The Armchair Blogger

One thing I don’t understand about this blog is the way my statistics seem to fluctuate. Ok, granted, they tend to go right up when I post, but how could 72 odd people be reading what I write? I mean how do they find me? I know I have a hard core of fans – Sarah mostly – and have recently become aware that my extended family have been reading this (meaning I’m going to have to censor myself a bit more). But where does everybody else come from? Another thing that I’ve come to realise is that depression sells. Out of nowhere “the black dog” post generated a surfeit of clicks comparative to my other posts. For example, my blog statistics for the last number of days:

It’s kind of sad that depression is what interests people. I mean why do we do this to ourselves? We make ourselves comply with societal norms because we believe that this is ”what is expected of us.” But expected by who? We believe that we are expected to behave in a certain way but it is ourselves believing that others expect us to behave in that way. There is no “other” except for the “other” that we create for ourselves. Sure the media, our interactions with peers and family will help give form to the “other” that we perceive, but “the other” is really just our own manifestation. For those of us lucky enough to live in liberal democracies our bodies in the corporeal world have long been emancipated - few are indentured into slavery except the daughters of certain Austrian fathers - but how far have we come in the greater problem of the emancipation of the soul. I suppose what we really need to do is emancipate ourselves from ourselves. I think I’ll go dust off my Pali Canon.

Just a quick note to say thanks so much to everyone who has enquired as to my well-being. I never expected a little Monday morning moroseness would cause such a reaction. I’m not suicidal or would do anything stupid and feel a lot better. I just find writing to be theraupeutic and helps me to organise my thoughts on certain topics. But once again, thanks alot.

I have a black dog. He keeps following me around. I never thought the day would come where I too would have a  black dog. I’ve seen others with black dogs and dismissed it as weakness. And yet I sit on the couch. My teeth grit. My hands claw-like. I grab on to the armchair so tightly that the thin, worn fabric tears. The rage rips through my body. Why do you feel like this? Why? Why can’t you be normal. Stop it. Stop thinking like this. It’s the struggle I tell myself.

I saw my father for the first time in 9 months on the weekend. My placid, forth right matter of fact behaviour belied the turmoil that was stewing within. I watch my parents exchange perfunctories. It’s the struggle, I tell myself. Here they are. The two people that raised me sitting at our faded outdoor setting, smoking,  discussing irrelevant, mundane items. I couldn’t help but think here are two people. Two honest people. Two people that have never wanted anything more than to be happy. No airs. No graces. No need to step over people to get what they wanted. Hard workers. Day-in-day out. It’s just the struggle I tell myself.

I can’t help but think my father is a nice, decent and honest man at heart but the the years of corrosion that had built up throughout his life just became manifest and when the time came for him to look inside all he found was rot. Rot that scared him. Rot that made him lash out and do something stupid. Rather than repairing it, he would just make it worse. We could sit down for hours and talk about why. The fact that his father left him at a young age, the fact that he never had a profession of his own, the fact that he was forced to work 14 hour days so he could provide for his family who probably treated him like rubbish. We could blame him. We could blame me. We could blame my mother. Fuck, we could blame Today Tonight, but it’s all moot. It doesn’t change anything. It’s the struggle I tell myself.

I listen to them speak to each other. They skate around the important matters in preference for light small talk. I listen in and think it’s just sad. Both of them. Their whole lives they have been walked over. They are honest folk. They don’t have the ability to walk over people, cut throats. At every step of the way they’ve both been taken advantage of. And then finally it happenend. They turned on each other. He walked over the one person that would never walk over him. The final act. It’s the struggle I tell myself. A fitting end.

I use to tell myself that it was the struggle that made life worth living. A carefree life was a life not worth living, I thought. And yet here it is, the struggle has caught up with me and it doesn’t feel good. It feels horrible. I hate myself. I hate myself for hating myself. I can’t think straight. I hate myself for writing this in a blog entry. I just…can’t. I laid in bed this morning thinking that I never want to get up. I can’t face it. I don’t want to face it. Everyone going about their day blind to the corrosion within. And yet I will, I will go on. Because there is nothing else I can do but to go on. But please, I write this so that you can have patience with me. Just give me time and I’m sure I’ll be fine.

