...actual distinct voices speaking in my mind? Or is it just the weblog of James Lindenschmidt? Here you can see me wrestle with this and other questions, while spewing forth my writings, opinions, and hallucinations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 

Free/Open Source Software in Governments

As a result of either market inertia, a reaction to draconian licensing schemes for proprietary software, or studies that recommend it, many governments around the world are turning to Free/Open Source software. Some are even legislating that all software used in government must be Free/Open Source. There is even a movement to do this in the USA, despite opposition from certain parties.

So what does all this mean? Should it be mandatory that software used in government be Free/Open Source? The Initiative for Software Choice people/lobbying group (funded mostly by Microsoft and Intel) argue that software should be chosen on its merits, and not categorically (ie, no proprietary software). Agreed.

So let's look at the merits of Free/Open Source software vs. proprietary software. Free software is generally more stable. It is generally more secure. It is based on a paradigm where, in Doc Searls' words, "no one owns it, everyone can use it, and anyone can improve it." Security flaws are fixed more quickly when they do come up. Free software costs less (obviously) than proprietary software. Free software allows smaller companies to make money in support contracts, rather than one monopoly banking way too much money at the expense of everyone else.

To me, this is a no-brainer. Combined, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office now cost more than the computer that runs it. That is just silly when there are Free alternatives that work just as well, and in some cases, better. Nowadays, $300 will buy you a very fine machine, and the new Linux distributions that are about to come out are just excellent.

^ posted at 1:56 PM

 

R. Buckminster Fuller: Consciousness Change Catalyst

I just finished reading the Introduction of R. Buckminster Fuller's book, Critical Path, and I can tell already that this book is going to be one of those life-changing books for me.

(Incidentally, other books I'd consider to be life-changing are, in no particular order, Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Whitehead's Process and Reality, John Dewey's Art as Experience, and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.)

John Dewey once said something to the effect of, "A problem, well-put, is a problem half-solved." In other words, the way in which a problem is invented determines what the best solution will be. WIth this in mind, Fuller's Introduction is the most well-put articulation of The Problem facing humanity that I've ever seen. Thus it is no surprise that Fuller's Utopian vision has compelling ideas with specific examples on how to achieve it.

For instance, Fuller believes that we could be operating in a post-scarcity paradigm. But because of gross inefficiency and lack of cooperation among people worldwide, it appears to most that scarcity of what he calls "life support" is the case. For Fuller, this perpetuation of the myth of scarcity is an economic problem:

"Those in supreme power politically and economically as of 1980 [when Critical Path was written] are as yet convinced that our planet Earth has nowhere nearly enough life support for all humanity. All books on economics have only one basic tenet--the fundamental scarcity of life support. The supreme political and economic powers as yet assume that it has to be either you orme. Not enough for both. That is why (1) those in financial advantage fortify themselves even further, reasoning that unselfishness is suicidal. That is why (2) the annual military expenditures by the U.S.S.R., representing socialism, and the U.S.A., representing private enterprise, have averaged over $200 billion a year for the last thirty years, doubling it last year to $400 billion--making a thus-far total of six trillion, 400 billion dollars spent in developing the ability to kill ever-more people, at ever-greater distances, in ever-shorter time" (Fuller, xxiii).

Fuller goes on to show how inefficient humans are in their generation, allocation, and use of electrical power. He suggests a worldwide power grid that would "advantage all without disadvantaging any." In other words, "it no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival. War is obsolete" (xxv).

Yet humanity continues to plod along its path of self-destruction. Fuller identifies two primary obstacles to overcoming this path: first, "humanity does not understand the language of science" (xxvii), and second, "the world's power structures have always 'divided to conquer' and have always 'kept divided to keep conquered' " (xxviii). I find these observations to be remarkably tied to the current Intellectual Property crisis we are facing. If information were able to flow freely, Fuller predicts humanity would somehow see the light and emerge into a quasi-Utopian, sustainable future. Perhaps he is right, but his more concrete predictions (by the end of the 1980s X will happen; by 2000 Y will happen, etc.) seriously underestimate either human stupidity or the might with which the power structures squeeze the general populace, or both. Time will tell.

