Macwriter

Mac kills PC in so many areas. I find that my workflow crashes to a halt when I have to go into the office and use their Windows systems. I hesitated in downloading any Microsoft programs onto my Mac because I don’t like anything about them, how they are organized. Even using Excel, which is still far more substantial than Apple’s Numbers program, I am quick to get in and get out. The one shining Microsoft program out there is Livewriter. It is great. I does everything that a blogger needs and wants. It has two-way communication with accounts and one can write, post, and draw from with ease.

So I am trying out MacJournal. I am hoping that the latest update will address some of the workflow problems that I had. We’ll see. A big problem for me was the lack of tag support. Not that the program doesn’t use tags, it does. But that it doesn’t draw from the list of tags one has already started on an external server. Livewriter does this well. But other programs, not so much. Instead of a seamless work environment I am forced to print out a list of tags and hang it on the wall. This. is. stupid. Either that or I am stupid and I cannot figure out a workaround.

confrontation

Because of a current job with the National Guard I wear my uniform every day.  At least until October 30 when our funding is cut and I’ll be out of a job again.  At the same time I am attending Portland State for my last three classes for my degree in philosophy.  So it is that I attend what classes I may, baring any other commitments, wearing my uniform.  I’ve heard some veterans say that the campus, being a typical college campus and leaning to the liberal side of things is unfriendly to the military.  I’ve not found this to be true.  There are some people who might give me an odd look.  This is to be expected and I welcome a dialogue with them.  I walk by the tables with signs on it denouncing capitalism and other things where the staffers that table are trying to spread their message.  So far none has attempted to say a word to me as I walk by.  It might surprise them to know that I share more of their beliefs than they might first guess.  However, while attending a conservative political training event for campus activists we were told that if you doing an event or table you want to avoid the obvious opponents to your message.  The point isn’t on debate as it is conversion.  You will not convert the base of the opposite camp.  Trying to do so will be a waste of time and energy.  Strength lies in having either the majority of opinion, or the belief of the majority.  This is what makes politics so distasteful to me in that it equate truth with numbers.  A majority of opinion does not mean a greater truth.  If I must explain this I’ll simply point you to history books.  And so it seems that the liberal staffers of this table have learned the same lesson.  They view a uniformed soldier as an obvious opponent to their anti Capitalist position and so they do not approach me.  Truth is, I’ve a copy of a socialist newspaper in my bag and would attend meetings on campus were I not in uniform.  It is no more acceptable for me to be at a socialist meeting in uniform than it is for me to be at a republican, democrat, or any other political meeting in uniform.  My political actions must always be separate from my military identity.  Many do not understand this, but the military in this country must be apolitical as much as possible.

I was walking across campus to my first class and a student walked over to me and stuck out his hand and said ‘thanks for your service’.  I always thank those that stop to thank me.  Further down, someone yelled out from the cigarette station ‘thank you’.  This particular day I must have gotten four ‘thank yous’.  It has been two weeks of going to classes and I thought back over all the reaction that I’ve noticed.  Because I wear the uniform I do not do many of the things that I might normally do.  I do not do funny movements, weird behavior out of fun, obscene jokes, and any other things to give the uniform a bad image.  I try to maintain military bearing in some respect while also portraying someone who is generally in a good mood.  I’m not trying to intimidate anyone.

I was walking between some buildings and was on my way to my second class when I looked to my left and noticed a hand less than 10 inches from my face, flipping me off.  A man walking a dog had passed me on my left (I had noticed he was passing by me by the sound earlier, noted it and shifted my observation elsewhere.  When my mind registered what was in front of me, this guy holding his arm straight out to his right and behind him, in my face, flipping me off, I knocked his hand back.  I might have yelled something at him, don’t remember, but I did ask him what his problem was.  He said something like “I did more than you” and continued to walk.  I was where I needed to go, watched him walk away, and I wanted blood.  I was in an odd spot of wearing the uniform and trying to figure out, as angry as I was, what to do to keep my bearing and to also give the message that I wasn’t to be walked all over.  I went up to him and pulled out my phone and I started recording him.  He hid his face, wouldn’t face me, and I grilled him on what his problem was with me?  He didn’t want to talk and tried to avoid me, tried feebly to bait me into a physical confrontation (which deep down inside I really wanted but decided against).  I followed him for two blocks, yelling loudly at him what part of him putting his hand in my face was acceptable?  What was he against?  What was his theory?  What purpose was it for?  He wanted none of it and kept going.  Students were watching me and some came running to me saying that campus security had been called.  I told them “good, let them come”.  The man with the dog kept going and I turned and went to the campus security office.  There I met the head guy, told him I was turning myself in, in case there were reports of some mad veteran on a rampage.  No reports were made.  I explained what happened and said that this was a testament to my therapy, as two years ago I might not have been to control myself and would have likely broken something on this guy.

