Misson

Certain things are just not made to be saved. I just built this huge skeleton tree thing for haunted house this year and, a nice as it came out, I figure it's going down with the house. It's too big ...and, well, not quite fragile, but not quite durable either - like the Dutchman... so I take comfort in the fact that I have a bunch of photos which I can show or post on my website. The prop will be bulldozed when the city tears down the haunted house in December, but I have my record. Just like Disney created the film as a record of their prop. Storing (not to mention repairing) such things costs money. You might argue it could be turned into a tourist attraction, but I'll bet it's so far from being typical tourist-person friendly that it'd be cheaper to build a whole new one specifically for tourism purposes...provided they wanted to do such a thing. Having some small experience with such things, that just seems like reality to me. (Although they could auction it on eBay if the liability issue could be handled. Surely there's some lunatic out there with more money than sense who would brave all costs to own such a thing.)

Fortunately, the perfect anything doesn't appear to exist in our world, leaving lots of room for improvement, leading to potential for better mousetraps, leading to commerce. And, for the record, I can't think of anything that would represent a total solid in our world. Perhaps the inside of a black hole? Except that isn't knowable right now, so it's just a possibility. As for life in total solidness, I just maintain that the two couldn't co-exist as we define them. Without movement it would seem there cannot be life. Without space, there is no room for movement. Thus my thought experiment conclusion...

A friend sent me this link and I sort of liked the look of the stuff, so I'm sharing. I may get one of those notebooks... http://www.lakeside.com/details.asp?R=8571

Actually, you can have void without...'reality' is the wrong word...matter? Somethingness? Non-void? But then it is just emptiness - it "exists", but without anything to observe its existence. (Yes, a tree makes noise even sans witness in my world.) Similarly, we can have somethingness without void (theoretically), but since this would be completely solid, I imagine it as being akin to total darkness, or total solidness. Every interstice is filled, no space exists and thus it is no more useful than total void. In fact, life (as we define it) could no more exist in total somethingness than in voidness in this scenario. Though project yourself into being a living entity in total somethingness. You couldn't ever move. What would consciousness consist of? Could it be anything if movement were arrested? ...interesting

True, but the void and reality are interdependent. By themselves, they can exist, but little else.

"Music is the space between the notes." -Claude DeBussy This seems very Taoist to me, but does it make sense? On the one hand, music without the spaces is just a monotonous tone at best or a cacophony at worst. So the spaces are required. (Resisting side discussion on quantum physics and space at the subatomic level.) On the other hand, space without the notes (or tones) is just nothingness. (That also sounds somewhat Taoist to me.) I think the two are interdependent. And if you put the wrong notes and wrong instruments in play at the wrong times (in between the spaces), you still end up with monotonous tones or a cacophony. So music must be more than the space between the notes.

Ah, now you've got me with comics. I haven't bought them since I was a teen. I pick up graphic novels on occasion, but not usually the mainstream characters. Do check out the TAS series, though. It's quite good; dark but heroic like Batman should be. Good music, too. Batman Beyond is also worth a look. I don't recommend the latest incarnation, though (if it's still around). I've only seen two or three, but they're all brawn and no brain.

I'd have to go with the Batman: The Animated Series Joker (Mark Hamill) and Catwoman (Adrienne Barbeau). Although I do sort of prefer Burton's take on the Catwoman costume...except for the claws, which come off a little too home made. With Harley Quinn hanging around, the Batman TAS Joker is even more over the top than Nicholson, IMO.

How did I miss these?! Well done. How did I miss you missing me in these? Gee, thanks. I can't take any credit except for the me inside someone else's clothes, however. (Even the forelock is borrowed.) "I'm Yosemite Sam, the meanest, toughtest, rip-roaringest, Edward-Everett-Hortonest hombre whatever packed a six-shooter." [Fires some shots in the air] "That's who I am!" "You don't say? Well, come 'ere, shorty, come 'ere. Don't say I told ya, but there's a guy in the next car who says he's the meanest, toughest, et cetera, et cetera, and he's got a seven-shooter to prove it. How's about that?"