^ posted at 1:55 PM

 

Jim, meet Bucky

"I find that our whole education system around the world is organized on the basis of the little child being ignorant. Assuming that the little child that's born is going to have to be taught, in a sense it's an empty container, waiting for information to be given to it from the grown-ups; and so the little child demonstrates time and again an interest in the whole Universe. A child is very enthusiastic about the planetarium. A little child will ask the most beautiful questions about total Universe, continually embarrassing the grown ups who have become very specialized and can't answer great comprehensive questions."
-- R. Buckminster Fuller

Many of the things I've been reading recently have made very positive comments about R. Buckminster Fuller. So I decided I'd check him out. But synchronicity must have been working today. I went to my favorite used book store in the world today, and sure enough, they had a copy of Fuller's book, Critical Path. So I picked it up.

After I got home, I went online and found a RealPlayer video of one of his lectures. The above quote was taken from that lecture. I haven't listened to all of it yet, but so far it's been a very nice summary of the "progress" of humankind up to the late 20th century.

His thoughts on education were mentioned almost in passing, but I find them to be right on the money. It's going to be fun reading this guy's work.

^ posted at 10:13 PM

 

Oh no, I'm a social stigma (again)

Let's get it straight up front: I'm annoyed. Tonight I've had the third person in recent memory give me shit about being "unemployed." My current gig is to be a stay-at-home dad, raise my daughter, take care of the house, cook, and be the best, most creative person I can be. And because I don't sell my attention 40+ hours per week, and because my wife DOES do so as our breadwinner, somehow I end up getting shit. As if I'm somehow less-than-male because I'm a "house-husband." It's really a pretty pathetic attitude, don't you think?

My standard response, from now on, will be: well, if I get a job, who will raise my daughter?

Lisa Marie and I have worked very hard together to be able to subsist on less money. Because we do our best to reject the American Consumerist Fetish, we are able to live on one modest income. This is by design. My job is to hold things together at home, and make sure my daughter is surrounded by interesting, curious things. And I get to cook and clean. And write. And read. And play music. And be happy.

Sounds like a good gig to me.

^ posted at 12:31 AM

 

A glimpse of our national psyche

If you want to catch a fascinating glimpse of how people in America think, go to this page at cnn.com. They are asking for opinions on how the World Trade Center site should be redesigned.

Some of the proposals are ludicrous, others interesting. It's an interesting measure of the symbols that Americans hold dear. Here are some of the more interesting ideas for the WTC site:

• a giant cross
• a giant Star of David
• several pentacles (much to my surprise)
• the yin-yang symbol
• twin giant statues of Buddha
• a giant black marble crater over the entire site
• a giant intertwined DNA double-helix
• several giant pyramids
• a giant replica of the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey
• a giant statue of the personified Justice
• two giant buildings, in the shape of IX and XI
• two giant buildings, in the shape of N and Y
• a giant phoenix
• a giant sundial
• and of course, several American flags, the most impressive of which was a solid gold flagpole several times as high as the original towers, holding the (by far) largest flag ever constructed that "would be visible for miles and miles around."

There is, as I have learned, incredible power in images.

^ posted at 12:28 AM

 

Won't you please join me in my war against X?

A war against pessimism. A war against illness. A war against allergies. A war against apathy. You choose.

I haven't written in a week or so. The cold I had three weeks ago is back with a vengeance. One of those things I have a hard time shaking. But, The End Is Near. So mote it be.

My daughter is absolutely amazing. It's such a treat to get to spend so much time with her.

I have another, longer piece brewing, so until then . . .

^ posted at 12:57 PM

 

The Inevitable has happened, or, my recent bout with pessimism is justified

I just saw that "relatives of the September 11 attacks [sic] filed a 15-count, $1 trillion lawsuit Thursday against the company run by Osama bin Laden's family, Saudi Arabian princes and Sudan."

This has to be the most idiotic thing ever. They are claiming that "It's up to us to bankrupt the terrorists and those who finance them so they will never again have the resources to commit such atrocities against the American people as we experienced on September 11." One of the relatives added, "we will pursue this action until justice is served and terrorism is stopped."

Now, call me crazy, but this sentiment seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of why the attacks occured in the first place. Of course, the attacks were Real Sad And Tragic, but they are misunderstood as an action in and of themselves. We mustn't forget that they were a reaction by desperate people willing to die to make a point to the wider world.

