this time, but that is no excuse

you're going to tell Angie, because how could you not? Angie has always been privy to your blackest secrets (not your deepest, necessarily, but certainly your darkest) because Angie is the only person you know who could understand them, implicitly.

Angie used to fuck around. with men, with women, with random streetpeople she'd found in bars. with you, a few times, in the beginning. with acid-laced cigarettes, with vodka and anti-depressants; with rusted chains and never-dulled knives; she fucked around with everything she could mix and match. now she's on the up-and-up, with a brood of fresh-faced children and a handsome man with his hand on her lower back, steering her away from her demons.

you aren't so lucky.

or perhaps that's not fair; can one really blame luck for events that unfold because of one's own decisions, hastily-made as they might be? of course not. in the end, it's not luck - good or bad - that has you pressed between him and the creaking door of his flat, the shadows not distorting either of your faces enough for you to pretend confusion. you know exactly whose nimble fingers are rubbing circles into your spine. further: you know exactly whose aren't.

thinking of Andrew is probably not the best way to lose oneself in emotion, because it's David's fingers that entertwine with yours, David's skin getting grazed by silver and diamond. in an instant, the only thing flooding you is shame. you're flushing so fluorescently your mind supplies a bizarre image of yourself at this moment, glowing a vibrant red only observed by thermal vision. you imagine also, however, that David can see it (surely he must be able to feel it? you're so hot. you're burning with it - a twisted, post-modern interpretation of the scarlet letter, you suppose, but it's your brain, so you'll just chalk it up to something peculiar and repressed, and move on).

and perhaps he really can see it (you wouldn't put it past David to harbor superpowers, not after the way he'd sunk into your heart, even mere moments after you'd met him) because he's pulling away, palms cupping your neck, thumb tracing your jawline, and his hands are so cold you think it might be enough for you to just fling yourself on him, push out every last tendril of fever, until you've stopped shaking and can finally rest.

but the moment is over, perhaps (it never is. wasn't over the second after the second you met him, isn't over two years later, won't be over in twenty years' time) and he whispers your name with an entirely different timber than the one he'd used a minute ago. the black pools of his eyes have contracted, and you see a nightmare version of yourself - puffy-eyed and faintly squarish all around, (and oh God is that how he knew!? did he feel you bloating, gaining, the curse of your shattered self-control in times of panic?) - reflected in his irises.

he whispers your name again, and how is it that you don't even much mind how, tangled as you are, you can smell the merlot that accentuates every syllable rolling off of his tongue? there's something tranquilizing about his scent that you can never seem to bottle. you've tried, of course; mumbling half-remembered jokes he's made like mantras, grasping for anything to wield against that never-ending penchant for self-destruction that used to surface mostly when you were out with Angie. you suppose there's some dark irony in the fact that she got better after a few weeks of inpatient rehabilitation, and you just got worse.

Angie can't be your lifeline anymore. even if the anchor she'd provided had only tied you to a life of coke, larceny, and overdue rent, she'd been something to cling to when nothing else quite took the edge off. Andrew was supposed to be her healthy replacement. the solid food to which a child progresses in the natural order of things. what he has become is...what has he become? he's been supportive in all the right places, and repremmanding in every proper situation. he has entirely lived up to expectations. once again it's you that misses the mark.

"Mara!" David again summons your attention, and your obediant neck swings up to re-meet that nightmare version of yourself. you never could deny him more than twice. when you blink him into focus, the room is spinning. you really shouldn't have had that wine with dinner; mere affectionate friend or not, you've forever had trouble keeping the world behind him from sneaking away even without added distractions.

he lets leave a hand from its post holding up your jawline to brush your bangs from your eyelashes, and you start at the ice of his touch. you shiver, hoping the violence of the motion will shake free your fidelity from its cobweb cell.

you bat his hands away, an half-hearted attempt to push him the rest of the way off of you, and twist the knob, to place wood and stairs and miles of concrete between him and yourself.

in the end, you forget everything but your quest to catalog the various shades of his freckles.

Thursday, January 1

the over-long buildup to behavioural modification

one : i have a livejournal (please don't mock me) which i use embarrassingly often. i don't actually ever post or comment in any of the various communities i have joined. i can sit all day reading from communities where those who post do so to make note of some event that has happened, some emotion they needed to remember, some thought they needed to call attention to, because of its importance. because, for a second, it defined them. their reactions to such moments are the epitome of humanity, and i love to immerse myself in it, and write about every tangent these confessions lead me down. {1}
but i never reveal what i think, even in commmunities about politics, or art, or music. among those who offer up their hearts, i lurk, on the brink of social interaction. previously, i have dared not inch a toe forward. now, i am determined to leap.

two : i must renew my commitment to Buddhism, and resolidify my trust in the God who's company i seek with it. i have toiled away for eons, handmolding my Zen into perfect rigidity. now i must build upon the foundations that i have left for cobwebs, before any crumbling of those stones which buffer me from all manner of howling winds.

three : i pledge to invest myself in my own academia. for too long have i let myself just topple from platform to platform, only picking myself up from the ground long enough to toddle straight off to lower heights. if i ever indend to accomplish anything, much less make of myself value via Achievement, i need to start climbing.

four : i will write more. i cannot grow into greatness if all i have to show for myself are fleeting fancies of faerietales and other flashes of fiction. {4} i cannot allow myself to put anything off, but i must improve myself in every fashion - particularly because i assume this mantle of Writer, and Philosopher, and Artist. i can't think of a single definition for any of them which includes a pervasive and ever-present slothfulness.

five : i shall not merely listen; i shall hear.


{1} and that is what i love about the Internet.
i can be completely alone, in a city where i know not a soul, and log on and immediately feel at home. at ease. surrounded, by the like-minded, by individuals so far outside my normal sphere of influence i would never be able to encounter (much less learn from) otherwise.
{4} i fear i have already damaged my Writer Muscle; caused it to atrophy beyond any level where i can retain full use of it again. further, i often read back on slop i've written and doubt i have ever even known such a thing.