Walking back through the park blocks on my way to class I was hailed by a student who was prior Army.  He just saw a uniform and wanted to come talk.  As we walked and talked, the man with the dog was walking back through the park and stopped ten feet in front of me.  We faced each other.  In very clear language I told the man ‘you don’t want anything to do with me right now.  Leave me alone”.  He said something and I interrupted him, saying “you don’t want any of me right now… leave me alone”.  He said that he was prior Navy Seal in the early 90s and asked if I was really in the service.  Nothing about my uniform appearance, my bearing, my haircut, anything says ‘fake’.  When I am out of uniform people ask me if I am military.  I chided him (angry as I still was) over his attacking people in uniform out of the blue.  If he was really a seal, what the hell was he thinking just messing with me like that?  What was his problem.  We parted, I told him I hoped he has a good day, and me and the prior army guy walked off.  He hadn’t seen the original confrontation and I brought him up to speed.  But he was now on edge judging from the body posture he saw between the man with the dog and me.  We talked about the man with the dog and I started to think about him.  My anger was dissipating out of me quicker now, being replaced by concern.  Was he a prior S.E.A.L.?  If so, what was going on with him to cause him to act like that toward me to begin with?  What did he need from me?  His behavior was of someone troubled over something and I had an urge to run back to him and inquire what could be done for him.  But now I was late for class that I’d already missed twice this week due to other engagements.  And I was still a bit angry.

Looking back at it now I see that I did some positive things.  I wanted to hurt the guy at the first moment.  Instead I tried to make him uncomfortable without touching him.  Hence the video (which I still have but will not post).  But I did not act in harmony.  To borrow from Aikido, I did not foster an uke nage relationship.  I was out of balance, not in harmony.  This was, as everything else around me (as O Sensei would tell me) an opportunity to practice.  The mat of Aikido is not only in the dojo but in the world.  I could have done much better in my initial reaction.  I do not rule out the possibility of striking a person (I am no pacifist and being in harmony does not mean never striking back).  It is that this was my first desire and instead of acting out of harmony I simply tried to tone down the strike.

I shall have to meditate and find my balance and hope for another encounter with him so that I might ascertain the true nature of him and his needs and that I might act more in harmony with them.

Back to politics.  It is a problem that if you get caught up in politics you start playing the game… and it is a zero sum game.  Even the side of compassion, of respect for diversity, has no compassion or respect for the opposition.  In our own political games it is the two sides of the chess board.  You cannot play a game of chess collaboratively.  There is no uke nage relationship in our politics.

First day of class

Oh what optimism one has on the first day of class.  How many times have I, and others like me, purchase their textbooks and hold them in their eager hands and declare solemly that this time… time time our academic piety will reach new heights, that our reading will broaden, that our wisdom will deepen, that our humanness will complex inward and outward.

I know that it is a phase.  But I do so love this place, this state, the idea.  I like to stand on a beach and look out upon the horizon.  Were I to have a ship, my interest would always lie at the edge of where I can see.  I can either go forth or stay, look inward or look outward.  There are always horizons.