I feel weird and horrible.

I should blog. I’ve just noticed that the keyboard has dust on it. I haven’t been home for a couple of days now. I’ve been out convalescing in the deep recesses of suburbia (DRS) with my mum. I have a cold. Not swine flu. Just a cold. It’s still frustrating. Life has grounded to a halt and I feel very empty. I’ve been feeling empty for a couple of days now. This feeling began on Friday. I can conceive of no cause or justification for it. I’ve just been feeling dull and taciturn. Perhaps I’ve been feeling lonely or maybe it’s the impending upheaval in my life (i.e. the move back) or it could be that I’m sick. I don’t currently have a job over the winter break and I’m down to Mi Goreng – but hey, I’ll survive. Do you ever stop and ask yourself: is this how I thought my life would turn out?

No. Perhaps letting this entry descend into a composition of melancholy will not ameliorate my sentiments. So I shall cease on that thought and digress the conversation to Master Chef. I’m kind of addicted to it. And homeMADE too. In fact, I’ve somehow jumped back onto the reality TV programming with gusto. Sometimes I take an existential perspective and think about myself watching myself watching these programs and “tut tut-ing” but eh, even if reality TV is trash, another example of the degradation of society’s intellect, then so be it. All I cares about is that Julie doesn’t get eliminated. Actually, I lie. I want that young blonde girl to win, with the bug eyes. She seems really nice and genuine. Tom went tonight. I don’t think he deserved to go. There are other contestants who are far less talented than him. I dislike the beer merchant. His confidence irritates me. I’m jealous.  

My breath smells rancid. I’ve been drinking tea and I have that terrible after-tea taste. It’s distracting me. But I guess I want to be distracted because I have nothing productive to write about other than my rancid breath, which I’m sure it’s exactly what you want to hear about. Who is you, anyway? As I write this I write for an audience. But really, there is no audience. The audience is a creation of my brain – a group of people who my brain conceives of reading this. Whether you exist or not is moot. In fact, when “you” come to read this, I will be long gone from the act of creating it and then can “you” even say that “I” wrote this. The act of me writing it and the voice that you hear right now reading it is just a construct in your brain just as much the idea of you reading was as much of a construct in mine. I guess what difference does it make?

 I’m bored of this. I wish Master Chef was on.

Okay, so I had dinner last night with Sarah, Sean, Laura and VDK and it has become apparent to me (even though I knew it anyway) that people are becoming dissatisfied with the recent turn in blog posts towards the abstract over the concrete, the theoretical over the mundane. So I promised to provide more “real world” posts.  The problem is, however, my life is so incredibly boring that nothing worthy of written words really ever happens anymore. So I’ll try to craft something worthy of reading. But I’m not making any promises.

Well this week was the last week of classes so I finished up the lessons I had planned. I had both undergraduate and postgraduate classes this semester. The undergraduate classes were easy because it was research methods which are somewhat interesting. The postgraduate class on the other hand was difficult. About 75% of the class are international students who are there merely to either improve their English or to go for permanent residency at the end of their degree. The other 25% of the class are populated by elder, Australian students who are paying rather large sums to attend the class. Balancing between those two competing demands is horribly difficult. I don’t want to be seen to be neglecting 75% of the class by going off and discussing somewhat complex ideas whereas I also don’t want the domestic students to feel as though they are being short changed for their investment. Anyway, this hesitancy crept into my teaching and I screwed up a couple of times to the point where I started dreading going to class. I mean nobody had said anything to me, but I just felt the dreaded stench of failure attached itself to me whenever I walked into the class and that everyone was staring at me thinking this person is completely unqualified to be teaching this. It turns out it was all completely in my head. On the last week of class, all the international students approached me at the end and sheepishly asked if they could take photographs with me in it. I HATE photographs, but I was neverthless obliging. It was really nice. And then the coordinator of the unit came up to me after class and told me that all the domestic students had come up to him and told him that they were really satisfied with me as a tutor. So I guess all’s well that end’s all.