Yes, but which iteration of the Joker and which iteration of Catwoman?

I was sailing with Red-Handed Jill and her crew last month and the captain let me steer their craft. He said I was better off sitting in the front of the boat.

You didn't cite your source... That's also a correlational study. The problem with them is that you can't specify the exact causal variable that produced the observed result. In other words, there could be another factor (or variable) at work other than period in which someone was born that the study wasn't considering. (I would guess that the conclusions section of this study says as much.)

I've actually gotten movies from hints and research, so I say you get it, Blackbead. That's what hints are for. It's the movie Up the Creek. As punishment for cheating (heh), you really must see this movie. (I'll even watch On a Clear Day You can See Forever and do my penance as well.) It made Matheson one of my favorite underrated actors. (Put him on the list with John Goodman.) His character is basically an extension of his role as Otter in Animal House, only a little more mature. Well, no one in this movie is mature, but you get the point. The trouble is, it's only on videocassette. It was the first video I ever purchased and I still have it, even though it's pretty sophomoric. "You think you can blackmail me into playing this little game of yours, don't you? Well I got news for you, mister. This ain't just any dumb shmoe you're talking with. This is Bob McGraw. The Bob McGraw and it's gonna take men a lot bigger than you to make this guy...play ball." Turns on his heel into two large security guards. "How 'bout Poly Sci?" (I'm gonna go submit these quotes to IMDB. They have none. It's a travesty.)

No. I have been picking somewhat misleading quotes because I always thought the offbeat narrative was cool. If you have seen this movie, it was probably on the Comedy Channel or late night movies. Another hint: there are several WB cartoon style scenes and sound effects in this move. (Part of the reason it's stuck with me.) For good measure, let me give a better quote. This quote has about 6 or 8 serious clues in it. And if there is a memorable scene in this movie for most people, this is probably it: "Where's Irwin? Where is he now?" "He's trying to get into the wet bag. Dirtbag?" "Scumbag." "Douchebag?" "Bag...Bag Lady?" "Oh, he's got a bone!" "Oh my God! They cut him into steaks?" "No, they haven't cut him into steaks. They've...uh, staked him to...the ground!" Cheering from other four people. "Where is he, Chuck?" "My jacket! That's my jacket!" "He's trying to tell us something." Chuck tears down jacket apart. "Augh! They've plucked him!" "They haven't plucked him...it's something to do with, uh..." "What?! What?!" "...feathers! Feathers!" "No, those aren't feathers! That's down!" "Down! Oh, you're right!" "Down...down something. They got Irwin down something. C'mon, Chuck. Give us another clue." "How many syllables?" Chuck barks twice. "Two! Two syllables!" Chuck gets a piece of liver from the wet bag. (Why would there be a piece of liver in the wet bag? Alas, we'll never know.) "Gah! They cut out his liver!" "Down...liver...uh..." "I've got it! I've got it! Down liver! Don't you get it? That's Japanese for down river!" Much cheering. "Those were great clues!" "I dunno. I thought they were kind of hard." If no one gets it now, I'm switching to a new movie.

"It was a town like any other - a town with nothing to hide - until they arrived. Ok!" Three hints (in addition to that second quote): The movie came out in 1984, it features an ensemble cast as many movies in this genre do and it is not available at NetFlix. (Fourth hint: this is not an indie pic, either.)

One of the options on the form is "No thanks, I have other lodging" so I think we all need to fill this out. William mentioned such a form a few months back and indicated that I needed to fill it out. (I still don't have a name for my character. Doc Mission? I don't like it. Alexander Mission? I do like that...)