In thinking, in a haphazzard, loose, and purely nonstructured manner, on my recent drawing of “The Devil” tarot card and its association, or connection, with my own development and calling to confront my Jungian Shadow Self, I note that nothing, thus far in life, has presented itself as so difficult and uncertain a task ask how to address and change what, until now, I have thought were innate and permanent tendencies, either sanctioned or not, within my very core.  People talk all the time of changing, of increasing or decreasing various behavioral tendencies… but how does one change one’s core?  I follow from Jung in that what I percieve, up till now, as my core, has not been my core at all but instead a ariadnic thread of connected webs and complexes from a multitude of sources.  The true self, I believe I will learn in time, is still yet to be discovered. These thoughts are at the heart of Jung’s book “The Undiscovered Self”, of which it might do me well to review and read the last 1/3 again.

it is almost over

I am really looking forward to spring break. HA. I love the subjects of the classes, but sheesh… I loaded up too much. I can’t write more… but I have added pressure to graduate by 2008. Hmmm. Right now I am sitting in a coffee shop on campus and am downloading updates to World of Warcraft. I am going to play the crap out of this game during Spring Break now that I have a laptop that can handle it. I thought I’d need great internet connection to play it, but at another coffee shop I watched the screen of someone play the game and it seemed very interesting. I understand why a gaming magazine calls W.O.W. “the game that shall not be named” as it was “video crack”.

Yes, Spring is in the air as my eyes are drawn to every shapley butt and legs of every female that passes me by. I’m like an old whitetail deer… my neck is swelling up and I feel like I’m entering ‘the rutting’ season. HA!

Speaking of guys fighting… I was outside a 24 hour starbucks last night at around 2 a.m. and was point out a Chrysler Prowler. The girl with me was dressed quite attractively in tight jeans and a striped shirt and some pseudo-heel looking shoes. I was telling her that she was dressed perfectly for a photo op with the car when a guy starts yelling at me from across the parking lot. There were three other people with him, one guy and two girls, in the car. He was calling me out for saying something or other and I was explaining to him that, no, I was talking about the car. I really wasn’t in the mood. He walked to us and I had begun to focus on hurting him, was just about to place my laptop on the ground and charge him, when he miled and said that he was just joking and had overheard our conversation. He goofed a little with us and then left. I let the matter drop, but it did bother me later on while I was walking home. This guy had no clue how close he was to getting hurt. He was intoxicated, I could smell alcohol on him, and drunks are very easy to take out. I was focusing on his throat when he was walking up and that was going to be the first place I was going to strike. I had planned on getting him down fast as I wanted to be ready for his buddy to rush up. The girl with me said that the guy had no clue how close he came and she was going to step in between us before it happened. Silly girl.

The reason it bothered me when driving home isn’t for any sense of honor lost. I care less about him yelling at me. It was when he approached that I was going to take him out lest he pull a gun and harm the girl. No, what bothered me is that I noticed how I was now scanning the shadows again and listening for any sound as I walked home. I found my body in a readiness state, a sense of balance to attack in any direction. This isn’t the sense of calm that I’ve been cultivating the past year and I gave a brief curse to the stupid guy for stirring the pot in my mind once more. I have an appointment with a PTSD counselor today. I hope to address some issues as well as understand relationship hangups a bit better.

So I’m taking three classes next term. Should be good. I am going to Eugene to see some friends, listen to jazz, and drink Sidecars.

schizophrenia, religion, relationships

This song is beautiful.  It is Mozart.  Mozart is unparalled in delivering the surreal, transcendental quality of love and humanism in his music.  An author I read some years ago struck it correctly when she wrote that Mozart was the world of cherubs, and Beethoven was the bleeding heart.  She didn’t use those words… but that is close.  Mozart was airy, Beethoven was messy human emotion.

I got up to make coffee.  No coffee in the house.  I decided to walk to the nearby Starbucks to purchase some.  I brought a mug, the DSM, and a printout of a study on Schizophrenia with me, and took a route through the park.  Spring is definitely in the air.  I saw blooming flowers, dandelions I think, in a yard… only a couple.  Tree tops are still barren of leaves, but there is a buzz in the air.  At least I think there is.

As I approached the coffee shop I heard the mozt gorgoue music.  I walked inside, head raised to the ceiling, listening intently to the beautiful opera coming through the speakers.  A woman behind the counter with an absolutely stunning, and very warming smile, beamed her beautiful energy at me and asked if I was an opera singer or if I liked opera.  I told her that I love beautiful things.  She got the name for me.  It was from “Cosi Fan Tutte”.  I do not own this CD, but I am familiar with it.  I smiled and thanked her, ordered my coffee, and sat down to read my study.  If my planned date with a coworker does not pan out I might just come in and ask this lady out. 