My lease expires early in July and that means something I hate – moving. It also means I’ll that I’ll be moving back to the Redlands (deep recesses of suburbia). Depending on what my estranged father does (i.e. makes things difficult), I will be helping my mum out by assuming half the debt for the house which means technically I’ll be a homeowner – last thing I ever wanted to be. But I guess necessity has forced my hand. But I suppose it has more benefits than disadvantages because I’ll be using my money to help pay off a mortgage as opposed to helping some landlord pay off theirs. I’m kind of looking forward to moving out somewhere much quieter where I can sit around and ponder and just having space to move! It will be like my retreat away from the city. I’ll be like Stalin with his dacha (summer house) on the Black sea.

On the negative side I will be moving in with my mum. Just me and my mum. Just me and my mum in a large quiet house. Given this state of affairs, I think it would be appropriate to quote some of my favourite lines from the Alfred Hitchcock movie, Psycho: 

Norma Bates: No! I tell you no! I won’t have you bringing some young girl in for supper! By candlelight, I suppose, in the cheap, erotic fashion of young men with cheap, erotic minds. Mother, please…!
Norma Bates: And then what? After supper? Music? Whispers?
Norman Bates: Mother, she’s just a stranger. She’s hungry, and it’s raining out!
Norma Bates: “Mother, she’s just a stranger”! As if men don’t desire strangers! As if… ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she’ll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food… or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don’t have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?
Norman Bates: Shut up! Shut up!

 And:

Norma Bates: [voiceover in police custody, as Norman is thinking] It’s sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn’t allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They’ll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man… as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can’t move a finger, and I won’t. I’ll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do… suspect me. They’re probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I’m not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching… they’ll see. They’ll see and they’ll know, and they’ll say, “Why, she wouldn’t even harm a fly…”

I guess this is just a sign of things to come….

I apologise to those who read this blog for the insights into my actual life, but I feel the need to explore a couple of ideas that are percolating in my head. This piece is kind of a combination of two erstwhile entries, the debate about absolute truth I had with Mark and my discussion of post-structuralism and libertarianism as a viable political ideology which incorporates post-structural beliefs. It is to the latter post which I will concentrate on in the first instance. On deeper thought, I need to distance myself from what I wrote. The reason why I am experience so much tension is that the idea that human beings should be free to exercise free agency is in itself a truth construction albeit one which I hold dear. If I were to apply a postmodern critique to this idea, unfortunately, this truth construction is merely a product of the post-Enlightenment socio-cultural context which venerates liberalism and liberalist ideology. Inasmuch, the idea of that post that we can transcend truth constructions by establishing a political economy which enables people to pursue their own “truth-constructions” is indeed in itself a truth construction. I don’t want to get too metatheoretical here, but where does this leave us?

German philosopher Hegel wrote a number of philosophical treatise on the nature of the “spirit” and historicism and all those other phenomena that I find incredibly interesting. I’m sure most people have noticed my penchant for the word zeitgeist. But when I attempt to read Hegel’s work my own feeble mind struggles to understand what he really means. I rely on secondary interpretations of what he means. The reason why Hegel is so difficult to read is because his stated aim was to write in a manner which transcends the current socio-cultural context in which he wrote. The product of this is a series of largely incomprehensible works which to people such as myself and others without formal qualifications in philosophy struggle to read. The point of this little sojourn, is the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of ever really being able to transcend the “zeitgeist.”

So where does this leave us other than completely disillusioned? Well firstly, I am going to have to accept the fact that the right of humans to be free and to choose is just a product of my socio-cultural environment. I would love to believe that indeed there was one absolute truth and that absolute truth is that all humans should be born free and allowed to pursuit their own “constructions of truth.” But I can’t. Nevertheless, I’m going to have to put aside this fact for fear of descending into a nihlist state and console myself with the fact that, No! Human freedom transcends all zeitgeists and that all history hitherto is a struggle for the emancipation of the individual. A tough sell.

