Twilight Bark

Why? I can set up a computer simulation of little critters running around, interacting, and doing things. To them, I am the creator, and an omnipotent being. But I am not "perfect", and don't need to be. In fact, if I were "perfect", I would have to be without life or a drive to do anything since I could not improve upon my perfection (what a selfish, vain concept). Furthermore, if the simulation is any good, and is interesting at all, it would not be predictable. I would be running the simulation because I wanted to learn something from the model I constructed. Omnipotence, being all-knowing, and being perfect are three entirely separate concepts.

I am willing to live with my limitations. You may call your experiences "knowledge", but I view them as experiences. As for "realism", I already said what can be said about that. I respect different conceptualisations of the world, even when I don't see them as the most reasonable systems of thought, and especially if they are not peddled to me (I am not saying you are doing that). I appreciate the comfort you must have from "knowing" the truth. However, comfort is not what I seek in this context, and disbelief is not something I suspend lightly.

I mostly profess ignorance. That is my starting point. Having said that, I can point out which possibility is more appealing intellectually, and which one emotionally. Either way, you have to make a leap of faith: you either believe in some sort of anthropomorphic god, or a simple compelling principle that is nevertheless without proof. The second one (i.e. existence flows from logic itself) is the simpler, more economical one that is not at odds with what we know about the universe and existence, and is the intellectually more appealing one. Emotionally, I would love to have a fatherly (or motherly) god that takes care of us, rewards the good, punishes the bad, and unites loved ones in an afterlife of happiness. That is emotionally appealing, but intellectually unconvincing. In the end, we cannot say anything about the subject without the caveat that we are ignorant. And the best we can do is guess based on reason, and assume that reasoned extrapolation into the unknown is not only reasonable but also correct. In any event, we cannot presume to know.

I don't have a vested interest in the answer, but why should the monotheistic god be perfect? Can't an otherwise imperfect being create something really neat? And what is so "good" about "perfection" anyway?

People, people, you are missing the bigger picture. If you want to leave your grandchildren truckloads of money, buy up dirt cheap real estate near the arctic circle. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Greenland (pretty soon it will be really green, well at least during summers), Siberia, or Tierra del Fuego in the southern hemisphere. Really long-term investors might consider Antarctica for summer residence. I don't know about you, I know where the smart money should be going. Only half-joking.

Anushik, Without delving into mysticism, or at least minimizing it, let me try to express my take on your recent questions, and Domino and Sasun's thoughts. If one is not ready to accept at face value the "intelligent design of the universe", as implied by its suspiciously well-balanced physical constants, one is forced to accept a multitutde or an infinitude of universes. And the fundamental "leap of faith" in that case is the acceptance of the principle "if it can exist, it does exist". The next level, at which one asks "but why do these universes exist?", can be handled in essentially the same way. There are two possibilities: existence and non-existence. Since existence is a possibility (let's say a 50-50 proposition), one outcome is non-existence, in which case nobody is around to ask any of these questions. The other outcome is existence, because it is one of the logical possibilities. Existence happens because it can. This line of thought implies that logic is the source of existence, and a belief in god and a belief in logic are one and the same. It then follows that following the laws of logic (i.e. "god"s laws if you like) would reward the follower, while denying and working against reason and logic would punish those who try. Here, it is important to realize that the fictional world, and its concepts that humans have created, the epitome of which are beauty, love, and legacy, are also in the domain of reason. That is because we have finite lifetimes, and no matter how much "stuff" we accumulate, be it money, power, or fond memories, at the end we all end up exactly the same; death is a very efficient equalizer. The only way to impart meaning to our lives in the glorious fiction that we have created is to create beauty, love and protect those who deserve it, and leave a legacy of the same from us to the future. The "god" that is the equivalent of "logic", at least in character, resembles the god of the Old Testament; a legalistic, unforgiving one. The "god" that is centered around love and is forgiving in nature (but no less logical in the context of human consciousness) resembles more the Christian god. Of course I am using the term "god" as a metaphor, but for those who want to believe otherwise, it doesn't have to be. Anyway, such is this peasant's way of making sense of life.