Furthermore, it suffers from the same semantic difficulties that plague any use of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism." Who exactly do they mean? In trying to bankrupt Terrorists(tm), are they trying to bankrupt anyone opposed to what America stands for? Are they trying to bankrupt people so angry at America that they are willing to die violently in order to make a point? Isn't that a contradiction? America has largely bankrupted the world already --that's largely what created the problem in the first place.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean to sympathize with the perps of the Sept. 11 attacks. They were (do I really need to say this? Why do I feel compelled to do so?) horrific crimes. Of Course. But they didn't happen at random or in a vacuum. This lawsuit will just give more people reasons to hate America and Americans. You cannot buy justice in a lawsuit. And trying to squeeze even more money out of the rest of the world, and into the pockets of Americans is only adding more fuel to the fire.

^ posted at 1:47 PM

 

Writing, Pessimism, and Cognitive Metaprogramming

I haven't felt like writing much lately. There seems to be a great tide of pessimism preparing to sweep over the world. Many of my friends have felt it too, which leads me to believe that it's not just me. Children are being kidnapped right and left, a U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be imminent, we are coming up on the first anniversary of the WTC attacks. So, why not be pessimistic?

On the other hand, I'm still struggling with many of the ideas I've expressed recently. If we create our own realities individually, then it is certainly within our abilities to choose not to be pessimistic. I've tried this with a little cognitive metaprogramming, but it's still hard to swim through the open ambient of pessimism and remain optimistic. At least, it's hard to do so without completely shutting down socially and becoming a hermit.

^ posted at 11:00 AM

 

Optimism, Pessimism, and Progressivism

Recently, a friend of mine wrote a great piece about his experience listening to Dick Cheney giving a rare public speech in San Francisco. The end of his piece struck me; he realized that it's possible "to see Cheney and all the rest of those people as real human beings who use simple tricks that we can learn to watch for, as opposed to some vast, inevitable tide of history." In other words, with some practice and possibly some training, people can learn to identify the ruses, smokescreens, and highly specific rhetorical devices used by power-mongers, and see them for what they really are.

The optimist in me agrees wholeheartedly. For those of us who look and have some practice in rhetoric and critical thinking, the mind games played by those who hoard power and money become easy, and almost fun in a morbid sort of way, to spot. Indeed, this same friend of mine once said he would often listen to Rush Limbaugh just to keep his mind sharp.

But, the pessimist in me also whispers into my other ear from time to time. This voice says, to be blunt, most people are either too stupid, to comfortable in their wageslave existence, or just generally too apathetic to give a damn about the wool that our fearless leaders try to pull over our eyes. I often fear that most people won't give a damn until it's too late.

In general, I try very hard to mute the voice of my pessimist in favor of my optimist. If I didn't, it would be very hard to think of myself as a progressive. First, let me clarify what I mean by the term "progressive." I don't necessarily mean to refer to the progressive political movement recently championed by, among others, The Green Party, Ralph Nader, and Michael Moore, although the progressive politics label includes them. I also mean cultural progressives, such as the cultural creatives.

In general, what lies behind my description of what counts as progressive is the fundamental conviction that reality is plural, mutable, and shapable by us. In other words, every individual creates their reality. It follows from there that it is in a persons best interest to try to shape their reality in such a way that a better reality is created for themselves. This is, of course, simplistic; the mechanisms for reality-shaping and the judgments about which reality might be better are complex and require some scrutiny. But the premise is there: I try to be, and associate with, progressive people progressing. So because of this fundamental conviction, I require a certain amount of optimism in my life.

Yet everywhere I look I see signs that my optimism is at best in vain, or at worst insane. For example, I hear (and sometimes find myself participating in) conversations that are full of idle talk and illusion, having nothing to do with the human spirit and its incredible capability for growth. People speak on their cellphones about their BMWs, stock portfolios, corporate dinner parties, and evenings out to parade their wardrobes in front of the rest of the herd. People are worried that a baseball strike might end the season while our government is still holding hundreds of prisoners illegally and under unknown conditions. People stress about NASDAQ and the Dow Jones while millions of people have nothing to eat. People support massive deforestation because it will Create Jobs. Under this veil of Maya, this wave of self-imposed blindness, what's a progressive to do?