As Mark pointed out in our debate, there is a point at which postmodernism becomes circulatory, self-defeating and destructive. I was quick to point out that I believe there is nothing wrong with critique dominant discourses such as science and the way they interact with society, which can oftentimes be beneficial. But I am now coming to believe that really postmodernism has become an odious spectre that is haunting academia and something needs to be done.

I went to a wedding on Saturday night. It was my long time family friend Laura’s (her blog Cherry Blossom Adventures is on my blogroll). Needless for me to say, the wedding was thoroughly enjoyable. Whenever I read blogs I usually get a sense of whether I think the writer is destined for a life of happiness or on a collision course with disaster. I have always maintained that when I read Laura’s blog  I feel each entry foreshadows a happy ending and I’m quite convinced that this will be so. Laura has had her fair share of setbacks, problems and disasters, but I sense that her character is strong and true and she’ll make it in the end. 

 This week, Mark (www.markwoodbridge.wordpress.com) and I somehow found ourselves debating the merits of science, memes, evolution, zeitgeist and what not. The debate started on Monday evening when I believe Mark, while at work and out of the blue, sent me an interesting text message (which I later found out he mass texted to half his contact book) about memes. At the time I was with my crew writing a script for our next documentary (a cultural history of goon) and in order to get our creative juices flowing we decided to get drunk on goon. I have transcribed the debate (which occured both through text messaging and facebook) for posterity. I think it’s interesting and I my views have certainly evolved after having it. So enjoy:

Mark: I’ve been thinking of why and how we evolved into beings which embrace altruism and institutions and such superfluities (ie religion) and I think it’s being looked at from the wrong perspective. To go with the idea that society is in itself an organism (albeit a relatively abstract one), perhaps the notiont that it was the societies en mass proponderances that thrived, rather than the individuals. I think that fits in quite neatly with any hypotheses that Dawkins has postulated. Neitzche had said we no longer need God as a society. Showing yet again he was of a higher consciousness than his contermporaries as we see the slow but inexorable turn away from that meme. As societies, large and small show they can thrive without a god. Also I really need to take a shit.

 To which I responded:

 Paul: Look what I am about to say needs to be prefaced by the fact that I’m drunk on goon but I wrote half a blog entry on this before abandoning it on the basis of the fact that I think it’s futile. I think all theories are merely a product of their socio-cultural context. For example, the notion that humans have evolved into being which have embraced altruism does not sit well with me. Neitzche’s notion of a society post God is a gain a reading of society on the basis of a contemporaneous socio-cultural milieu. Think about it, mass alturism only really came about post industrial revolution whereby a surfuit of human produce could enable acts of alturism (for example, the poor laws). Remove such surpluses and I think humans would regress and abandon notions of alturism in the interest in their and their family’s survival. This isn’t evolution, this is a product of socio-cultural zeitgeist.

 Mark: We should have this discussion another time. When you’re not drunk and not over text. I’d like to pick apart that whole message . My message was just a seed for discussion and I’m glad you replied.

Me then becoming highly provocative:

Paul: Oh try me! All science is socially constructed. Just like the theory of evolution – it operates within a zeitgeist. In time it will be falsified as most ertstwhile scientific theories have been from Newton to Einstein. We just need to wait and see. Think transhistorical.

Mark: I know what you’re talking about. My brain is operating a million miles an hour right now and I have to make a damn pizza. Cure the pursuit of absolute truth. We should just abandon it and put it out of our minds. I think you’ve been promoted to Meta-Cynic .

Paul: That’s exactly right! Hence my abandonment of my blog entry. Yes, I’m now firmly postmodern. It’s not that humans have “evolved” into a point where there is no need for a God, there is just no need for a God in this current epoch. When does human belief in God surface? In times when humans lack control. However, in this modern world we have an illusion that we have control of our lives by virtue of our liberalist political ideology [and the idea that science will one day solve everything]. Remove that illusion of control and society and our society will quickly regress into an epoch in which God has supreme relevance and thus is restored as the ultimate.

