we need a new pronoun

i spend too much time thinking of personhood, consciousness, agency, and identity. when writing about agency, i like to speak of agents independent of their particular identities. this allows for a conception of agency generalizable to anything that acts rather than confining agency to persons or living things. the problem with this is that we have no pronoun to represent the general category that agency encompasses.

the man reacts to his environment

the dog reacts to its environment

the agent reacts to ___ environment

what word should fill the blank?

if I put the word "his" in the blank, then our template would prevent us from speaking of any gender-neutral agents. using the word "its" in the blank creates a template that doesn't acknowledge the consciousness behind a great deal of agency.

If there is consciousness without gender, then we need a new pronoun. There may not yet be the need for the pronoun because of a lack of apparent gender-free persons, but as computer sentience evolves, it will be silly to continue to arbitrarily assign gender to bots. We should just go ahead and realize that all of this nonsense "he/she" and "his/hers" has been a warning that we need to step back and create a concise pronoun label to encompass the identity of any conscious agent.

that is all.

as things are. things will be.

sitting in the seat of shame
knowing there's no one to blame
happiness is out of reach
but in our hearts it does beseech
why have things become this way
is this the way that they must stay
mysteries excite our selves
souls and bodies nymphs and elves
hearts and brains this isn't real
then why is it we always feel
we are we and they are us
no reason to make a fuss
love is tender love is mild
love is nothing without child
just because we want to be
something that the others see
something that makes me be me
proves that we can not be free
but why hold freedom as a goal
a way to please the heartless soul
freedom without love is fake
living just for your own sake
free from who or what she asks
free from you. menial tasks
freedom from the things that are
freedom from house job and car
freedom can never exist
this is a point that can't be missed
but who needs freedom antway
what do we call freedom today
something that freedom is not
something false missing the spot
the people will always hold
responsibilities untold
limiting free choice and will
guiding people to fulfill
purpose and truth until
all of existence becomes still
but this is not the way of good
it's not the direction of should
we must do what we must feel
we must be nothing but real
people are more than they do
people must do what is true
in doing that through and through
i am me and you are you

light

in the dark without a spark
the sharks will stalk prey in the park
dogs and trees silently bark
as man tries to make his mark
hark, we hear the man remark,
"it must be real, call it a quark"
these silly concepts are the spark
that release him from stifled stark
they are the words that bring the light
the light that makes all the things bright
the bright light providing man his sight
and with this sight, he sees all's all alright
but both in night and in the light
we can not know just what is right
there's always light that allows fright
light that lets us see the night
see the world as a we might
see our being as a fight
unsure of how light might smite
destruction as an act of spite
light will be just as it will
with no intent to thrill or kill
but certainly not sitting still
it is as it is meant to be
while we think that we can be free
the light is all that lets us see
it's all that shapes what we call we

flushing waste and wasting flushes

so i'm thinking about words again.

I've been in Richmond Hall writing a paper for the past couple of hours. I just made my second trip to the bathroom - didn't wash my hands either time..totally badass. sucks for whoever will be using this keyboard next.

As I approached the door to the bathroom, I could hear water running. First I was surprised at my thought that somebody may be in there, but once I entered, I realized that that really the flush lever was stuck from my previous visit to the urination station. I immediately unstuck it so the water would stop running.

I thought to myself, "what a waste."

why was it a waste?   Because clean water was flowing somewhere only dirty water should go. We missed out on the opportunity to use clean water. The clean water was wasted.

It would not have been wasted had it been dirty water. When we flush normally, it does not seem like a real waste of water (unless it's a really inefficient toilet or something).