Armen, I was referring to China and others buying US dollars and government debt. That won't go on forever at current interest rates. US cannot expect the rest of the world to finance its consumers' consumption or government's deficit forever, and on the cheap. And "forever" is what current US policies appear to count on.

True, as a standalone statement. However, when the inevitable future trends are taken into account, it is a very bad thing. Again, true as an isolated statement. But the US has been running large deficits for many years, and appears set to run much more of the same in the coming decades. At some point, as it already started to happen, its currency would devalue and even China and Japan cannot buy enough of it to keep it afloat. Then, in order to keep financing its deficit and to attract foreign investment, the interest rates would have to go up to a level that would more than wipe out any stimulant effect of the loose monetary policy of the preceding decades. America has gotten away with fiscal "sins" that no other country could have because of its "special" status, prestige, and the world's disbelief that it could ever go bankrupt. Once that assumption is shaken (which is bound to happen at currrent course), the shock to its economy and society would be unbearable. While it would be nice to be confident that our offspring will be living in Yerevan when that happens, we know that that's unlikely and that they will bear the burden of today's thoughtless policies. Regardless of what one considers one thing or another, it is true. The Republican base is the "peasants", mostly rural, but also some urban kind as well. And the rest is the elite that gleefully manipulate them. In fairness, a Democratic victory would also be "delivered" by another set of simpletons who think they are voting for their economic benefit, and the rest of their base is a nerdy elite that patronizes them. The fundamental problem is the lack of thinking ability. When even the "elite" suffers much from it, it is unrealistic to expect anything from the evangelicals, peasants, or the "proletariat". The current system of personality-based democracy is very unlikely to deliver anything better.

Pretty good summary of the situation, Azat. Democrats should do two things at a minimum. First, as you said they should avoid senators as presidential candidates at all costs; I can't believe they didn't see what has been obvious to so many people. Second, they should open up their primaries to non-Democrats, thereby allowing a more universally likeable candidate to emerge. I would like to add a few observations about what the electorate appears to have thought: Rural voters, who are in no danger of terrorist attacks care much much more about "war against terrorism" (a term that comfortably qualifies as Orwellian) than the urban voters who are directly threatened by terrorism. Absurd. Privatising social security (whcih supposedly reserves one's contributions to oneself in one form or another) does not leave a collosal hole in the budget in order to pay for the current social security benefits, which are by design paid by current contributions. Absurd. Small businesses would hire more people if the money they paid to outside agencies was directly proportional to the size of their payroll (health care payments), rather than a result of profits they realized (tax). Absurd. The potential life of a fertilized egg is more important than the life of 18-year olds that we are proud to send to their deaths. Also, letting fertilized eggs rot in storage is morally acceptable, while using them for stem-cell research is a monstrous act. Absurd. There is of course much more, but this much should suffice to indicate that the 52% of the electorate fully deserves this administration. What concerns me is the 25% or so whose fate is tied to the peasants that make those choices.

It would be both useful and amusing, not to mention poetic justice, if Kerry won the electoral college but W won the popular vote.

Bolis, if you respect how they pronounce the name of the city they live in, as well as the western Armenian transliteration. That's strange; I have not met one Bolsetsi that fits that. Perhaps you have met pseudo-Bolsetsi "kavaratsi" Armenians, who often had lost almost all of their Armenian or acquired a heavily Turkified version before they came to Istanbul (but many of those provincials are the most active intellectuals in that community). But that has nothing to do with Kemalism of postKemalism. That's just the effect of standard Turkish, which lacks the sound. Yikes. Again, I have never heard one Bolsetsi do that. I guess I haven't met the "right" ones. What I have seen among Western Armenians, including Bolsahyes is to use the sound "kh" to Armenianize non-Armenian words, e.g. "chojukh" (for Turkish "chojuk", "kid"), or the famous sujukh. But that's not overcompensation. It's more like "if it sounds uglier that the original, it's honorary Armenian".

