I fortunate enough to purchase Descartes’ Mediations and Spinoza’s Ethics along with a large book on the œuvre of Leonardo da Vinci. All of this in edition to the Early Socratic Dialogues Now if I can create some time to read it I will be set. I have been unbelievably busy lately, it is loathsome. I got a lot of text from AAAARG.org and want to read that. As well as some of the outstanding literature that I have started I read much slower than I used to because I catch more things as I am reading it, plus I am not an avid reader. I got a reading of Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland by the University of South Carolina. I got it because of hubbub on Facebook concerning the movie.
I also got an album by Free the Robots—Ctrl Alt Delete. I enjoy it, it reminds me a lot of Flying Lotus.
Also, the team we are mentoring in the FIRST robotics competition did exceedingly well in the Kettering District event. They were one of three rookie teams there, qualified for regionals and was ranked eighth.
I also have to resume work on the site and Geist. I have to post my lecture notes and start designing. It is a doozy of an undertaking. I need to decide on my process for starting.
Gee! I thought of some really great stuff today:
In Calculus, we were working on Improper Integrals, and integrating infinite areas and things of that nature. We discussed things like Gabriel’s Horn—which has an infinite surface area with a finite volume. Which made me consider infinity. I remembered Anselm’s ontological argument:
- God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived.
- I can conceive of such a being.
- It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the imagination.
- Therefore the being of which I conceive must exist in reality.
The premise I always had issues with up to this point was the third premise of the argument. But today, I realized that the problem would be in the second premise. I thought about how we cannot conceptualize infinity. I shared this with my Scientific Research instructor, and he also mentioned about how we cannot conceptualize it because we have no experience of it. We talked about it briefly; all things are based off of things that we have seen already. Creativity stems from the creative connection of two unlike things. A similar scenario is like inventing a new color, it is impossible because we have not experienced anything to work with.
So, I guess I will work with Monstro now?
I got about a third through Peter Singer’s talk about animals and ethics provided by Stanford. It has me thinking about morals and ethics—always a thorny issue. I should finish the episode.
Also, there was a TEDTalk by Dan Ariely on errors in human moral code.
I had a Tumblr account aeons ago, but never used it. I brought it back, however, to scribble down some thoughts that I might have during the day. It will not replace Sweat whatsoever—it is far too vague. Here is the link. Cheers.
♪ Matthew Herbert – Sugar
♪ Plone – The Greek Alphabet
“Thirtysixtwentyfive” by Four Tet on the album Thirtysixtwentyfive
I really like Thirtysixtwentyfive. For me, I feel that it is about development, catharsis and quiet reflection. It is the length of the song that significantly contributes meaning—especially in development. The mood makes drastic shifts as build up reaches its apex, then the denouement…
The Dodecahedron is a twelve faced solid with faces made of regular pentagons. It is to be feared by all. I made a model and tomorrow I am going to fill it with plaster of paris…
Does intent legislate morality?