One suggestion I have is to turn off your television. Better yet, sell it. Still better, take it to a public place and destroy it with a sledgehammer, yelling loudly and crazily just to get people's attention. Though I fully admit that there are a few (very, very few) quality programs on TV, I am utterly convinced that I am better off now than I was 5 years ago when I gave up TV. Why? Normalization of consciousness. Most images portrayed on television are conservative in nature, and tend to reflect the culture that produces it. It tends to normalize culture, causing any deviations to be marginalized. Therefore, if a person thinks in a way that is not commonly portrayed on television, then they know they are a freak, outside of what is 'normal." If you don't watch television, then you aren't constantly bombarded with homogeneous images of what it means to be a Freedom-Loving, Terrorist-Hating, With-Us American.

^ posted at 5:00 PM

 

Sanity and Intellectual Property

An article in USA Today claims that "Microsoft paints Linux as a threat to intellectual property rights." Damn straight! But the problem is not that Linux is some sort of vaguely defined threat, but that intellectual property laws are outdated and on the verge of outright oppressiveness. Linux is a threat to intellectual property rights--as they currently exist--because it is based on the GNU General Public License. This "copyleft" license is sane. It allows people to collaborate and learn from one another. It is perfectly compatible with the scientific method, which demands that one share one's work with the community for peer review, repeatability, and validity. The idea of proprietary software as a dominant socio-economic paradigm is, on the other hand, insane from a social perspective because it is based on secrecy, limiting the participation of others according to available property, and limiting the freedoms of others. This shouldn't be surprising; insanity always (correctly) views sanity as a threat to itself.

The notion of "property" in general, and in particular the abstract construction we've come to call "intellectual property," is in need of some serious rethinking; this rethinking is already taking place, ironically while Hollywood is treating the Internet as a "content delivery system" rather than the open, unregulatable forum that it is. For example, check out this page at Creative Commons for an example of some of the thought going on around this issue.

^ posted at 4:20 PM

 

Janis Ian update

Janis Ian, who I have mentioned before, has posted a follow-up to her outstanding article, The Internet Debacle -- An Alternative View that was originally published in the excellent Performing Songwriter magazine. By coincidence, a friend of mine just gave me an issue of that magazine to check out, and it's wonderful.

Anyway, I think that Janis Ian has some good arguments, or as Doc Searls says, "They are required reading. If you haven't read them yet, go read them now. Each is a 100-car freight train packed with Grade A clues." Coming from the guy who wrote the excellent Cluetrain Manifesto, this is high praise.

I'm a bit skeptical of some of what Janis Ian is proposing, though. She has an idea that record labels should try an experiment, offering all their out-of-print songs online at 25 cents per download. I still think downloads should be free. The music industry needs to realize that music is no longer a commodity, but rather a way to get customers. Once a customer likes a band, then they will buy things (CDs, concert tickets, T-shirts, etc.). I'm still willing to bet that if a band made all their songs available in mp3 or preferably ogg vorbis format, and had a "tip jar" using Paypal or something like that, they'd get direct financial support from their fans. This is very similar to the public radio model. There are definitely bands who are using the Internet to their advantage out there.

^ posted at 1:13 PM

 

Some Ontological Implications of Bell's Theorem and the "Many Worlds" Theory

I just finished The Dancing Wu Li Masters, that I've mentioned before. Zukav conceived his book to be "a useful translation which will help those people who do not have a scientific mental set to understand the extraordinary process which is occuring in theoretical physics" (xxviii). I don't know the scientific validity of his book, but from the perspective of someone trained in the liberal arts, it's a good read and very compelling. I now know something about quantum mechanics, relativity, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Bell's Theorem, the Many Worlds theory, and many other related ideas.

But of course, it got me thinking more philosophically about it. Before I talk about my ideas, I'll provide a quick summary of what I read. The climax of the book deals with Bell's Theorem, which is a complex mathematical proof completed in 1964 showing "that either the statistical predictions of quantum theory are false or the principle of local causes is false" (302). More specifically, according to Zukav, if Bell's Theorem is true, it leads to several surprising conclusions. The first is that either no accurate models of realty (the goal of physics) are possible (meaning that science and metaphysics are futile), or if models of reality are possible, then either a) quantum mechanics doesn't work, or b) the principle of local causes fails, which means that at least one of the following are true:

• "local" doesn't mean what we thought it meant in terms of space, and faster-than-light travel is possible
• superdeterminism is the case, which means that not only are all events in past and future history predetermined, but also that there was never any other option than what happened
• the "Many Worlds" theory of physics is true

Keep in mind that Bell's Theorem is a mathematical proof; if quantum mechanics is true--and it has never been successfully challenged, or, as Zukav puts it, "it has no competition"--then Bell's Theorem, and at least one of the above consequences, must also be true.