In the movie “A Beautiful Mind” I noted something.  In the beginning of the film when Nash is a young man, he is inside the faculty lounge when he sees an old professor recieve the pens of the rest of the faculty.  It marks an accomplishment of a lifetime.  When asked what he saw, Nash replied “recognition” and the dean said that it was “accomplishment” to which Nash replied “Is there a difference?”

This is important to note, for in a mind, or a system of merit, the two are the same.  Like medals in military service… they are recognition for accomplishments and the two are the same in our minds.

Move forward in the film, Nash is an old man and recieve the pens of faculty.  It is an act of both recognition and accomplishment.

Now here is the key point.  At the Nobel Awards Ceremony, Nash publicly recognizes his wife’s achievements in helping him.  It is, again, recognition for achievement, they are one and the same.

quick rough on ethics article

David Schmidtz’s article “When Preservationism Doesn’t Preserve” is an exploration of the practical concerns in that murky area where grand and wide ethics meets the dirt. Majora Carter, a Brooklyn environmental and social activist, has expressed that mainstream environmentalists concerns and stereotypes are far removed from the norms and concerns of people in her South Bronx neighborhood. This sentiment of a disconnect between environmentalism and social concerns has been echoed by other writers in our readings such as Guha and Bookchin.

The environmentalist debate in the United States has been characterized as being between two opposing viewpoints, typified by either Muir (Preservationism) or Pinchot (Wise Use). It might be easy for today’s environmentalists to characterize Muir as the good-guy and Pinchot as the bad-guy. However, Pinchot was progressive for his time in that the conservation movement set out to utilize natural spaces as resources, as places for enjoyment, as habitat, and that this is a very difficult mandate. This is seen today in the U.S. Forest Service as it tries to balance the needs of Spotted Owl, Big Timber, hiking enthusiasts, and residents along wild areas from risk of forest fire. Some of the examples in Schmidtz’s article seems like Wise-Use application, two key differences is that there is local decision making and a reverence for the ecosystem, two aspects missing in many applications of Wise-Use practices.

Arne Naess, in his article “The Third World, Wilderness, and Deep Ecology”, expresses that Deep Ecologists have done a poor job in articulating their views to the general populace and powers that be. Schmidtz’s article, while it doesn’t explicitly come out and identify itself as a Deep Ecologist viewpoint, is entirely consistent with the claims that Deep Ecology is struggling to make. Faced with the great and widespread power that today’s multinational corporations have, as well as the impact modern technology allows a single individual to make upon his environment, it is little wonder that there is wide movements, out of love and respect, to cordon off areas from all human activity. Yet as Schmidtz and others argue that while we must love and respect the rest of life on Earth, we also have to respect human life as well. It is a misunderstanding and unfair criticism by some, such as Murray Bookchin, that Deep Ecologists do not care for humans. Deep Ecology holds that the quality of human life is congruent to the stability and diversity of the rest of life on Earth, that it is not an ‘either/or’, but an ‘and’ posture we must take.

Schmidtz’s article doesn’t give argument so much as he outlines examples of how local peoples can develop a relationship with the wildlife around them that benefits not only the wildlife populations and habitat, but also the human population living there as well. He stresses that solutions to environmental problems are not pre-packaged fix all answers, but must be done by those who are intimately connected with the diversity of factors involved. The interactions are grassroots based, are democratic, communal, and sustainable. If a man deems himself more a man by providing for himself and, to some extent, controlling his own life, cannot the same be said of communities? It is, as Schmidtz points out, a mistake when communities are dictated in how they live their lives by outside influences, whether it is by greedy corporations or saintly environmentalists.

A central tenet of Deep Ecology is that the environmental problems faced today are primarily problems of a philosophical nature; a great changing of paradigms is needed on a global level. Yet just how does one accomplish this daunting task of changing world paradigms? Schmidtz’s article is filled with illustrations that, while they may have initially been practical solutions to pressing problems, never the less shows the seeds of changing views. If we approach our problems, whether they be environmental, religious, resources, etc… from our own platitudes we are like captains of competing ships with an ocean of difference. Removing ourselves from our own isolation of beliefs and getting down in the dirt, to becoming practical in our decisions, guided by principles, we would be amazed at the common ground we have with those we thought opposed us and the solutions we could find.