Ah, it's just me balloon popping...I love to find proof that things I find intuitively absurd are, in fact, actually absurd. (Catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is another such topic. But I digress...) We now we enter that strange, fuzzy area of proof. OT1H, we cannot prove everything. (In fact, we can only disprove things - more on that later.) OTOH, we need to use some form of systematic way of proving things. Let's start with that. As I love to say, we all live in our own little world. Your world isn't the same as mine, nor as anyone else's (including your spouse, best friend and/or dog). So we all live in our own little cognitive perception of what "is." And it's wrong. At least it's wrong in some ways and right in others. Which is which? The best we can do is arrive at a consensus (Which is damned near impossible). This further means we must define a tool upon which we agree to arrive at consensus. (Which is not quite as impossible.) Presently that tool is the scientific method. To wit: 1. Notice Something (There is a cold spot in the floor for some reason) 2. Hypothesize (It must be a ghost!) 3. Make predictions (If I stand there unearthly spirits will take me over) 4. Experiment (Stand there every night) 5. Repeat Prediction/Experiment forever until you are sure there are no contradictions in your hypothesis 6. Publish papers and seek grant funding (The Propensity for Ectoplasmic Entities to Occupy Horizontal Level Surfaces through Frigid Representations) This is the tool most people agree to use. The funny thing about it is, as I mentioned, it really is only good for disproving something rather than proving it. Proving that your Hypothesis is true only allows you to create a Theory - which can then be destroyed by anyone able to repeatedly prove that you're wrong. (Note: repeatedly. One occurrence could just be an mistake. (Or it could be a whole new scientific field waiting to be born...and funded.)) So that's how we generate consensus on what's going on around us. Before that, we had a bunch of very unreliable methods - primarily narratives or stories we told ourselves. The problem here is what I mentioned at the beginning: we all live in our own little cognitive perception of what "is." (Unless the narrative is handed down by some outside, superior being. Even then, what the being says is can be corrupted by our understanding of what was said - creating a new perceptual error about what is.) Look into chaos theory or subatomic physics if you want proof that what you think is true based on your "experience" is sometimes not even close. These are areas where our perception and intuition completely fail us. The scientific method gives us a window into them. But back to the narrative...A convincing story-teller can generate consensus, although they basically skip the experimentation portion of the process in favor of pointing out elements that support their story. (This is how astrology works. Uncritical acceptance is a popular psychological issue with narratives.) Not to say that science doesn't have it's shortcomings. First, it depends on rejection and can never really "prove" anything effectively. Second, many of the people practicing it tend to ignore important anomalies. (This isn't completely their fault - most anomalies turn out to be just that - some random thing happened that wasn't accounted for. As a result, the tendency is to dismiss anomalies as irrelevant. Sometimes to the peril of knowledge.) Third, scientists can become overspecialized and miss the forest for the trees. And so on. I think there's a better method for discovery and proof out there, but, as I have said before, I don't know what it is. Going backwards and saying that the narrative is superior to a method isn't going to make your point, though. You have to move forward and devise a scheme that will satisfy the need for repeatable proof in all cases, not hold up a single perceived event as the model. You and I aren't as far apart as you think. I cherish imagination. I was just reviewing a notebook I put together in an effort to explore my intuition. (Some of which, while I enjoyed it immensely, I also recognized as being ill-founded. It involved picking a bunch of pictures that appealed to me out of magazines, putting them in a box, randomly choosing one and then writing about how it intuitively related to some facet that the author of the guide for this exercise directed you to write about using the pic as an anchor. The theory was that you intuitively "chose" the right random picture from the box. I doubt that, but the exercise was quite enjoyable.) I realize that this needs to be tempered with reality. There's a line between intuitive understanding and absurd wish fulfillment. And everyone (even the black helicopter people) think they stand on the IU side of that line. You can't just accept things because you have uncritically experienced something and built a structure around it. I think that's what fascinates me about that book I keep mentioning. The guy is looking for proper experimental ways and physical explanations for things we can't explain well like phantom limbs, spontaneous remission, the God part of the brain and so forth. He's published experimental data on this stuff. (At the same time, he embraces thought experiments - which I enjoy myself - although they are not technically scientific.)