Sooo...when the flush contains human waste, we would not say that the flush was a waste of water.

when the flush contains no waste, it is itself a waste.

when what is flushed is waste, the flush is not wasted.

circles.

it's friday night. i should be the only thing getting wasted.

essentially

how to get at essence..

words have their meaning respective of their uses. the essential meaning behind a word is impossible to ascertain outside of culture. so the essence of a word is completely relative of the circumstance of its use. only the user can understand the essence being expressed, but doesn't understand the full essence behind its use because in communication there is the output and the input. the speaker can only know what's going on with the word on his side of speech. he can only guess how the listener will understand the word. so with words..essence can never be known by an individual.

but can distinct objects be understood essentially?

the essence of a specific dog is different than the essence of the concept of dog. the word dog represents the overall concept of all things in the category of dog - this is the essence described above as being relative to cultural use of the word. but my dog..rex..there's an essence to his being. i can't get at the full essence but I know that there is essential truth to his existence. the only essence i can realize is in my mind with respect to my subjective experiences of his being. nonetheless, outside of human experience, there should be some complete understanding of my dog's being. certainly not solely in Rex's mind..he can hardly form concepts.

are there any concepts that represent things completely essentially? is there a mind that understands all that is as it is?

this is god. this is the goodness that is. essence is goodness and clarity is known only by the whole of existence. the closer we come to understanding existence in essence, the closer we come to knowing goodness and the more suited we are to be good and act as best we can.

acquiring truth and opening the mind to understand multiple viewpoints can prove difficult. every one has only ever known the world from the view of the self..grasping reality from the ultimate perspective of all being requires taking a step back and forgetting about putting the self at the center. we are a part of something bigger and it's important we know our place.

everything has an essence and it can only be understood in its relation to the essence of all other things. to understand the essence of one requires an understanding of the essence of all. we can never attain perfect essential knowledge, but we can realize that there's always more to essence than what meets the eye and that realization can let us always strive to build a more substantial base of knowledge on the essence of reality

boats driftwood and the sea of love

we're all connected through the waters of love. all relationships are governed by our love for each other. this is not only interpersonal, but extends throughout all of existence. i love animals. i love trees. i love nature. i share that love with others and in this, we are related.

we all float in this sea of love - this sea of life - this sea of existence - being drawn to those things that attract us..to those things that harness our hearts and our minds.

we all are born to families so none of us is ever alone. we may feel like driftwood at times, but its always good to remember we never leave the boat on which we were born or the boat in which we were raised. each of us can be thought of as wood and love as the nails that bind us into a substantial floating vessel that can be guided and directed in the vast sea of existence for the good of the boat unit.

what makes this weird is when multiple boats are bound. each boat desires to head in similar yet different directions. when boats are not interested in becoming one, but desire to remain individual. those binding the boats are torn. which direction is best. which provides the most safety and structure.

our love often tears us from the boat in which we are most secure and forces us to embark on our own or with another in hopes of forming a new boat. we must be delicate in breaking the loving ties binding us to the boats that offer security because once the ropes of love are too frayed, it becomes difficult to retie he loving knots that bind.

when a storm comes, we all want to be on the boat most equipped to handle the trouble. i guess its best to set sail in good weather and steer the boat around the storms. sometimes that can't be guaranteed though and nobody wants to be the driftwood getting tossed around and torn apart by the harshness of nature.

basically, we must choose our boats wisely and understand that love is what guides all interaction. we shouldn't take advantage of the love offered, but appreciate it and use it for the good of the boat being bound by it. its necessary to keep in mind the types of love binding the self to other boats and to ensure that your actions are not going to harm your ability to remain on the boats that are important to you. - say you're on a frienship boat with a bunch of pals..a girlfriend is on this boat, tightly bound to one of your friends. you should not make advances on the girlfriend unless you are willing to give up your spot on the boat of friends or at least give up your loving bond with the friend with the girlfriend.

it's important to respect the relationships you establish and to be honest with your desires and actions. if you aren't, you can easily be left as a lonely piece of driftwood being tossed around by the harshness.

marriage = unification

Isn't marriage just the unification of a man and a woman in loving bond?

i think about love a lot. there are so many degrees of love..but to me, romantic love is an important aspect of love since it traditionally represents the attractive force that can eventually bond two sets of human genes to produce offspring. Once in love, a man and a woman can marry and commit to each other and to the common good of their relationship.

