alsakjf

Do you ever get those moments when everything in your mind is a mess, a tangle, but from that crazy boundless (and perhaps exactly because it lacks boundaries, organization, between thoughts) something elusive is on the edge of your mental grasp? Something, something profound, something you have never illuminated in your mind or concluded before but which will change you and you can feel the weight of its significance like a shadow of something to come. They pass so quickly.

The sky is so purest blue—the wondering, illogical, “wishy washy” side wonders: what makes that color so moving, so deep; if we lived in a world where the sky was green, would we feel the same? How does the idea of blue, and a blue sky, differ in people’s minds? Do people picture the same shade of blue when picturing a perfect sky? –the logical, scientific part says: that’s ridiculous, the properties of light and the water moisture in our atmosphere refract light so what we see is blue, it is clear, it is scientific, there is no mystery in the spaces left between wavelength and frequency.

Can science wonder like an artsy-humanitarian-non-scientist-rational whatever wonders? Are they dichotomous? Why does hard science and literature seem so dichotomous?

At least one thing I’ve grasped (which is sadly, one out of many I have not) in cognitive psychology is that brains do differ, there is a meeting plane between physiology and psychology. Thoughts change our physiology, like how people who fall under approach in the Approach/Withdrawal spectrum show more activity in the left anterior frontal lobes. Our conscious minds, existent on a different level than our walking feet, are yet governed by concrete differences in physiology. Doesn’t that seem sacrosanct?

Smiling makes you happier.

Everything we experience is socially constructed. The blue you dream of is a construction. I’ve thought before how each person contains within them a universe. We can go tell the quantum physicists that they don’t need to search for multiple universes, every person is one.

(But! The scientific side speaks up—that’s different. That is an emotional conclusion, whereas quantum mechanics and theoretical physics postulate multiple universes because of the way space-time behaves, involving things like vanishing gravity particles and mathematical equations. Keep your amorphous feeling worlds out of the realm of logic and science!)

Except, if they really are as different, as necessarily pulled apart, as they increasingly seem to be to my confused mind, why do we search for unity? Unifying M-theory, globalization—across all spectrums (this statement which is in itself a product of this mindset)—it’s Occam’s razor and parsimony, it’s what we strive for and a world where two fundamentally incompatible ways to approach thinking just seems wrong. Or missing something.

Margins dump to think about:

- how much of true cost is deliberately masked and how much is simply due to “can’t get perfect info to everyone?”

- read some Marx

- funny how “utilitarian” means something completely opposite to what economic “utility” stands for; like how birds and sunsets are not utilitarian but give utility. English language confusion across disciplines. Maybe economists and geographers should just never talk

- morality is system dependent

- “mutual coercion”

- how quickly can institutions change? how much do they change because of conscious desire? how much can they only be changed by subconscious influence?

- wish I could live more than one life...but is that the product of living this relatively easy one?

- “trade is more important to use than aid” Malawi trade minister

- propagation of uncertainty (and not in a physics sense)

- worldfocus.org

- risk perception is political

- our system of control is politically divided, can never manage an entire ecosystem; given that we can’t change our system so dramatically, what can we do w/in this system?

- “ecology” of uneven development

- “environmental carnage”

- f you control means and conditions of production, necessarily means there is no surplus value? surplus value only gotten by removing labor from owner? capitalism IS surplus value
capitalism is a positive feedback loop, goes faster and faster
capitalism…key characteristic is over-accumulation?

- “experiential cues”

- constructed binaries: nature, society

- ontology

- idea world loop: ideas shape world, which shapes ideas, mental to physical medium change

my brain feels like it is about to explode.