Based on the rolly eyes, I'm guessing this is a joke, but this is one of those silly myths I find irresistible. (Kind of like ghosts. My favorite argument: "You will only be able to see them if you believe in them." ) Because, unfortunately for the zodiac, they have done multiple studies that have more or less proven astrology to have no scientific validity. From Introduction to Psychology - Gateways to Mind and Behavior by Dennis Coon and John O. Mittner: For a look at one of the more famous researchers, check out the article on Michel Gauquelin at Wiki. End result; I don't think Aquarianism has much to do with introversion or communication style.

"It was a night...a real wide open night filled with the stars of a thousand dreams. It was the kind of night that could only be found in a place called The West...or maybe in a cheap spy novel. The kind with...gorgeous, smooth-skinned women with forty-five caliber lips. (Shrugs, lights cigarillo. Object hits character on the head.) Ouch! My, how time flies! You dropped this!" (Throws object back in the direction from which it fell.) (I will be flat out amazed if anyone gets this without hints. It's from a movie I seen more times than I care to admit.)

I'll bet that is either from Kelly's Heroes or M*A*S*H. Probably Kelly's Heroes since it seems to be on TV more often.

But isn't that the nature of being human? Don't we all choose our own realities and live within them? Yes, that is precisely what I think. This doesn't forbid us from changing our reality, though. Of course, now we come to what Jenny keeps talking about - can we see far enough outside our own reality to a ) realize that we can change it and b ) change it significantly from what we've already created? Are we creative enough to do that? (Some is and some ain't.) Even then, what could we change it to if we didn't have the limitations we aren't even aware of?

There is actually a syndrome where people experience a clarity and and ability to "talk to god" that results from pressure in some area of the brain (not the area that causes migraines - he talks about that too.) I don't have the book, so I can't tell you where it is or what it's called. But it happens to some epileptics (which is caused by uncontrolled movement in the brain if I understand it correctly) and brain surgeons have sort of identified the region that causes this religious experience. People to whom it happens will sometimes completely change their lives and even their personalities and become hyper-spiritual. So it's not the halo thing. Anything I've ever experienced during a migraine would make me more likely to believe in Satan than God. Curiously, when I started working with my dad and doing a job I enjoyed, I stopped having migraines altogether.

I would actually consider the essence of ourselves to be in many ways separate from physical "things" including our body. If they are ever able to identify where the "self" or "consciousness" or "soul" or whatever you want to call it resides, then that theory will fly right out the window. But for now, it has proved to be a most vexing problem. When we leave our bodies, where do we go? I have always liked the notion that on some level we chose to enter this lifetime for some reason and when we fulfill that reason, we leave. (There, I've effectively insulted the Deists and the agnostics in one fell swoop.) Now, do I actually believe that? Not necessarily, but I really like the idea. Must be a control thing. All that aside, I like the title "Mastering Things" because it has multiple meanings in my mind. "Things" is one of those clever little words that is at once all encompassing and yet slyly dismissive. Kind of like the word "stuff." Maybe I should change the title to "Mastering Stuff?"

Sounds like self-actualization to me. (The ultimate high.) I think you can choose your reality. In fact, I think you do, whether you think you are or not. (Richard Bach...) I have written about it in my success newsletter several times. That sort of reminds me of something else I read in that other book (Phantoms in the Brain). He started talking about a section of the brain that, when pressure is applied to it, causes many people to experience a sort of spiritual fervor. Kind of like a "Paul on the road to Damascus" sort of occurrence. The author goes on to conjecture whether or not a part of our brain may not be genetically predisposed toward spiritual (or perhaps just mystical?) experiences. Of course, experiencing God is not the same as mental synchronicity. (Especially agnostics.) Although it might make for an interesting experiment.

Great Expectations?