Lectures 2009.10.06

Where should I be?

Lectures (new) 2009.10.06

It is not easy to explain or admit how I am wishing. Permanently. I am supposed to be a man of science. I could resort to reasons of the psychological order for the efficiency of my mind. That would be absolutely unsatisfactory. If that was the case, I would have to inquire about the shape the meanings take, because it would be a special one. Wishful thinking. If I wander about it, life is more of a growing concept than anything else. An idealistic proposition over a small square of complex, plenty life, that sits and rules even having no grounds or strong justifications. That’s an easy thing to see now that I know how shallow I am. Surfaces become inherent to me.

 

Written language is a two-dimensional mean. Sound speaking has a dimension of intensity and a dimension of time. As long as the educated brain remains unable to comprehend in any larger scope of information, such characteristic language is the only thing required to establish a humanly understandable transit and a humanly understandable creation of knowledge. My point is that language is, by mere evidence, superficial. Civilization, being an act of the mind, relies only on the superficial scope. By living here, I am also a four-dimensional being employing a two-dimensional intelligence. How could world be understood this way? How could I make myself clear? In fact I have to admit I am not trying to be easily readable. I shall move on.

 

As a child, I had no problem guessing the number of dimensions in this reality is unlimited. Facts can be modeled by simulations, but can the be understood? It’s a contradictory grievance: I am using the simulation argument to justify my hypothesis, of only what is important is interesting and only what is interesting is important. Even worse: It becomes such a strong hypothesis, because I wish so.

 

I have no foundations to believe that in every case, what is wanted finally happens. And I mean beyond human ignorance of what is utterly wanted. I also have no foundations to believe that laws of nature as harmonic or trustworthy, instead of arbitrarily ever-changing. That, for instance, is a pervasive wishful thinking from scientists. Simplicity, and beauty: Those were the commandments of modern physics. I think the only thing I have left is to resist.

 

A political battle ends up approaching when you try to warn instructors and colleagues about superficiality or, put in different words, shallowness.

Lectures. 2009.10.05

I am a microeconomic equation. A consumer problem for optimized differential calculus. Yet I didn't seem to be a reason of effort from my professor.

 

– I don't think I truly consider my goal to be reachable. Let's digress for a second over perfection. Nobody knows what it is yet there is a number of things that can be acknowledged as such. The critic point here lies in the fact of the stability of the definition. See how a two-dimensional dynamic simulation arises experience over a third dimension in the phenomenon; equivalently, a varying closeness perception applied to my quest gives a tell about an additional feature of thought.

 

– Very impressive. I think it's a clever move to forget classic theory and to attempt one of your own. Besides, any large effort to sustain your methodological framework is justified by the pleasure experienced by the gigantic size of your ego. And the awareness of the scope is what places somewhere in your space the rest, what is not relevant, what is not throughly felt. Usually, appearances are enough in this reality to resolve an issue. I'd dare to say appearance is the Queen and Master of the universe. I'm not quite sure it means such a powerful figure for yourself and yet it is the one reason you follow your quest: it's an aesthetic one.

 

– Looks by no mean can be sufficient into comprehension. That’s why answers are never lasting.

 

– You look enormous after yourself. That is why you are your own main problem. Is your use of language nothing but an apparatus of beauty to make everything else interesting? I just remembered your hypothesis: Only what is important is interesting, and vice versa.

 

The mention of the world beauty immediately led me to think about academy; and the reasons that keep me inside.

 

– I guess I have to build a world to base any further enlargement or enhancement.

 

– Yet you do not dare to act so. You are merely adopting existing objects. That’s why you’ll never set yourself free. That’s all you do, and that’s all you are: a living things recycler. Do not say you also get to relate with ugly. You embellish ugly to make it accountable.

 

– Power of the ugly is actually my own power inflicted into myself. Masochism.

 

I truly was not enjoying the way truth was adding up. The findings would make my work irrelevant to a major extent. Why that happens so often only to me is a wicked thing; my professor wondered maybe I’m being the only one who really understands the scientific method. It sounds naïve, pretentious and blatantly wrong. I have a problem with that.

Translations !