Gay marriage and the entire concept of homosexual romantic love has always been foreign to me. I can't understand the underlying forces behind romantic attraction to one you can't reproduce with. I used to be against the idea of gay marriage because it does alter the common conception of marriage and romantic love. Now I have accepted that as culture changes so does the meaning behind words. But this also allows that while religious cultures remain relatively static, they can maintain the meaning behind their terms and not recognize same sex marriages. while this can be the case, as a whole, our culture is changing and the powers governing legislature and society shouldn't be influenced by the cultural standards set by religious institutions, but should rather support its people - offering protection and the ability to pursue happiness respective of the rights of others. this means that if two people love each other enough for the commitment that marriage entails, then they should have the right to make that commitment and reap its benefits.

The fact that the concept of marriage has always been defined in a religious context makes me uneasy about calling the committed relationship a marriage, but i know it shouldn't feel that way. All of the benefits and unity should be allowed. A marriage in a synagogue results in the same type of relationship as a marriage in a chapel - this should hold for a marriage in a courthouse. One problem with this idea is that a key tenet of marriage is that the united couple then has the backing of the church and commits to more than just each other, but to an overall ideal. Marriages are becoming more and more flaky and they will continue to as the concept loses its religious connotation unless people find something another common purpose to relate on in forming the terms of their marriage.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual attraction. Each of us expresses homosexual love, but only a minority experience homosexual romantic love and attraction. All people deserve the same rights to happiness. There is no reason to inhibit that happiness because of a persons sexual tendencies (unless their like a pedo or necro or something).

So i guess the answer to my question is, "no..not anymore"

time

i see you

you see me

what you see is what will be

your view on my identity

one encounter leaves a mark

it could even light a spark

to learn a face

a simple task

but to learn a name

and make it last

to know someone

their personhood

represented by a word

what's a name do

on this earth

in the mind it represents

a being's being

not their worth

just what it has been

ever since birth

or since creation

coming to be

names hold the place

of concepts formed

experientally

over time we learn to know

not things in essence

but things indeed

their impact on our sensory

perceptual facilities

only knowing what we see

what we feel and what we be

what we hear and what we fear

time allows concepts to form

given a name we know a storm

katrina first was impending

days later the storm ended

but weeks and months and even years

passed with many many tears

and now katrina represents

more than just the coming storm

concepts form and concepts change

in a day a name can range

meaning can become quite strange

what is time to a mind

never able to rewind

the force that lies behind

all we know of any kind

containers

in my room once again..messiness everywhere. i just reached down to pick up a water bottle and two little sunnyd bottles. then i wondered. holding the bottles, i asked spiro, "how many containers do you think are in this room?"

there were boxes, bottles, cans, and bags popping up everywhere i looked. i said, "250?"

he stared blankly at me.
"600?" i followed up.

again..blank stare
"hmm..like 450? i have no idea what the best guess would be" - my last bait for response

gave it a few seconds and spiro said, "well what are containers? i mean my books contain pages."

perfectttt!

so what counts as a container?
depends on your definition..

could be anything that participates in the act of containing..and to contain is to either "have or hold within" or consist of/be made up of. this pretty much labels all of existence as containers of one thing or other. maybe we should turn to a more modest use of the term.

well i turned to the trusty wolframalpha search engine to give me a concise and understandable definition of container. and boy was it concise and unambiguous:

now that definition is different than the other and it should be more in line with what you'd think of upon hearing the word - container (except the bit in parenthesis..that is awfully specific referring to the act of containerization - learned that word just now..it's like the standardized method of transporting large quantities of stuff like on trains and boats and shit).

