Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 5, 2009
Science You Yourself: Part 2
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM
In part one of this series, the self was described in immunological terms. It was the self as a state of defense, an action against what invades, what is not self. Indeed, so dedicated are white bloods cells to the war of the self that, if needed, they will literally walk into battle.
In this post, part two of three, I want to turn to the stars, to rays of light, to planets, satellites that slide across the night sky, to distant and near things (trees, leaves, bodies, tables) and see the self as a point not of emanation but its opposite, arrival. To do this properly we have to understand that everything takes some time to reach a person. The further something is, the greater the time it takes to be seen (to arrive). In fact, the distance of some things is so great (galactic events and entities) that a real relationship does not exist between the entity/event and their just arriving image. The image of a star is it times all that remains of a long-dead star. Sense of this ghostly present is made by the idea of look-back time.
The time in the past at which the light we now receive from a distant object was emitted is called the look-back time. When astronomers discuss events in distant objects, they take for granted that the actual event occurred earlier because of light travel time. It is similar to finding a series of photographs of a child in a 300 year-old time capsule. We could see how the child was developing 300 years ago, even though he/she would no longer be alive.The self is that which makes the folds and layers of time into one. The illusion of the all-at-once is the self. The point at which starlight, streetlights, a person seen in a window of a lit room, the swaying of a branch, the bat above the house—what collapses these near and distant happenings into the one moment is the self.
As there is arrival of light, there is emanation of light. And so there's a spot in deep space, a point somewhere far beyond the limits of our solar system—there in the vacuum or the surface of an asteroid, the image of Jesus on the cross has just now arrived. He is looking up at the sky. He is worried that God has abandoned him. We do not so much live and die but make an etch on eternity.
1
It's narcissistic, but the self, the ego comes from nowhere and leaves. No trace. No light to travel across the great vacuum. Here and gone. Returning as a bird? Fertilizer for another spirit? Nothing to nothing. At least a supernova spews it's waste, to be recycled and reborn.
2
ohwhatisthis on: Did Charles's post earlier today really finish you off? I've started to force my way through these posts just to enjoy the comments about their inanity.
3
I think he's saying our galaxy is just a floater in the eyeball of a really, really big giant.... pffffffft.......ahhhhhhhhhhh..........hey what if we made robots, and they became conscious, and turned against mankind? pffffffffft..................................................ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
4
It will be fun to watch home movies a few centuries from now. Once computing power has expanded to the point where we can trace the movement of every photon that has ever existed, we can recreate any scene that has ever taken place in meat space. Think of the porn opportunities then.
5
We really need to get Charles a keyboard that makes him pass a breathalyzer or drug test before it lets him post anything. Sheesh.
6
Then the universe holds the all-at-once perspective as well, for no matter when an event takes place, the image of the event is reoccurring now at some distant point in space. Like ripples in an infinite pond, the event is forever propagating onward. Are you saying that the self is the limit of comprehension as our imaginations take on the perspective of the universe? Is the self the synthesis of the arrival and emanation- the contradiction of the all-at-once and the here-and-now?
I'm enjoying these posts.
I'm enjoying these posts.
7
MUDEDE NO NEED DROGAS. MUDEDE NEED SOULS AND CAPITAL AND BASE LABOR TO PRODUCE. DUHHHHHHHHHH.
FUCKING DABAIT ME.
FUCKING DABAIT ME.
8
@ David from Chicago
Every time I read something Mudede writes, I have very conflicted feelings. On one hand I want to give him a gentle pat on the shoulder, a kind smile, and walk gingerly away while shaking my head ever so slowly. On the other hand, I'd like very much to slap him across the back of the head with one of those black jack things that private eye's used to whip out.
Mudede, when any astronomer worth their weight in salt talks about the light arriving from light years away, they don't ever take for granted the time it takes for it to cross the intervening space of the cosmos. What kind of world are you living in? Where ever that is, is it a rule that you have to sound as pretentious as humanly possible as much as humanly possible...
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mudede is a nice dude and all. I'm sure if I met him, I'd like him alright. But I can't get behind his writing style. Listen, character. If you want people to read your posts for comprehension you need to stop assuming they know what you're talking about and elaborate some. Don't just say a building is echoing the second most important building in Seattle without then saying which building has the title of "Second Most Important Building in Seattle". You understand? We, the readers, haven't the slightest clue which building you're referring to. Is it factually the second-most-important? Or was it christened so by someone? In order to not pull a Mudede on people posting after me, I'm speaking of this post in particular:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Every time I read something Mudede writes, I have very conflicted feelings. On one hand I want to give him a gentle pat on the shoulder, a kind smile, and walk gingerly away while shaking my head ever so slowly. On the other hand, I'd like very much to slap him across the back of the head with one of those black jack things that private eye's used to whip out.
Mudede, when any astronomer worth their weight in salt talks about the light arriving from light years away, they don't ever take for granted the time it takes for it to cross the intervening space of the cosmos. What kind of world are you living in? Where ever that is, is it a rule that you have to sound as pretentious as humanly possible as much as humanly possible...