Mark: By taking that stance you are completely obviating the discussion and that’s not fun. If we abandon everything we wouldn’t engage in anything. Let’s start with alturism. Alturism did already exist, but not on a mass scale because it COULD NOT exist on a mass scale. Define family because certainly it existed within social groupds in the past and still to this day, large and small. Not just in humans…you know, I think you agree with me, and Neitzche, but don’t realize it. You certainly don’t disagree. We’re both talking about memes and their usefulness to that current society. A society still evolving…besides that’s just your theory which you developed within the constraints of a pardigmal bias. It’s be shown to be incorrect.

Paul: Oh I’m just saying what I think probably independet of what ur saying. I agree that alturism existied in small tribal groups but that was a product of that fact that the individuals best hope of survival rested with the pooling of resources not some moral god. And the best thing is that ur right, my theory is merely a product of the postmodern sociocultural zeitgeist, just like all theories…done, I won’t respond anymore this is too expensive.

Mark: Lame. I have so much to say. Maybe re-read my initial message when you’re sober and we’ll talk another time. I don’t entirely agree, but you’re safe from reproach because there’s no way for me to prove otherwise. Kind of like another saucy topic we’re often forced to debate…

 Paul: Look I think I’m arguing against your friend Sonny not u. His ideas were crazy.

 Mark: Yeah. I’ve continued to debate him in moderation. He’s altered hist argument drastically. But he’s also preparing a demonstrative for me. Intriguing. But listening to opposing points of view is the best way to refine one’s arugment. Plus I just find all this stuff to be exquisite. Helps me get through 13 hours of washing dishes and cooking for dead shits.

 Now here’s where I sober up and the conversation resumes the next day:

 Paul: The problem I have with applying Darwin to history is that as a necessary corollary it presupposes the notion of history as progress. Also I reject the idea that science can advance towards some sort of omniscience where by we can acquire absolute truth through rigorous application of the scientific mehtod. This just doesn’t sit well with me. Truth is, and always will be, historically derived. We, at this time ,are engaged in a discussion using ideas and theories which are the dominant episteme today, will no doubt be sublated tomorrow. We are playing a game in which the goal posts are constantly moving. How then can we ever know truth in we are constantly in flux? We can’t and as such the truth is what I believe it to be. I guess I’m arguing a kind of sopilsism. What do you think? Give me some brain fodder, I’m meant to be doing work and this is all I can think about.

 Mark: My battery is about to go dead, but really I think that you misconstrue what science is, being the observation of the universe. Theories are just that. Science doesn’t try to tell us everything, it just observes. Evolution is the absolute best obervation humanity has ever made, but of course it is not infallible. Even if no observations had been made that is absolute truth (or can be), it doesn’t mean that is is impossible. Using whay you said last night, you can’t say how observations will be made in the future. Also, the notiont that every theory will one day be proven false is logically unsound. I have a lot to say though, So I’ll text you tonight, feel free to reply.

 Paul: Concerning gravity for example, there is not one completely irrefutable theory but a number of theories which compete for scientific hegemony. Likewise, if you ask a physicist and a chemist to decribe a molecule both of their explanations will differy because they see it through their own paradigmic lens. I understand what science is but I dispute that it is always value free and strictly based on observation. Scientific discourse is imbued with explaining, not just neutral, value free observation. Science is constructed in power structures by people who are drive by ego as much as the search for truth. I believe evolution to be the best possible explanation we have today, but as a theory there are questions as to whether it is truly falsifiable because it is impossible to recreate and observe the conditions of evolution. The grasp for truth is a false pormise. Pragmatically, I have no problem with people striving for it, philosophically I have my doubts. As far as I’m concerned, complete omniscience is god and this is what positivistic science promises. I think you have a romantic idea of what science is but this is divorced from how science is produced and consumed in scoiety and even presented by scientists.

 The debate then moves away from text messages to facebook messages:

 FROM MARK:

 Anyways, onto your test messages from before:

I can’t subscribe to your views for a number of reasons.