As with almost all things about human experience, this can be analyzed in terms of freedoms. At one extreme, you have the soviet model of very few, if any choices. You want detergent? Here, this is what the state thoughtfully provided for you. At the other extreme, you have the American model, where each of the dozen brands purposefully fragment into a dozen sub-brands each, with slightly different pitches, in order to get the attention of the shopper. At some point, "freedom from the burden of decision" outweighs the propensity to increase the "freedom to have choices". Presumably, the free market behavior should be able to balance the two freedoms. At some point, you will realize that it's not worth your time to chase after "free this", or "free that", and go with choice that balances the value of your time and sanity with the marginal value of goods you supposedly obtain by "extra choices" and "offers". In other words, Armen, it is time for you to start ignoring those cheesy sales pitches.

Alright. Maybe he wasn't drunk. Maybe his poor judgement was caused by innate idiocy genetically or societally endowed, rather than induced by intoxication. What difference does it make? Police's job is to enforce the law when people with ill will or bad judgement break the law. Being a policeman involves accepting a risk. If their expectation is that law-breakers (and we don't know if he did break the law) will be fully cooperative, nice people, they have no business wearing their uniforms. If every time an apprehended person does something they don't like they are going to fly off the handle like that, they need psychiatric treatment. If they can't keep their cool because some poor idiot does something hotheaded, they should not be alowed to become policemen or remain in the force. As simple as that. Idiots will be idiots, and they don't have rules of conduct. The important thing is to make sure that the police act like the real thing, rather than a bunch of thugs.

Arpa, While I cannot disagree with your wish that we learn to take one another more seriously, or as seriously as we take outsiders, I think there is a lapse in your logic. You are expecting a drunken man to do the right thing, while ignoring the real problem in this particular example: abuse and feeling of impunity by the authority (which in fact partially ties into the very same issue). Your concern is a valid one, but placed in the wrong thread, and on the wrong example. There is no excuse for the behavior of the police. None whatsoever.

or pretty drunk That drunken idiot

Calm down Armen. It was just a joke, and not meant to belittle your effort. And I would never imply "stupid Turks". I am disturbed when Armenians underestimate the Turks and the Turkish ruling elite. Doing so is indeed itself rather stupid. I also don't mind that things like this "Diplomatik Obzörvır" are not what gives the Turks their diplomatic and machiavellian advantage. But you are also correct in thinking that there are clueless bags of biomaterial out there that could be influenced by it, and who knows, they may in turn influence others, who couldn't be bothered to learn more. But then, I am just an overly busy prole. Don't let me or anyone else to discourage you.

I think the site should have been called "Diplomatik Obzörvır". I don't know, somehow that looks more in line with the quality of their materials.

I think Armen expressed a pretty good point Domino. And he is referring to the rate of change, not change itself. Faith basically favors (or to be fair I should say it doesn't mind) stagnation. The more general concept of "spirituality" is more open to change, but is incompatible with the "disposable" mentality. In any case, "spirituality" as used in the mainstream is such an amporphous concept that I am not sure it has any philosophical usefulness. Of course, one can define it operationally as "search for meaning outside of insatiable and ever-accelerating material ends and wants", to make it always conform to Armen's statements.

You'll discover this when the time comes, but the hardware comes with a lot of firmware (hardware masquarading as software ) wired in.

Yeah. Not even in top ten!

Hopefully the Me I see in the replies here will become smaller, and better balanced with the rest of existence as people mature.

You are generalizing missy. Some of us fully participate in it, diapers and all.

Maral, the "selfish" entity in that line of thought is not you per se. It's your selfish genes, using you to propagate itself. It's there, in our machinery; we wouldn't be here if it weren't. Given the humans' level of self-awarenes, we can, of course, make sense of things in a better and more profound way.

At the instinctive and biological level, there is nothing more to it than the "selfish gene" argument (genes want to propagate themselves, whether it is fun for you or not). At the higher level that we created for ourselves, the point of life can be summarized as "creating beauty", and leaving something worthwhile behind. That can be done in many ways, and raising beautiful minds is one of the best and most accessible ways to do it.

Yeah, but if you have 16 grandchildren, then there will be 400% of you out there.