so we know bottles and bags and the like are containers according to both definitions, but what about the book? well, because people are clever, books can be used to hold things physically, but that is not their purpose. what they are meant to hold are ideas. They are receptacles for storing and retrieving ideas, but they differ from other containers in that when we retrieve the object being stored - the ideas - they are not removed. Once stored, they seem to have some sort of permanence to the nature of the book. This permanence can be surpassed with a simple tear though. Pages can always be torn out and shared the way a mirror can be pulled from a purse and passed around a group of friends. In virtue of that, I'd have to consent with spiro and say that books do seem to be containers for their containment of pages. They also seem to contain ideas, but that is probably only due to my assumption that pages can contain ideas. Pages hold ideas or parts of ideas and when put together in a book, the collective ideas held by the pages are then held by the book. So, the book then contains the ideas. But pages and books both hold words. Do ideas hold words or do words hold ideas?

so the word is container. one who writes is a writer. one who sings is a singer. the actor performing the verb is understood as the doer of the verb and to abbreviate, we can just label the actor as the verb + "er" - one who contains is a container. using the words one and actor probably signify some sort of sentience or aware identity but i just mean one being of existence. there is no reason to think that the actor must be aware of its action. broilers broil. recorders record. and aircraft carriers carry aircraft. Containers contain.

i'm being impractical right now, but every object of existence should be called a container since, in order for us to have any understanding of it, we must recognize the characteristics contained or held by its identity. practically, we will label things for their functionality as containers - like bottles, boxes, and bags - but we should be aware that containment is an essential aspect of existence and that all things are containers because, in some sense, they can always be considered to contain some other thing.

clutter

sitting at my desk i can't help but be slightly overwhelmed by the disorganization and messiness. There seems to be no order. Beer cans, water bottles, deodorant, toothbrush and two tubes of toothpaste. there's gum and there's candy. notebooks and notecards. philosophy theses and research papers. i even have an underarmour shirt on top of a pile of who-knows-what. This is how i live..i don't even want to guess at what's going on under the desk. - definitely plenty of laundry and trash.

so this is clutter.

the word brings to mind (1) an old saying, (2)a famous Einstein quote, and (3) a response my brother once said after hearing the quote.

1. a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind
2. if a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, then what are we to think of an empty desk?
3. what about an organized desk?

My brother keeps his desk (and entire room) pretty neat and tidy. I, on the other hand, am king of clutter. So what does this tell us about the differences between my brother and i? is his mind organized and mine cluttered? possibly..but what on earth does that mean..?

we each have things that we need and use. it's a matter of how much effort we want to put into retrieving these things versus how much effort we want to put into creating order in the arrangement of these things. My room is small and there are only so many things that I need to have easy access to..and for these things, i'd say that i have a pretty efficient method of organization. Mostly, these things are applications on my phone or computer. Other things would be my hygiene-maintenance tools which have their respective areas in my desk-vicinity and papers, books, and notebooks which too have their respective homes on the bookshelf or in my backpack..or temporarily on the desk. The rest of the stuff just comes and goes. When i sum up enough energy, I rid my desk of the excess stuff by disposing of it or moving it to a new home depending on its use to me. This is the order behind my clutter.

Organized people, including my lil bro, put the time into keeping their objects arranged orderly. This guarantees easy access to anything needed any time..that is as long as the organizer remembers where he keeps the needed item.

Order keeps things simple. It guarantees predictability. We all order the world uniquely to our own tastes and tasks. One man's clutter is another's organization. no need to judge.

the words

words words words
heard by herds
nerds herd birds
nerds don't herd
words aren't heard
softly speaking
hardly listening
hardly speaking
oftly listening
Identity
I dent a tree
The time to be
Truth you will see
With words like these
spread consciously
By you and me
Knowledge is free
Let us be we
We are indeed
Living to learn
Sharing our know
Kindly concede
To error's burn
Don't let it go.
Build the base
Of all that's true
Make it known
Free to face
The mind of you
Not yours alone
Face the mass
The massive mind
Of humankind
And it will find
truth is not blind