Firstly: It is self-defeating. To say that all theories are predicated by the paradigm within which they are composed is itself a theory arising from your current paradigm. You’ve no way to say how theory will be composed, or observations made within future epochs.

Secondly, it creates a paradox and if amended to extirpate the paradox (ie, “all theories will one day be proven incorrect, except this one” or “all theories are subject to the weight of the context within which they are contained, exept this one”) is to admit that a truth is possible.

Thirdly, it is stating that theories which are assumed to be correct will definately be proven false. There is no way to prove this, nor any real reason to think this way. It is simply a matter of faith. Replace this scenaio: We haven’t yet found the meaning so we never will, God is the answer; with: We haven’t yet found the meaning so we never will, it is henceforth futile to keep looking.

We were once within a world which believed the world to be flat, someone with the scientific acumen announced that the world was round, and he was vindicated in the future with the truth, that by human’s perception of what is round in our 3 dimensions (not including time..) it is indeed round. And we have thus devloped science which can make this observation seem rudementary.

Unfortunately, we live within a short time-frame and are unable to be extant when posterity verifies (or indeed vitiates) theories, if it is capable of doing so.

In my opinion, it is simply an ultra-cynical view from someone who’s outlook on the universe has been cauterized by his own inability to fathom that which is unfathomable in such a scientifically nascent race. It’s a capitulation which, if one was inclined to read between the lines, one would infer that you’re struggling to come to terms with the lack of meaning to your own existance. Do you need validation, Paul?

“Truth” itself is an abstraction. The word itself is misleading and perhaps for sake of clarity ought be removed; one needs simply to focus on what “is”. Science is here to simply observe what “is”, not pontificate to us what the “truth is”. All human’s have is “context” with which to observe “what is”. Human’s may try to say “what is”, not science. Don’t confuse scientists with science.

As to your criticisms. Gravitation has not been proven “incorrect” (caveat: yet ;-]), it has simply been shown to be incompatable with quantum mechanics. Think of it like this:

We know how little things work, we know how medium things work, we know how big things work; we simply don’t yet know how big things and little things work with one another.

Of course, you *think* that even if a theory is forthcoming, it’ll be proven false with posterity.

As for evolution, there is one unequivocal way of proving it to be false:
To find contradictory fossil evidence where it does not belong.

To be honest, there isn’t much argument against your position. It’s simply another point of view. But as science continues to exist, and our use *of* it becomes increasingly more sophisticated, as humanity evolves into something far more complex than we are currently capable of fathoming, it’s strange that you would take a stance similar to the one you have.

Science will continue to pile on evidence, evermore, and just continue “working on it” to paraphrase Dawkins. With each year that humanity exists, it isn’t simply generating new theories, it’s perpetually gaining in knowledge, and raising it’s consciousness. We will keep observing.

Having said all this, I don’t actually believe we’re disputing anything, just interpretting the same information differently. Your point of view seems counter-intuitive to me, while I’m positive mine seems “wildly optimistic” to you.

 PAUL’S REPLY:

 Yes, my ideas are based on a paradigm, as are yours and everybody’s. No, I don’t have an idea how theories will be composed in future epochs or how observations will be made, but I keep my mind open to the fact that science is merely one way of knowing and that there is a POSSIBILITY that it could be sublated in the future as have previous forms of knowledge. I don’t think there is necessarily no value in thinking like this. Yes, these ideas are highly abstract and rely on a certain degree of historicism which is a HIGHLY controversial theory. At every stage in history, the modern man has viewed himself at the forefront of knowledge (regardless of how that knowledge is produced) but my interpretation of history does not support the idea that history is a narrative of progress. When you say that I have purported to allege “all theories are subject to the weight of the context within which they are contained, exept this one” is a complete misreading of what I am saying. I am saying that no theories transcend historical context especially this one! Therefore, at best, we can merely, and should, critique all theories within their cultural-historical context (and I will submit my own to such an examination below). Think about previous theories that have been offered in the name of science: electric-shock therapy, eugenics, social Darwinism – there is no way to say whether they were right or wrong, they have just sublated by a different episteme which tells us that they are “wrong.”

