Energy 'Independence'

Does it seem weird to anyone else that the drive for 'energy independence' comes from the political left. While that end of the spectrum is also tied into ideals of community and connection with fellow human beings (in their ideal) - but then the push for energy independence argues that 'we' cannot be connected or tied or 'dependent' on anything or anybody else it is a throwback to classical liberalism. Fear of interconnection is perhaps what is driving the atomization and hyper-individualism that drives aggressive self-protective action in the first place (which is what removing 'dependence' is supposed to prevent). But, perhaps, its not as contradictory as it seems - we cannot take aggressive action if they have a card to play (the lifeline on our energy supply) - so energy independence is a prerequisite to military aggression. Just as 'independence' or seeing oneself as separate from another is a pre-requiste to violence in any realm.

Capitalism Contra Kierkegaard/Existentialism

If we take the existential concept that 'the dread of freedom' is a fundamental component of the human condition in which the self lives in a sort of sickness unto death where one fears taking responsibility for ones life or when one is "crippled by the existential dread of freedom and burdened b ya sense of self". I think that there is some everyday expression of this fear when one finds oneself with free time and is overcome with anxiousness instead of feeling relaxed (because you feel that you have to do work or do something meaningful etc. etc.). Now consider mundane labor, and the Marxist concept of labour-power and how a worker can pour their lief force their species being into labour that they no longer own functionally selling their 'self' to the capitalist for the time period that they are working. They are selling the eight hours that they work (9-5 for example) to someone else. Could this be read instead of the founding psychologically dilemma of capitalism but instead as a line of flight from the 'dread of freedom' and functionally subletting or delegating one's 'dread of freedom' or selfhood to the capitalist. As you lose your self you lose the sense of self that creates the dread of freedom.

Playlist Work Order - Headphone Music

it is my belief that just as there are some songs that are only really good with the volume on the speakers cranked up there are some songs that uniquely take advantage of headphones in that you can hear small noises and it can play with the left/right headphone (like having the sounds of a galloping horse go 'through your head').

Not the Best Example - But an example The Album Leaf's - Malmo

copyright documentary

How to Green Screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6brdwY-dvU

congratulations

the intention of this post was to make the argument that we are incorrectly using congratulations in the sense that we should not congratulate people that win prizes because they haven't done anything. but i'm realizing i'm wrong - in fact it seems like we shouldn't be congratulating people that do work to get something.

etymology of 'congratulations'

the oldest use is, 1438, in latin congratulationem which means "to wish joy" from com- "together" + gratulari "give thanks, show joy," from gratus "agreeable" so it began by being something along the lines of 'i wish good luck to you' So here is a quote at the opening of a new castle pavilion. "It is the king's most sweet pleasure and affection to congratulate the princess at her pavilion. --Shak."

the usage changed in 1540 when it became militarized (congrātulātus) and it meant "to salute". that is not that weird tho because apparently a 'salute' is also a wishing of goodwill. It comes from salute in Italian which means 'i wish you good health' and was "used after a person has sneezed or after a toast". But that is also the initial function of the salute in the military with is to wish good will upon the force and the general. but it did change into a statement of respect. It's also apparently tied to 'salutation'.

artifiical success/ video games/ life addiction

I think that the reason that video games work is that they stimulate the reward pathway somehow. If the reason why we get addicted to drugs is that they artificially release dopomine into the reward pathways then it is 'artificial success' - video games seem to have a parallel effect in that they set up tasks that you have to complete and then you have achieved success as well at a virtual task. Studies have been conducted that have found that the human brain is unable to distinguish between the social aspect of interacting and emotionally connected with television characters and interacting and emotionally connected with 'real' humans. So chemically, and in theory, a person could be totally emotionally and socially fulfilled if they never saw another human but watched every episode of 'lost' on repeat. So, it potentially stands to reason that if the brain can't tell the difference between virtual and real humans it probably can't tell the difference between virtual and real tasks so there should be no reason, chemically, why a virtual task would be any different than a real task. So they too are trying to get the 'artificial success' that drugs achieve but it actually creates a task that you have to get through in order to get the reward chemicals. Now, does that mean they are bad/addicting in the same way that drugs are? It seems like no or at least no more than life is bad/addicting in the sense that completing 'tasks'/'life levels' also stimulates reward pathways.