As I read this article I could not help but think of my activities for protection of Old-Growth forest. It has often been the case that I, coming from a timber-employed family in Arkansas, have acted as liaison between ‘tree hugger latte sipping hippy’ and ‘blue collar God-fearing redneck timber worker’ and trying to show both sides that both want the same things; cool forests, sustainable industry, healthy communities, autonomy, rich habitat, clean water, and more. Schmidtz’s article gives many examples of bridging gaps and looking for allies where a traditional environmentalist would not look. What would our own forests in Oregon look like if we looked to bring in local communities in managing the forests around them and instead of bribing them with timber profits from ill-planned sales, instead tied their incentives to the health of the forests?

utilitarianism again

In my ethics class we went into Singer’s defense of animal liberation.  I learned that he did this from a Utilitarian view, not a rights-based.  So, I looked up utilitarianism on wikipedia and found this quote from Singer.

“

“If I have seen that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among the many in my society, and my interests are no more important, from the point of view of the whole, than the similar interests of others within my society, I am ready to see that, from a still larger point of view, my society is just one among other societies, and the interests of members of my society are no more important, from that larger perspective, than the similar interests of members of other societies… Taking the impartial element in ethical reasoning to its logical conclusion means, first, accepting that we ought to have equal concern for all human beings.”

”

This conclusion — that everybody’s interests should be considered equally when making decisions — is a core tenet of utilitarianism.

Okay.  This leads me to political theory doesn’t it?  This reminds me of the attacks against Democracy and indeed the very reason why Republicans (not the political party, but the political ideaology) say that Democracy doesn’t work.  They say that it is impossible for a group of people to work for the interests of everyone.  However, to counter this, current Democrats (again, not the party but the ideology) might say that what is meant is the very core of the utilty in Singer’s quote, that every vote counts as one vote.  This doesn’t mean that you can’t have executive groups or leaders, but that one person’s vote is as equal as anothers.

From Wikipedia again…
Singer elaborates that viewing oneself as equal to others in one’s society and at the same time viewing one’s society as fundamentally superior to other societies may cause an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance

This is where holes in my philosophical readings really show themselves to me.  While I am well read in some matters, I am not read in others, and hence lack the framework to question, or even define, some thoughts in my head.  However, I should say that this leap by Singer bothers me.  To me it does not necessarily follow that because one views oneself as equal to others in my own society that I must then view other societies as equal.  This seems a great leap to me and I wonder by what mechanism Singer makes this claim.  No serious student takes moral or cultural relativism as viable.  Am I to believe that the government of North Korea, or the past Taliban in Afghanistan, as equal to my own society?  I can view the people as equal to myself in a human manner, and as such seek other means to deal with them without automatically resulting to heavy handed practices, however, it seems pretty easy to see how a regime like the Taliban’s is by no means equal. 

And if Singer takes this trip, doesn’t he then, as is a failure in cultural relativism, have to concede that the society of meat eating animal killers nearby are equal to his own society?  It stands to reason that someone as smart as Singer is not making this mistake, however I’ve not found reference to his answer for this shortcoming.

I found this on the discussion part of the entry…
….consequently ethically superiority was defined as whatever produced the greatest amount of goodness, and not simply pleasure.

But this is scratching the surface.  There are tons of graduate programs only on utilitarianism. 

So I think that in just looking at this, and not reading any Bentham because I do need to maximize my time, I am closer to understanding the Bentham quote a few entries ago.  Perhaps the analogy is misunderstood on my part by what Bentham meant.  Recall the quote…

“Each count for one and none for more than one”.  Another utilitarian, Henry Sidwick, says “The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other.”

From a Deep Ecology pointt this makes sense.  Yet whereas Singer uses this quote in his article seeking animal liberation, I can take them and go another route.  This route says that humans are no more special to the Universe than ants, or bacteria, or trees.  This, to me then, doesn’t reinforce Singer’s points, but really a more ecological view similar to Leopold’s Land Ethic.

I must go to New Frontier Market to get milk, eggs, and catfood.  I also need to let these things stew inside of me before I attempt to write the paper on Singer.

BOOK DAY!!!

Today is one of the days that I look forward to!  Book day for college!  I bought all my books today and am eager to crack them open.  Three books and one study guide came to over $300.  Sheesh!  This is a racket.  But hey… I’ll keep going with it.  What can I do?