I think you are completely missing my point. My point is that “production of science” is inherently intertwined with scientists for you cannot have science without the scientist. Herein lies the root of my argument. I understand what science is which you have painstakingly tried to reiterate over and over – you don’t need to. I know what science “is”. My argument is such that whilst science as a means through which to observe the world might exist in some idealistic form which you base your argument on, I maintain that it is far more messy than that by virtue of the fact that there are indeed, scientists.

I can’t agree with your point “there is one unequivocal way of proving it to be false: To find contradictory fossil evidence where it does not belong.” The reason why is because evolution as a process is not totally observable. What we use to provide evidence for evolution is trace evidence in the form of fossils which have been examined and interpreted by a certain “scientist.” The problem is that we don’t have all the information. In fact, we might not EVER have all the information because let’s face it, the information might not exist in this world anymore – it might never have been fossilized and thus captured for our observation today. Therefore, this theory cannot really be proven because we can never really falsify (if you accept Popper’s thesis of falsification) or repeat it. Don’t get me wrong, I accept evolution as the best “guess” aka theory that we have for the origin of our species. But there is an element of faith in accepting it. That’s why I hold this post positivist opinions is because it concerns me people who accept these theories as absolute truth even though they are truly “guesses” albeit predicated on the best empirical evidence we have today. You mentioned in your text message the e-coli experiment. I would like to know the totality of that experiment because I find it very difficult to acceptable that scientists can “prove” evolution on the basis of an experiment considering evolution is a process that occurred on a scale which makes our lifetimes (let alone the 1, 2 or even 20 years of an experiment) look infinitesimal – evolutionists seem to wrap up macroevolution and microevolution into one. Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down into an argument about evolution because I’m starting to sound like a creationist and I in consideration of the evidence I believe evolution to be the best explanation that we have today. But what I am fighting against, is accepting of theories as absolute truths. I think we are indeed, approaching this issue from two different angles. You are taking it from an optimistic angle, in which you see science in its purest form, and I respect that opinion and indeed if, I were arguing with someone like myself would take such a position. I, on the other hand, am playing Devil’s Advocate and am more interested in the way science is produced by scientists and more importantly the way it is “consumed” by society not in ideal forms of science. For example, the weakness of my argument is that it is based completely on a tautology [sic - should be paradox], there is no such thing as absolute truth, however that statement in itself cannot be true, and neither can that statement. Aghhhh! My ideas are informed by the socio-cultural context in which I, as a thinker [albeit poor and possibly nescient] exists. I see myself in a world in which people are accepting evolution and Dawkins as if it were Gospel. But they are good “guesses” and are incomplete and constantly, pardon the pun, evolving. You might have a different impression of how they are consumed by society. Yes, we are advancing forward and forward in our grand narrative of progress to a point where we will “know” – or so the current scientific discourse tells us. But I disagree with the way scientific discourse is presented as the truth. I know you completely disagree with this view of science and I know in idealistic form that is not at all what science is. But sometimes I look out into the current zeitgeist and see people accepting evolution and Dawkins with the same fanaticism as people in erstwhile years accepted divination as the sole source of all knowledge and I see REAL danger in that kind of world view just as I see REAL danger in accepting knowledge completely predicated on divination. I think it is so important to constantly be critical of the way, means, manner and methods in which it is produced. Therefore, I don’t see my position as totally counter-intuitive. I think you see science as a self-regulating body, but what damage can it do in the process of self-regulation? Don’t get me wrong, a cure for cancer is going to come through the scientific method but I don’t think a constant critique of the production and consumption of science in our society from those independent of the science producers is a completely pointless exercise!

Please see the Howard years; I think John Howard is one of my heroes. I utterly detest the religious moralism in many of his social ideas, but as a Prime Minister he was great. And I think Costello is a genius!

 And yeah Mark, I’m kind of a big deal! So pay strict reverence to my existence and validate me!

 MARK:

 Points understood.

No real point in discussing further.

You need more linebreaks.

Enough said.