Lectures 2009.10.01

Sex has been for over a year the way I spread myself allover the world. I broadcast no by spreading my arms, but my making them separate their legs. It might be I'm not sleeping well, enough to lose any major concern over the own privacy. Since statistical experimental data was put to the test and information took the shape of a story whose way of telling can be modified in order to produce certain effects or determined forms of exhaustion, all became simultaneous believable and unbelievable. So, I can speak. I will tell my story.

A hint of cock to save the world

at least I have aesthetics to cope what do you got?

at least I have food to cope what do you got?

at least I have news to cope what do you got?

at least I have comics to cope what do you got?

at least I have music to cope what do you got?

at least I have tv to cope what do you got?

Lectures 1 2009.09.28

To overcome a second dimension of time, that is, to be able to go past or future, back and forth, is something that has been tried and called unsuccessful. I can certainly have traveled to the past several times, although it used to be substantially easier in my tender infancy. What became a mathematical physics complex scheme of simultaneous nonlinear equations, started to look all wrong after itself. I think the first and one of the clearest mistakes is to forget the necessity of the matter a human willing to travel across history entails in his space-time continuum. So the main task now becomes to redefine what defines a presence, whether it is in either former of following times. I am not saying by absolute confidence that I have traveled on time anymore than what I'm dimensioned to, but, preferably, that depending on the answer drawn by my main research question, it will be possible to describe what traveling on time was and what was not, and what was thought as such by my own consideration, or other's.

I'm only left to say right now how substances on body led the mind to believe any trip took place. There is absolutely no physical evidence proving it whatsoever. What can be said is that a highly count of hormones circulating within the veins can overexcite the body to the point of illusion, portrayed as a mechanism in which the body fakes a world for the conscience in order to exclude it from main control. Body reestablishes and only then main can come back to reality.

I am able to identify what I cannot perceive. I am a walking paradox. I am a gap of time: I had to deprive the world some, for research reasons.

Lectures Sunday 2009-09-27

Lately I've been bound to believe life it's nothing but an experiment from higher grounds. In the economical field, I have decided to opt for non controlled experiments, which is a rare, still uncommon method to follow in social sciences and much more in science in general. The idea of a trial where any factor in sight can potentially be the sole determinant of an outcome is resisted by scholars even with their enriching souls. But I think it’s a misleading one. Actually I would dare to say it really does not matter. Thinking quite beyond the preconceptions of how science is made one could reach propositions such as that, given the complexity of reality, the joint forces in development inhibit the flow of minor, irrelevant factors. Some critics would see it as the renounce from individual’s isolation given its tremendous technical efforts, which is visible in psychology and biology, among others. It’s not difficult to reply because it’s foreseeable how phenomena look so different as itself in absence of the rest of the world. Besides, forces and variables are never coming alone so, why bother?

One could defend the idea of caeteris paribus to be a sorry excuse for the lack of mental skills: why to build such an empty argument instead of standing still and pay only a little more of attention? Brain has been proven to easily recall differences in a landscape from color, mainly, and secondarily from shape. Why hasn’t it been trained to identify currents of effects among social, economic processes? As far as I’m concerned, the complex of issues that gives rise to my humanity can’t be obliterated while I study and develop the research my professor requests. It’s the purity infectious, as paradoxical as it may sound. But as I meant above, the clue is to make the most out of the act of brain, in order to reveal hidden behavior. Worries do not affect science, whether it is because complexity has lifted a barrier for them; or because my inner existential worries, at a point of latent influence, hold an organic relationship with the subject of my investigation.

If such a thing is true, I would be even more prone to consider myself and my flux of hormone response as a part of a latter, wider experimental practice. My eye ends up the lens of a telescope that works my own behavior. To be watched means nothing. Everything is recorded, and the one recording is helplessly attached to the problems of mine he, the foreigner, beholds.

Words start falling resembling the ideas in my brain and the hues in the rest of my body. The grieves of living in a circuit of cause and effect are clear, yet unseen. Is it maybe that experimental isolation is really what is necessary to avoid pain and sorrow? Childhood spoiling looks then like the guilty case of boring, one-sided, dismissive research results. But it can be over now. Although, that would point at childhood as an urgent matter. This is how it is supposed to work. It looks, in general appearance, brilliant.

So sad it is I would only see the professor until Wednesday, where I’ll forget about most of the hard core of my wonder. Memory appears like a big thing to come. Or is it, perhaps, information…