I’ve been loading up on creatine the last five days and I think that its affected my sleep.  I couldn’t sleep last night and so I got up, made some chamomile tea, and cracked open a story I’m working on.  The direction of the plot has changed in a million ways as I think over it every few days or so.  But I like the element that I’ve introduced into the mix… pacifism as a viable alternative to force.

Set the scene.  The militia from a large city has gone over a vast plain to make it to a small village that is bordered by some mountains, mountains known to be the home of lots of monsters.  When they arrive with weapons and food and offers to assist in seeking out the monsters they are refused.  This is a shock to the soldiers who cannot concieve of such a thing.

I am actually drawing on pacifist arguments here.  Most everyone is aware of Pacisfism’s claims that they are on the moral high ground, a view I myself do indeed contest.  However, there is another argument that some might not be aware of, an argument held by some notable pacifists in England during WW2 where they wanted England to surrender to Nazi Germany.  This argument is essentially, tally two columns of lives lost, buildings bombed, infrastructure damanged, etc… where one column is fighting the war and the other column is surrendering to the Nazis but not cooperating in anything (no cooperation in runing trains, in milk delivery, in any aspect of all, a peaceful non-cooperation) and the argument goes that eventually the Nazis will tire of it all and leave.

Personally I find this argument, while logical, something I could not do.  Take an analogy of some men coming into my house to rape my wife.  Should I peacefully sit by while they finally tire and get bored and eventually leave?  Uhmmm, I don’t think so.  Needless to say, they have forfeited their life when they came into my home and threatened my family.  I will collect. 

Anyway, I introduced this concept into the story.  I also am toyng around with some more devious tactics by some of the characters that are quickly associated to be “the good guys”.  I am wanting to show a thin line between good and evil.  Or rather, I should say a rather large, fat, thick, hazy line where the edges aren’t really that distinct, but never the less one finds oneself, if gone too far in one direction, squarely in the good or evil side.

I have drill this weekend.  In May I will have been in the Guard for three years.  I believe that this is when I get the other half of my signing bonus.  Not much, but should be a good downpayment on a new laptop.  I really want to get a good laptop that is sleek, sexy, light, and a better battery.  We’ll see.

I have to come up with a plan for commuting to campus.  I think that on days I do not have to work I’ll take the train.  I don’t mind it too much save during the morning rush when it is PACKED.  But on days that I have to work I must drive to town as I cannot afford to take an hour and a half to make an 18 minute trip.

I’ve noticed that my expenses are better lately.  The average income from the bar is helping a lot. I’ve spent a lot recently, on alcohol for my home bar, on gifts, on other things, and now that school is starting my income will go for food and gym supplements, coffee and coffee and coffee, and copying fees at the library, and parking and gas for the truck.  I’ve got a plan for something on Eliza’s birthday… a gift for her I think she’ll really like.  We’ll see.

Note to self… must go snowboarding this year.  Or at the very least… snowshoeing.  Note to self again, get snow chains and a CB radio.  Note to self, check my emergency kit in the truck (blanket, road flares, flashlights, batteries, water, GPS, compass, chem lites, matches).

Okay… I must go now.  School is almost here!  Woo Hoo!

she blinded me with SCIENCE

Sheesh.

I am reading “The Pathology of the Human-Nature Relationship” (Ecopsychology book mentioned earlier) and it references Erik Erikson thoughts on the matter.  Basically, human adolescence is hard enough as it is, but couple that with our being cut-off from Nature and our specie-wide fixation and it “fits with the kind of boisterous, arrogant pursuit of individual self-assertion that characterizes the consumerist, exploitive model of economic growth, where the short-term profit of entrepreneurs and corporate sharholders seems to be not only the dominant value, but the only value under consieration.  It also fits with the aggressive and predatory militarism and emphasis on the values and ideals of male warrior cults that have characterized Western civiliation since the Bronze Age.”  He goes on to heap racism, paranoia, and fascism onto this as well. 