The last of these consequences above, the "Many Worlds theory," interests me greatly. Basically, the Many Worlds theory deals with quantum probabilities. At the subatomic level, it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen with quantum particles. However, there are a finite number of possibilities, each with a certain calculable probability that they will occur. These calculable probabilities are (comparatively) certain to the extent that they are logically consistent and knowable. Which one actually occurs, however, seems to be up to random chance. This part of the theory is what caused Einstein, who was skeptical of quantum theory, to comment that "God does not play dice."

But what the Many Worlds theory states is that the question is not which one happens, but rather which one happens in our universe. That is, all the possibilities happen, but each one happens in a different universe. Given the staggeringly huge number of quantum events that have occured in the history of spacetime, there are an equally huge number of universes that exist and are continuously created. Thus, the "many" in the Many Worlds theory is perhaps the biggest understatement in the history of intellectual thought.

To illustrate the Many Worlds theory, allow me to give an analogy, with humans in the place of quantum particles. Suppose I am confronted with a choice: I can either walk to a doctor's appointment or take the bus. At that point, the universe splits; in one of them I walk, in the other I take the bus. Perhaps another option is there as well, like I ride my bike or get a ride with a friend. All of these possibilities happen, each one creating a new universe. So in one universe, I am walking to the doctor's appointment and fully believe that I am in the real universe. In the other one, I ride the bus, also fully believing I am in the real universe.

So this brings me to the ontological implications of the many worlds theory. What, indeed, does "Being" mean if everything that has ever been possible exists in some universe or another? Or is "Being" only applicable to that which exists in our universe? But then, "our universe" is constantly changing at an impossibly high speed; it is as if reality were like a movie, with a new frame appearing every time something happens at the quantum level, anywhere in the universe! From this perspective, it would seem that all of these uncountable universes are static, because the instant something happens, a new universe is created. So what we perceive as change, movement, or time is actually just the jump from one universe to the next, depending on either chance or choice. In short, we create our reality, or put another way, reality is plural and mutable. And this ability to create new universes to enter, it seems to me, is the very essence of magick. As a friend of mine says, "now that science has proven that magick works, I'd like an apology."

^ posted at 9:30 PM

 

Music, Football, and Healing

I've just finished editing some audio that Matt and I recorded. It's simple acoustic guitar (me) and singing (him), just 6 or so songs that we wanted to record as demos to give out to people who may want to play music with us. This week will be bery telling, I suspect. We are auditioning people on Monday and Tuesday. Hopefully it will go well, and one or both groups of people will work out. Matt and I began writing music together nearly 5 years ago now, and it's definitely time for the next incarnation of our collaboration to get into gear, now that I don't have to worry about taking classes anymore.

Physically, I'm on the upswing. I definitely feel better, although my ears are still a bit clogged. Sounds like a good time to mix some music! LOL

Yesterday, Matt and I took our kids out to the park, and while they were running around the playground, he and I threw a frisbee and a football. But I threw my right elbow out a little bit, and just reaggravated it a moment ago, throwing a football again. You'd think I'd learn.

I have had precisely 2 cups of coffee, both on the same night, in about a week and a half. I think it's time for me to give up caffeine. I have already decided not to have caffeine after noon, since when I drank the 2 cups the other night, it kept me up until 6am. Pretty scary.

Right now I am focused on being creative. I have a basic plot/plan for a novel that I want to complete by next summer, and the music thing is brewing. I am happiest when I am creative.

^ posted at 2:39 PM

 

Summer Colds Suck. Bad.

I've been fighting a summer cold this week. My wife had it last week, and it hit me full force on Monday, when I had a fever and everything. The worst part is that it's been pretty hot and humid (well, OK, for Portland, Maine). 90 degrees is fairly unusual, but that's what it's been.

Yesterday I almost felt normal, but today my ears are clogged up and I can't hear very well. It's annoying. Grrrrr...

^ posted at 11:10 AM