Slight tangent.

 p.s. I hope we don’t have to go through the virtues of absolute truth every time I send a text with regards to anything that could be construed as “knowledge”.

;-]

 PAUL’S REPLY:

 It was the goon that made me do it.

 There was some more argy-bargy after this, but it’s not really central to the debate, so I’ll end it there. A few times through that debate I was being overly provocative and have changed a number of my viewpoints that I have stated, but I think the “thrust” of my argument remains the same. So hopefully, that was as intellectually stimulating reading, as it was having.

Ok. My university lecturer has recently discussed the benefits of keeping  a blog documenting your “research journey.” It sounds like a bit of a lark, so I thought I might try it for a bit:

http://theoreticalthingamajigs.wordpress.com/

Yes, there’s something else that has been bugging me. Last week I was riding home on the train, casually listening to my iPod, but really observing all the fellow patrons on the train as I have a tendency to do. Then as a I had become fixated on a middle aged man with toulsed hair wearing a houndstooth jacket shoving a McDonald’s hamburger into his mouth while reading the evening edition of MX, I was accosted by the ticket inspector – evidently he had been checking the entire carriage for tickets unbeknownst to me. I have a concession Go card, despite the fact that I am now technically a part-time student and thus am not entitled to be travelling on concession. I am able to have one because I still have my undergraduate student card, which through some system error, is set to expire at the end of this year, not the end of last year as it should have. However, on this very night I had left my student card at home, which I tend to do on occasion. Knowing instantly that I didn’t I have student card I nonchalantly retrieved my Go card and flashed it towards the ticket collector hoping that he would not request to see me student card. I wasn’t so lucky. In an amiable, yet serious voice he requested the student card. I fumbled through my wallet for a few seconds and then hesitantly announced that I was without my card. The ticket inspector’s side-kick, a thinman with a rubescent complexion, having peered into my wallet asked me what that card was (my Masters student card which stated I was a PT student – disaster if they saw it). Thankfully, my staff card (which is similar in appearances to student cards) was sitting in front of it through my incredible dexterity and sleight of hand I quickly retrieved it saying, ”Oh that’s just my staff card, I’m a student there as well.” The side-kick yanked it from my hand and examined it. I turned to the main ticket inspector and explained that I was really a student and that I had textbooks to prove it. The main ticket inspector was thankfully a good natured individual. He had compassionate eyes and a Santa Claus-esque demeanour. He told me that he would let me off with a warning but that it was a felony (or something) to ride on a train with a concession ticket and no student card. I thanked him appreciatively and he trundled on to the next carriage. At the next stop I disembarked and continued on my merry way relieved to have avoided the $300 fine.

A few days ago I was running late for uni. I unfortunately had hit the snooze button one to many times and was in a mad dash to reach the train by departure time. In my haste to leave my apartment I had left my Go card and my student card on my bookshelf. Unfortuantly, I was at the station before I came to this realisation. Knowing that I didn’t have enough time to go back and get them I just stomached the $5.90 price and bought an adult ticket. Half-way through the journey to the city I was again accosted by the ticket inspector, the same ticket inspector from the week previous. I quickly tendered my adult ticket, he hesitated for a moment, looked at me, looked at my ticket, furrowed his brow and the moved on. I know he remembered me but was not certain enough to make comment. Unbelievable! Of all the days for him to come inspecting again, he had to choose the day that I forgot my Go card and bought an adult ticket. The thing that gets me is that now he probably thinks that I was lying to him about being a concession student – even though I wasn’t. Well I guess I kind of am, because I’m not meant to have a concession ticket. But Queensland Transport doesn’t know there was a glitch in the uni ID system and that my card was accidently extended beyond my course expiration. The thing is I DO have a concession ticket, even though I shouldn’t, but he doesn’t know that, as far as Queensland Transport is concerned I should be entitled to concession travel – even if I shouldn’t. But he needs to know that! I feel like I need to prove to him that I actually have a concession pass (legitimate or not). I hate being caught lying even though I wasn’t, well I kind of am, but he doesn’t know!

I need to track him down and rectify this situation.