Am I to take this guy seriously?  Is Ecopsychology to be able to reach out past the tree-huggers?  Not if they can’t quit this type of dialogue.  It might be absolutely correct, for all I know.  The person who wrote the essay and referenced this is a professor at Cal Institute of Integral Studies afterall.  I am just a lowly undergrad.  What the hell do I know.  But still, I am liking this book less and less.  This book isn’t science, it isn’t psychology, it is poorly done philosophy.  Philosphy, at least, will not make assertions that can’t be shown through logic.  Thus far in this essay A and B are given and a far removed G is tossed in.  No correlation study, no statistics, no anything, just a “it seems to me that it follows that…” 

There is a division within the APA (American Psychological Association) called “Peace Psychology” and its intent is to study conflict and foster peace.  An admirable goal.  I did a lot of scanning of the literature of various journals and lectures from within this division and it is severely lacking.  I never found a counter argument that sought to study why aggression is better, or why conflict is necessary.  This is what science is, you seek to disprove your ideas.  You come up with your best guess and then you try to knock it down.  One article that I found showed a link to patriotism and negative feelings toward other countries.  It is a huge no no in the far-out liberal community to think negatively about any group (except conservatives, CEOs, and loggers).  However, when one looked at the actual study and picked it apart, it used two samples, twelve teenagers from England and fourteen teenagers from Germany.  It should have been argued by the board or at least the editor of the journal that this study is arguably not valid, not relevant, and not representative.  The division, generally speaking, does not offer science as it offers a soap box.

This article is lacking!  Oh my gods this article is lacking and it reaches too far.  “Jean Liedloff’s studies of mother-infant bonding among the Amazonian Indians and her “continuum concept” support Shepard’s  assertion that babies adn parents in hunter-gatherer  scoeities have an intense early attachment that leads not to prolonged dependency but to a better functioning nervous system”.  There is no reference to back up this claim, nor the other far reaching claims.  One of the first things one learns about conducting science is the importance of looking for confounds.  CONFOUNDS PEOPLE!  And the reason why Psychology is not respected by the other “hard” sciences (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc..) and is called a “Soft” science is because there a zillions and zillions of confounds that enter into the magic equation that determines our behavior.  It is a big guessing game.  It is predictions.  The best we’ve got is that past behavior predicts future behavior.  But that’s it.  How on Earth can the author make his assumptions in this article?

I just looked up the references in the back.  No mention of where this article was first published.  And in the footnotes of the essay there is only reference to seven articles, all of them essays, none of them research.  Okay, I’m being too hard… it is just an essay afterall and likely it was published in a magazine geared for environmentalists or such, and not scientist. Still, I want the friggin references.  I want the author to list sources of research to back up his (and to be fair, the outlandish claims of those he quotes) claims.

Okay, it appears that perhaps there might be plenty for me to do, to figure out research that goes beyond just preaching hug trees and the like.  Who says that having a great city isn’t a good thing?  Because it disturbs your hippy mentality?  That isn’t science and that approach will NOT change the world.  If I am going to go to other scientists, boards of advisors, government officials, and more and tell them that that a more organic approach to living on the Earth is not only better economically (ecnomisists are working on this), or ecologically (again, many are at work on proving that living in a healthy and complex ecosystem is better for our own health), but that a different relationship with this environment and our place within it dramatically improves our mental health as individuals, as communities, and as a species… I better have more than touchy-feely concepts that mirror political angst and stem from an existentialist longing for meaning. 

Sheesh people.  Lets look alive out there.

I am taking yet another Research Methods class (what is this… the third one now?) as well as a psychopathology class.  Good.  Perhaps I’ll have a bit of leeway in trying to come up with an experiment.  Since the psychopathology class is a 400 level class I assume I’ll have lots of reading to do.  And since I can never read just the three or four articles the profs ask for, and I usually go out to twenty or thirty (you should have seen my copy bill at UH in 99… HA) I hope to come up with some sort of research idea to test mental illness within an ecopsychology framework. 

GPA

Well… that’s not happening…

I used to be a good student with a 4.0.  Then life happened and I had a bad semester.  A couple of bad classes and my GPA is a terrible 2.88.  I found this page that will calculate your current GPA and tell you how many classes you need to take to get a higher GPA.  Sheesh.  With the number of classes I have left to take, it seems that I can get a 3.1 with straight A’s the rest of the way, or I can get a 3.0 with A’s and a B here or there.

So much for Cum Laude.