some visual stimuli for your Wednesday morning viewing pleasure

I enjoyed viewing these old London transit posters:

http://wordsandeggs.squarespace.com/imported-20100206003717/2010/2/23/all-aboard-london-transit-posters-from-1900-1939.html

which led me to the blogger's "tumbler" site, where I found more interesting paraphernalia from "the day"

http://everybell.tumblr.com/page/1

Also, in honor of the Olympics and my appreciation for good advertising, some P&G ads for you:

http://bit.ly/ayWlXJ and http://bit.ly/cvW4c2

Little Prince Quiz!!

http://quizilla.teennick.com/quizzes/101624/saint-exuperys-the-little-prince-quiz

My result:

http://quizilla.teennick.com/quizzes/result/101624/11888/

Not sure how I feel about it but one just can't rig a le petite prince quiz

Time Travel: Part Deux

At its base, the current theory of time travel seems to be more sympathetic to basic logic. For example, one cannot unexist. We also don't have to start questioning our adages because you still can't change the past, which, though not as glamorous, is logically comforting to me.

The new basic concept simply takes away the assumption there is only one space/time continuum. It kind of puts time travel on the same level as "Sliding Doors," there are innumerable minor deviations that spin off and create new parallel paths. So, to simplify it, taking yourself out of one space/time continuum is really comparable to whether or not you caught that train, went to that restaurant on that night, or were late for work on that day, etc. The only difference is the separate path you've created through time travel is not parallel, it's overlapping. (The movie Primer, written, directed, and produced by Shane Carruth illustrates this concept of time travel well. Although it's very dense. it shows this more "anticlimactic" form of time travel theory)

NOW

The reason for my sudden interest in time travel is partly because it's tangential to a topic I've been mulling over since I was five, when I had the sudden realization that "you can do whatever you want and no one can make you do anything." Upon announcing this revelation to the entire playground I was swiftly apprehended and placed in time out, but it was too late, I had discovered free will.

I have recently felt compelled to revisit the free will v. determinism debate (if it is in fact a debate) as it relates to cosmology. I am fascinated by the idea that mathematical equations could govern universal structure and balance. This brings us back to Einstein, I'll let the Albert Einstein Institute speak for him:

"The appropriate physical theory for describing our universe and its gravitational interactions is general relativity. In addition, one needs to take into account models for the properties of matter such as gas and electromagnetic radiation...this defines physical laws which constrain the properties of the cosmos, equations that any universe must obey. A universe that does satisfy the constraints is, in mathematical parlance, a solution to these equations, just as x=-2 and x=4 are solutions to the quadratic equation x2 - 2·x-8=0."

These are all inchoate thoughts, I have not extensively researched this yet. But if there were some mathematical component to the universe, with equations dictating its balance, then the free will/determinism question gets more complicated...

Time Travel : Part Un

A lofty topic I will take on in parts. My goal here is merely to flesh out my nascent thoughts on the subject. But first, a preface:

At the age of 9 I discovered Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, and, subsequently, the twin paradox. The source was my very own volume of encyclopedias, my only reference tool in those pre-internet times, which I poured over incessantly. For some reason I was particularly enamored with this one-sheet thought experiment and so in a frame and on my wall it went.

I was still incredulous when it came to "TV" time travel, which went way beyond the simple premise (stated by the theory of relativity) that the faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time.

My interest in the subject was left off here and my opinion remained the same (until recently) - that it may be possible to slow the speed at which one moves through time. I decidedly did not believe in "time travel" because Einstein's theory does not allow one to "go back" in time, and Back to the Future's unfortunate dearth of scientific backing left me unswayed. Although I was relatively intrigued by the idea that the future was so sensitive to a minor change in the course of events.

This brings us to the present noise on time travel, harmonious in the acceptance of one major principle: One cannot alter a course of events that has already taken place: sorry Doc, no disappearing from pictures or setting off chain reactions that revoke Marty's existence. (I mean that concept right there is really illogical in and of itself - that one can "unexist.")

Here's to you Mr. Salinger

"That's the whole trouble. You can't ever find a place that's nice and peaceful, because there isn't any. You may think there is, but once you get there, when you're not looking, somebody'll sneak up and write "Fuck you" right under your nose." ~Holden Caulfield

The disgraceful exploitation of J.D. Salinger is eerily reminiscent of the tombstone Holden imagines for himself: It'll say "Fuck you." I'm positive.


The news of J.D. Salinger's death was sad enough, but works posthumously published against his wishes would be tragic, and indeed a big F-you to the beloved author (whether or not he loved us back is not the issue at hand).


Now that he's dead, the litigious Mr. Salinger doesn't stand a chance against the vultures now circling as they prepare to gluttonously tear into his cherished works.

I'm sorry to disagree with Salinger's Franny, but everything everybody is doing (at least those involved in the race to capitalize on and cheapen the literary results of Mr. Salinger's genius) is wrong, mean, and stupid. But she was right about one thing, it is indeed quite "sad-making."

Please look to the right for related links

Stop the madness (or at least the sale of it)

Drug companies in the U.S. seem to be hearing Jack Nicholson's command from As Good as it Gets : Go sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here!

Ethan Watters published an article for the New York Times on the Americanization of Mental Illness (you will find a link to it to the right). Not only is America claiming 20-25% of its residents present with a mental illnesses (a term I inherently hate, for the record) of some form, but it is constantly coming up with new disorders with which to infect its countrymen. The DSM-III, which came out in 1980 had over 100 new mental disorders (some of which are still being contested), and now the DSM-IV (to come out in 2012) is said to have more new disorders, some of which include "compulsive shopping." No, apparently it's not just a movie according to our highly trained mental health professionals (see the article in Slate posted to the right).

Apparently diseasing 1/4 of Americans with movie-inspired illnesses is not enough for the drug companies. They're going on holiday to recruit new cultures for participation in their disease mongering. Mental illness used to have strong roots in culture, including “symptom repertoires” and treatment methods. The exportation of mental illness is being done on a grand scale and selectively so, depending on which countries may be more "vulnerable" to which disorders (for example, Japan is lapping up depression, according to Mr. Watters).

The point is that our method of diagnosing mental disorders and treating them are both strongly contested by highly knowledgeable people in the industry as being horrifically "misguided." So not only is our way not the best (to put it kindly), it is certainly not the best for other cultures.