Subconcious Antilogic

Let us begin with a simple statement: Logic can reveal shortcuts in processes, but cannot, itself, be the subject of a shortcut.
Processes in general include thought processes in specific, thus logic can reveal shortcuts in the forming, refining, understanding, criticism and expression of thought.
Because logic demands careful and attentive adherence to a deliberate, step-by-step sequence of actions the tendency of humans to favor comfort will at times disincline them employ logic.
Often logic also demands confronting and examining ideas or concepts that evoke an uncomfortable, displeasing or otherwise agitating emotional response, further compounding the tendency towards irrationality.
The inescapably useful methodology of logic creates the paradox of its disuse.

First Interview, Foreign Press and Fire Breathing

I was fortunate enough to get through to Pete Dominick's show today as I was barreling down Interstate 80 in PA this afternoon. The man put the word out for us to call in if we disagreed with either the content of the President's interview with Al-Arabiya or had a problem with his giving that interview (notable as his first in office) to them in the first place. Like most of the day's callers (I'd assume all but dropped out out halfway through today) I completely ignored this simple instruction and instead threw my support behind Obama on this one. I'd like to note that I _did_ suggest that the move was going to be controversial domestically once Brothers Limbaugh and Hannity got on the air tonight. They will undoubtedly prove, once and for all, that this clearly unamerican act, combined with the blatant absence of a Christian Bible (KJE, of course) at the procedurally prudent re-issuing of the oath of office, demonstrates Obama's commitment to the downfall of the nation and vehement anti-Christianity. The will do whatever it takes, including completely ignoring all rules of evidence and setting aside their own, personal, financially remunerated impartiality to warn us all of this (further) impending doom.
What would we do without such men as these?
Myself, I've listened to the interview (I have a condition that causes me to prefer to listen attentively to radio rather than passively stare at a television, its called a Commercial Driver's Licence) and based on Obama's answers to the questions I think we may have a window to change the view of our nation and our people held by the general population of the Sandbox. Importantly, our Fearless Leader left the ball in _their_ court. By committing us, very publicly, to listening to what they have to say he puts their leaders in the position of either engaging or attacking. This is, subtly, obliquely, a complete change of the rules of the game and that may be what produces the aforementioned fire breathing from the self-styled Conservative Underground.
To put it in simplest terms; "They" can either A: talk with "Us" and build some solutions or B: continue shooting and pursuing conflict. In the first case "We" win because "They" stop shooting and help "Us" make a better (though not perfect) situation in that part of the world. In the second "They" give "Us" the moral high ground from which to multi-laterally remove "Their" ability and will to fight. It's the philosophical equivalent of Sun-Tzu meets General Sherman and that's where most ditto-heads are going to become enraged. This isn't king-of-the-hill, its chess. This method does not obviously involve any rattling of sabers or swinging of members and as such seems, to the simple person, to be backing down. Intolerable for "The World's Lone Superpower."
Its late in the cycle but I haven't checked the broadcasts yet so I'll make a prediction; by tomorrow afternoon the various reactionary wing nuts and mouthpieces will have likened this to attempts at German appeasement during the War Era.

Beginings Are Important

...so said Surrac of Vulcan in a most exellent piece of Sci-Fi writting. The basic point thereof being that motivations effect and in fact infect (say that 3 times fast, bub) the process and result(s) of our actions. So what are my desired processes and results?


Well the process seems self-evident; I want to use this blog to make myself heard by the largest number of my fellow sentients possible. The result I want is to have input in the world and, if I am honest, to have a measurable effect on the rest of you. I suspect we all do, if we are honest.


Further questions are then raised; Why this medium and not another? Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) want to have a hand in the affairs of others? The former of these two is easily dealt with; I haven't the time or resources to use any other medium...except possibly standing in the street yelling. Town-criers have been hard put for steady work these days though, what with all the competition for air-time from random lunatics who meander about loudly declaiming the end of civilization or the entire world for free. As for why one might want to effect the lives or thoughts of others? That, I must uncomfortably admit, is a harder nut to crack and may have something to do with my general interest in god-like power over the affairs of mortals. Unfortunately I haven't yet won a bid for any meaningful elected office and so I must content myself with observing the world and then not-so-quietly making remarks off-stage.



You, dear reader, have the dubious pleasure of experiencing this.
Tickets please.