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mudede is a nice dude and all. I'm sure if I met him, I'd like him alright. But I can't get behind his writing style. Listen, character. If you want people to read your posts for comprehension you need to stop assuming they know what you're talking about and elaborate some. Don't just say a building is echoing the second most important building in Seattle without then saying which building has the title of "Second Most Important Building in Seattle". You understand? We, the readers, haven't the slightest clue which building you're referring to. Is it factually the second-most-important? Or was it christened so by someone? In order to not pull a Mudede on people posting after me, I'm speaking of this post in particular:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
9
On the topic of "self," They Might Be Giants has a song called "My Man" that refers to the singer's body as his "man." In this song "self" is composed of his head plus his man. This opened up my brain a little.
10
This reminds me of that Beverly Hillbillys episode where Jethro has written 1+1=3 and the people who are watching him think he's a genius and discovered a new system of Math. Most of the time when someone writes something that doesn't make any sense they're just an idiot.
11
ohwhatisthis on: That link to a Charles post about buildings was pretty bad, but I'm more offended/amazed by sentences such as, "We do not so much live and die but make an etch on eternity." It's like something a well-meaning but immature high school or early college writer might come up with. I just looked at Charles's author archive and see that he credits himself as an adjunct professor at Pacific Lutheran University. I went to the university's site to find out what classes he teaches to see if he has any in creative writing, where his own prose might be infected by exposure to that of less-experienced students. But he's not listed among the faculty and staff. Could be because he's adjunct. I honestly feel that Charles is an embarrassment to this blog and he should be let go. There has to be hundreds of bloggers who could take his place and who deserve the exposure that this forum provides.
12
Ben Yon: It was TMBG's Dead that did it for me:
Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything I want
Or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do...
Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything I want
Or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do...
13
@13, it is evident that you have never marked papers produced by american high school or college students. i have done this very thing. i have marked thousands of papers. you have no idea what you are talking about.
i also believe you have never read a book of philosophy.
also, i was an adjunct and stopped teaching at PLU four years ago.
but here is how three students rated me: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRati…
i also believe you have never read a book of philosophy.
also, i was an adjunct and stopped teaching at PLU four years ago.
but here is how three students rated me: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRati…
14
@13: Charles, I'm assuming you're referring to my post, @11. You're right--I've never graded papers but I was a writing student back in school and I remember with some pain the immature stuff I produced. I was speculating that exposure to writers like my former college self is what keeps both your style and, for lack of a better word, substance at such a low level. I'm a professional editor and I have been doing this work for 15 years. Your prose, quite frankly, is not of professional quality. Maybe the airy pointless writing that you produce is okay for academia, but you would not last five minutes as a professional writer whose job is to convey ideas to an audience using words. We wouldn't pay you a dime to write for us. I truly appreciate that you have been reading the comments on your posts, and the fact that we now have registered comments makes me sure that this is you. So now you have two options. Learn from what we are saying and get better to make the most of your unique opportunity, or wait till Dan or whoever makes these decisions does the right thing and cuts you loose.
15
You really have not read any philosophy. Also, I have no interest in obtaining a style of writing that meets professional standards. That need has never been in me. Lastly, because you have no idea of who and what I'm referencing in my writing (and it is referencing a lot of things) does not mean it is shallow or low.
16
@15: Your response suggests that you're going with the latter option. Come on, Charles, some of us are rooting for you. How can you tell I haven't read philosophy lately? Like many folks with liberal arts degrees I read the basics in college: Plato, Aristotle, and other ancients. I also took a course on Empiricists and other later philosphers. I remember liking Locke and Kant in particular. Your writings here on SLOG suggest no connections to any philosophy I've read. Philosophy is not babbling about metaphysical nonsense like a stoned undergraduate. According to Wikipedia, "Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument." Where, Charles, is the reasoned argument in "We do not so much live and die but make an etch on eternity"? Your writing is mystical at best, and your best right now is not good enough for SLOG.
17
@15 Charles Mudede
Charles, for some odd reason I am determined to like you and your posts. If only to say that I've cut through the pretension and found another good source of insight on SLOG. But when you compound glaring issues in your writing by not copping to them, it makes liking your writing even harder. Hell, forget "liking" let's just concentrate on "understanding".
If we haven't any idea of who/what you're referencing in your writing, that may not make it shallow or low (other aspects of your writing arguably do), but it *does* make your writing inefficient, inaccessible, and cryptic. As a journalist, this is not what your writing should be. Do good by your readers and yourself and try not being obtuse on purpose. Some of us want to believe you have some note-worthy opinions to express to us, but if we can't even understand them then there's no way that we can ever tell; all your knowledge and insight will be lost in the haze of confusion.
Charles, for some odd reason I am determined to like you and your posts. If only to say that I've cut through the pretension and found another good source of insight on SLOG. But when you compound glaring issues in your writing by not copping to them, it makes liking your writing even harder. Hell, forget "liking" let's just concentrate on "understanding".
If we haven't any idea of who/what you're referencing in your writing, that may not make it shallow or low (other aspects of your writing arguably do), but it *does* make your writing inefficient, inaccessible, and cryptic. As a journalist, this is not what your writing should be. Do good by your readers and yourself and try not being obtuse on purpose. Some of us want to believe you have some note-worthy opinions to express to us, but if we can't even understand them then there's no way that we can ever tell; all your knowledge and insight will be lost in the haze of confusion.
18
@17: I, too, am determined to like Charles. I must be or else why would I be going through this trouble? I agree that there is some good, unique ideas buried beneath Charles's obtuse style, and the reason I read Slog is to be exposed to different, interesting ideas. Charles, please snap out of it. We're pulling for you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS