Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Mangoat dream
Date: Sat Sep 21 16:20:45 EDT 1996
Comments:
I had a funny dream that I thought I'd share with the rest of the class. (I'm also, incidentally, being bullied into sharing it...) It's not relevant to anything but I hope it brings mirth into the world of Liberal Studies, section two, human understanding, blah blah blah. I don't mean to offend anyone, so... oh, well, but then I usually do, so what the hey? Here goes. In my dream I had to visit the good prof for one of those intimidating essay discussion sessions. I walk in the door, and all of a sudden, Paul grows horns & horn-rimmed glasses AND his sideburns elongate into muttonchops! It was bizarre. And yet, instead of being scared witless, I was merely annoyed: "I knew it! I knew you were a devil's minion!" To which he replied, in a curt, scholarly manner, "Thou hast failed thy paper. Get thee to hell!" & he pointed to the floor, which opened up in hell-dream fashion, & I fell in. Now, my version of hell is never fire and brimstone. Oooh, no. Rather, it is a combination of the Gotham insane asylum (Batman comics) and your average chicken factory: everyone sits around in straitjackets humming to themselves, knee deep in red and grey ground-up chicken by-product, watching a tv set that has been mounted to the ceiling. Here, they were watching "The Golden Girls." & thus did I know I was in a fake hell.(See, in a true hell (if truth does indeed exist), it would be "The Mommies," or possibly "Mannix.") Anyhoo, this realization somehow propelled me back to earth, where I confronted Paul, saying, "You're no mangoat! You made up your own religion, admit it!" It was funny. So don't fear your ("real" life) essay confrontations, it could be worse. Ciao.

Name: Kate
Username: keltring
Subject:
Date: Sat Sep 21 16:41:21 EDT 1996
Comments:
Oh Dear God.

Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Sun Sep 22 11:55:33 EDT 1996
Comments:
Hey, I may be blunter than a dull instrument, but at least I'm not duller than a blunt instrument.

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: (wo)mengoats
Date: Tue Sep 24 09:44:10 EDT 1996
Comments:
On THAT note, I declare this forum officially open, for discussions of life, real or otherwise. Pile in, friends. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Sep 24 16:17:03 EDT 1996
Comments:
Touche'

Name: Kate 'n' Jonesy
Username: keltring@brynmawr.edu; ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Head Cheese
Date: Tue Sep 24 17:48:31 EDT 1996
Comments:
E: So, Kate, what's in your head, besides cheese? // K: Shut up. So, you know when its late at night, or when you're brushing your teeth, or when you're in Greek drills, staring at about three- thousand verb endings, and this crazy idea comes into your head, and if you ask anyone s/he thinks that you are completely insane...Well you will probably still think I'm insane, but here it goes. I had this idea, and I put it in my latest paper concerning existence. St Anselm developed a proof of the existence of God. // E: What is this thing called "proof?" // K: Shut up. I know that you are not familiar with this "proof" (is that better?), so here it is in a nutshell. If God is defined as the greatest most powerful being, then there are two and only two possibilities for His existence - either He exists, or He dosen't exist. Right? // E: Whatever. // K: Ok. Anselm said that the God who did exist would obviously be more powerful and greater than the God who didn't exist, therefore, God has to exist. // E: ...the hell? So where do the elves and leprechauns come in again? (K tried to explain this to me before...) // K: I'm getting there - you're so impatient. Ok, to make a long story short, Kant found the hole in Anselm's logic, and used the same "proof" to prove the existence of unicorns. // E: And elves and leprechauns. // K: But unicorns don't exist ... or do they? I was thinking, unicorns (and elves and leprechauns) must exist because people have thought them before - they have existed as thoughts, as might we, and God. [You know, Prof G, you really have to fix this word wrap thing...] All of these things exist but they might not exist as we traditionally believe them to exist, that is, existence is not limited to the material world - it extends into the spiritual realm, and the world of the mind (thank you E). What my real point is is that most people limit the existence of God with anthropomorphic terms. God is the infinite, Uncreated Mystery, and our puny human brains are not able to comprehend Him- // E: Or Her. // K: -Nobody ever refers to the Devil as a She- // E: Oh, I do. (whoa, I'm not suggesting that Paul is a girlie- heh heh- almost caught me there) But if there is a god, I just know s/he is an albino hermaphrodite midget. It would explain so much. // K:-your vision of God is too small- // E: Literally. // K: Well then, what I'm trying to point out to all of you who have abandoned God or existence, is that it is actually a lot broader - // E: Oh for crying out loud, when did this discussion turn to theology? // K: you can't escape God - He's everywhere. - The traditional beliefs of existence in general are too limiting. Here I have another quesion for you. Do we exist while we are sleeping? If we stopped thinking, would we dissappear? Could we be figments of our own imaginations? // E: Figment, shmigment. I don't think there's a way to "prove" that we exist or not, whether we are awake or sleeping. But if the "proof" is, "I think, therefore I am," (cogito, ergo sum) then even in our sleep we are thinking, in dreams or whatnot. And no, we wouldn't disappear if we stopped thinking- otherwise Pat Buchanan would have vaporized into fabulous little inoffensive particles by now. Besides, what does thought have to do with existence? I know that you are talking about existence-consciousness as opposed to existence-materialness, but if they are separate entites, why would the loss of the former neccesarily precipitate the loss of the latter? I mean, do trees think? Do they even have a central nervous system? // K: If that is true, and consciousness is not required for a thing to materially exist, and/or the loss of conscious existence does not mean a loss of material existence, then, why should a loss of material existence mean a loss of conscious existence? // E: I'm not saying the cycles are interchangeable- that losing "material existence mean[s] a loss of conscious existence."// K: I'm not either. I just suggested that maybe, if it was one way, there is no good reason that it couldn't be the other. // E: If it works one way, it doesn't neccesarily have to work the opposite way. // K: Yeah, If... If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. // E: Well, at least we agree on ONE thing. And, incidentally, if your pants had suspenders, they'd be your lederhosen. "Pants! Pants! Sing the praises of pants..." // K: Let's move on. // E: Before I start singing out loud. For an encore presentation, the Waffle Song!// K: I have a thousand more crazy ideas, but E needs her medication now.// E: Shut up. Y'know, if you were a Latin sitcom star, your name would be Ricky Retardo. // K: Your brain has a shell on it. Nevermind, we really have to go. // E: Good. I'm bored witless. Hey, does my lack of wit mean I don't exist? // K: I wish.

Name: Kate 'n' Jonsey
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Sep 24 17:50:28 EDT 1996
Comments:
That was really lame. But at least no one else will ever read it; it's too long and our class is too apathetic! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Name: Anna
Username: amyers@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed Sep 25 19:32:06 EDT 1996
Comments:
Well, I just tried to post a comment, but I don't think it worked, so I'm doing it over again. I'm offended. I don't think our class is apathetic, but you're right- I didn't read all that. And because I didn't, I can't really comment, except to say that you guys must have a lot less work than I do! Instead I'll pose a question. It's purely out of interest. I haven't really decided on an opinion yet. What is the reason for this class? Why are we at college at all? I thought we were starting to touch on that last week. I wish we'd continued. There's certainly been a lot of talk among the three sections about it all. Gotta go. See ya'll tomorrow.

Name: (ditto)
Username: ohithinkyouknowbynow
Subject: Being Sincere
Date: Fri Sep 27 16:46:48 EDT 1996
Comments:
Sorry Anna; didn't mean to offend. 'Twas just an extraneous comment intended for melodramatic effect. (Also a comfort to Kate and I for having written such an admittedly moronic piece.) "Truth" be told (oh darn, I'll forever have to put quotes around that word now), I think our class a bit too serious; that's why I seem (/am) so saucy. Its a crude way to ease the tension. Think of me as Horshack from that delightful 70s sitcom, Welcome Back Mr Kotter: [raising hand:] "Oooh! Ooh, ooh! Mis-TUH Kot-TARE!" I'm irritatingly irreverent, yes, but its only 'cos I LIKE yous guys. Anyhoo, may I offer a fittingly inappropriate response to your question, "why are we at college?" (Told to me, myself, and I at times of self-doubt, so please don't take it personally): You paid for it, babe. (Or at least your parents did.)

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Sep 27 16:54:35 EDT 1996
Comments:
Arcane college-related quote to chew on: "Turn on, tune in, but for gosh sakes, don't drop out!" -MST3K's Mike Nelson impersonating A&E Biography's Jack Perkins impersonating Timothy Leary

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: The above
Date: Sun Sep 29 10:54:40 EDT 1996
Comments:
I'm on Anna's side ... or at least one of them. "Apathetic" ain't a term I'd use for our class. Busy, maybe. Puzzled/uncertain about what we're doing here, perhaps. Isn't actually such a bad state, once you get used to it ... and has a lot to do with what we're talking about (if you think about it). At the same time, I actually DID read "head cheese", and enjoyed it. AND thought it was a pretty good way to spend some time, given at least one interpretation of why we're here (both locally and cosmicly). For the argument, check out Playground, and its introductory explanation (yes, you can put WWW links into forum postings; I realize that doesn't make up for the lack of automatic carriage returns but ...). Now, what ELSE is anyone thinking about/playing with?

Name: Liz
Username: escheierbrynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Sun Sep 29 23:16:38 EDT 1996
Comments:
I'm kind of thinking about what Kate and Jonesy said about unicorns and existing because people had thought about them, and therefore they existed in ideas. Well, that kind of brings up the reality thing again, doesn't it? (DAMN this non-wrap thing!) Are thoughts real enough to come into actual, physical being just because someone thought about them? If that's true, then technically, I could deliberately think about any bizarre thing I wanted and it would magically come to life. I could create solely with the power of my mind, which would mean that brainwaves are physical forces, maybe kind of like sound waves... I don't really buy the idea, but it's interesting to think about. Or you could argue that thoughts made of a different stuff than dreams are, so that thoughts existed all by themselves in their own dimension. What is the power of thought, really? (No college brochure answers, please.)

Name: Kate solo
Username: keltring@brynmawr.edu
Subject: gret
Date: Mon Sep 30 19:44:18 EDT 1996
Comments:
Just a quick comment to clear a few things up. When I wrote that everything existed either physically, in dream or thought form, I didn't mean that these existences can cross borderlines (<-ha ha) from one type of existence to another. You cannot imagine anything that does not exist in one form or another. For example, I can imagine unicorns, and they exist in my head. This dosen't mean that they will come into what we know as physical existence. Can you imagine nothing? - it is incomprehensible, this is because nothing does not exist; if it did then it would be something, even if it is only existence itself. I'm terribly sorry if I caused any confusion with such an abstract idea. I find this a very interesting topic, so please respond.

Name: Rehema Imani Trimiew
Username: rtrimiew@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Nothing
Date: Mon Sep 30 21:17:48 EDT 1996
Comments:
The comment about nothing being something reminds me of the "Neverending Story" in which the Nothing was a physical force making it something. However, when I clear my mind and don't have any thoughts and think about nothing, I don't understand how the nothing can be something. Since I am not thinking, there isn't any mental activiy on a concious level how is that something?

Name: Kay Chanda
Username: kchanda@ada .brynmawr. edu
Subject: REALITY AND THOUGHTS
Date: Mon Sep 30 21:39:53 EDT 1996
Comments:
To my ever so rumbuctious and thought prevoking liberal studies camarades, (Excused my spelling, no spell check what can I say) I very much enjoy Kate and Emily's conversation. what is life without laughter and those crazy things people do? I was extremely amused. Thanks Emily and Kate. I agree with them. Now the thing about unicorns was, let me say, unusual. Let me add to this pile of thoughts. Reality is thought. And thought is reality. I think we all agree that reality is collective. We have some shared reality. Our perceptives may differ. What I'm heading toward is that thought creates reality. Our thoughts are one in the same. Well the ones concerning reality is. Star Trek The collective conscious. Well, there is a ring of truth to it. Think about: We are created from the same gene pool, come from the same chemicals that creates us foolish humans. Liz's idea of brain waves. We have the same brain waves but they only differ slightly and that makes us a little bit different. Ok the idea is farfetched. Another idea: Our reality is someone else dreams. Ha? You ask how? Ok here its goes. Some evolve creature is sleeping or our equivalent to sleep and is dreaming this seemingly complex world. Maybe to him (for the feminist her and for the don't care it), this reality we live is not so complex. Maybe we are just a thought - his/her/its thoughts. Time? How can he dream lifetimes of million of people? Our time here is short. His/her/its time can be short when our time is long. He has a complex brian that can do all of that. Ok let me touch on the issue of God. Upfront, God has no importance to me. Except that He gives the loss and needy comfort, salvation and direction. In that way He is good for us lowly humans. Humans corrupt the idea of God. Doesn't that prove that human are inherently evil. Ok i disgress. Sorry. Do we called that creature God? it up to the individual. I believe that he is some great being that has the force and energy to create and destroy arbitarily. But he/she/it is noble. ok i believe that human are noble. S-ucky right?. That me the optimistic. Material things corrupt us. And of course, our inflated egos. We are someone else's dream. I hope I have not offend anyone.Enjoy. The real me: Reality is reality. We live it. Now just get on with our lives. We have so many neccesary things to do. Finish College. Does that ring a bell? Grobstien Please get the auto return to work. Had a tough time with writing this. Thanks

Name: Liz
Username: escheier
Subject: Reality and suchlike
Date: Mon Sep 30 22:45:14 EDT 1996
Comments:
I think that Kay's comment about reality being reality and let's get on with our lives is extremely valid. Granted, I often get out of our class discussions thinking, "Yes, but so what? That's not the real world." (Grr! You can't get around using the word, I guess.) And it all seems like a waste of time. However, it's interesting to discuss. Kay, you got us into it when you brought up God... that's gonna be the discussion topic for a good long while now. Actually, it came at a good time because I'm having a bit of a religious dilemna at the moment. I've always been very religious, but the community part of religion has never done anything for me and I've always just been happier thinking about God all on my own. I believe that He is something like a benevolant GP - looking out for humankind, giving us the keys to our own health and happiness, but not forcing us to take the medicine. If we screw up, that's our own fault. I just realized that what I wrote there made it look as though I praise God for all good things and blame myself for all the bad ones, and although that's kind of true it didn't occur to me until just now. But to me religion is a very personal thing - one's relationship with God is not something to be sung about in houses of worship or proselytized about on street corners.

Name: I AM ME!!!!
Username: jsantama@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Mon Sep 30 23:51:32 EDT 1996
Comments:
Do you (whoever) evr get really tripped out by how a whole bunch of related things happen at the same time, even though they didn't happen relatedly? Like all this stuff about God and unicorns--this is the first time I've checked this page out and earlier today in Philosophy class the teacher brought up God and unicorns and we talked about how if you say "God does not exist," then you're contradicting yourself because in ordr for you to even mention God, the idea exists, which means that in a way, God exists. And just last night I was just sitting around talking to people about the little important things in life, like how it sucks, when one of my friends I was talking to randomly (or maybe chaoticaly?) said that she thinks that every one in the world gets affected by the same things at the same time, like how all of our friends back home, wherever we're from and whatever age they are are having the same major life crises.The really wierd thing was that right before she said that, the exact same thought was in my head. wow. trip out.

Name: kay
Username: kchanda@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject: GOD
Date: Tue Oct 1 19:56:28 EDT 1996
Comments:
to the comment made that if the idea of God exist, then He exist. God has no importance in my life. i don't care if He/She/It exist or not. But i'm not blind to see the importance and good the idea of God has done to my fellow human being.the idea of God is wonderful. we human corrupt the idea with our ceremonies and rules. remember that man made the idea of God and it is he who made those rules. man is subject to imperfect and bias.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 12:59:15 EDT 1996
Comments:
I love this forum thing - I couldn't wish for better classmates, or for a more patient professor. I'd like to touch on several points. Firstly, our human logic can create all sorts of paradoxes, such as "I am a liar". If this sentence is true, then I just told the truth, and I cannot be a liar but if it is false, and I in truth am not a liar, then I also just contradicted myself because I just lied. The same is true with the sentence "This sentence is false." We could then apply this same twisted logic to the existence of an Ultimate, unchanged, far removed Reality. I'm not talking about our own personal realities, (notice the difference between big "R" Reality, and little "r" reality). In Reality, Reality dosen't exist - dosen't work well logically, but - In Reality, reality dosen't exist could. See my point is that there is an Ultimate Reality, even if it is that reality dosen't exist. Ok I know that this screams of Absolutism, but my puny human brain can only come up with a finite number of possibilities for existence in general - either something exists, it doesn't exist, or it partially exists (do't ask me how - I just don't want to appear closeminded) We may never know which of the possibilities it is, but I cannot concieve of another possibility. Like Schrodinger's cat: it is both dead and alive before a measurement is taken, so can something at the same time exist and not exist until we have taken a measurement. The glitch is that we have no way of making this measurement. I tend to view existence like death - either the cat is alive or dead, but Schrodinger wouldn't know until he checked, and either something exists or it dosent, and we'll never know because we cant check, but Schrodinger knew that there was only one possibility for the state of his cat in this universe. This is what I think, but maybe my human logic is faulty.

Name: Kate again
Username: keltring@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 13:34:52 EDT 1996
Comments:
It is interesting, my fellow (or should I say, sister) classmates, your view of organized religion, and God. I would just like to add a thought about free will. If there is nothing transcendent, and all existence is limited to a material world, then all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions and dreams are results of chemicals interacting in our bodies - our bodies follow the laws of nature. When we hear a sound, impulses are sent through our nerves to our brains, where a certain jumble of cells and chemicals sends a response to the muscles of our bodies. Our bodies are machines following the laws of nature. If this is true, then we do not have free will. It is also true then, that our entire society is absurd and unfair. Why should we lock a man in jail for having murdered another - it wasn't his fault - he had no control over his body. Lack of free will would also imply that time is rigid - all things are predetermined by other things that have already happened; the entire universe would operate under the Laws of Nature. But who determined these laws? Why do chemicals react the way they do? If we do have free will, then there has to be something transcendent - a dimension of reality that extends beyond the purely material. This is where I believe God comes into the picture. I believe that I have free will and that I am able to decide what to wear, what to say. But even if a personal recognition of God's existence cannot be acheived, most people will acknowledge some greater power. Existence in itself is greater than all of humanity - it is like a stage on which we take our turn. Some people like to refer to this abstract idea as God. Just to put a plug in for organized religion - its really not as bad as some would have it appear. It is more than chanting and incense - I could say that political organization is silly or that government itself is silly; they serve the same purposes as organized religion. All it really is is a group of people with common beliefs who work for a common cause. I think it is wrong to say that the concept of God has been created by or corrupted by religion. Religions are simply taking a large, uncomprehendable mystery, and putting it into an image and ceremony which the average person can understand and with Faith, accept. But thats a whole other issue...

Name: Kate one last time
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 13:42:17 EDT 1996
Comments:
I am able to identify with Liz sometimes. I have International Politics right before Lib Studies, and I sit there listening to Professor Allen talking about world problems like nuclear war, hunger and poverty, etc. and all of those issues are so relevant and so in-your-face-every-day, that topics like does reality exist seem silly even though they are fascinating. Its good to have a class like this though to give the mind a chance to wander - to think about things that are fun, and not painful.

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 14:42:17 EDT 1996
Comments:
"I love this forum thing - I couldn't wish for better classmates, or a more patient professor" Kate, you kiss-up!

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Deep Thoughts
Date: Wed Oct 2 16:48:41 EDT 1996
Comments:
RE: Kate's comment about our bodies following the laws of nature and how thusly we have no free will and social structures are absurd and unfair... well, exactly. I suspect the world is indeed absurd and unjust and irrelevant. I agree: there SEEMS to be something beyond chemicals and mechanics, but why do we insist that this "something" is not created by said interactions? When you try to prove the existence of something as supposedly intangible and abstract as God, you end up frustrated. Thinking that all is unimportant, etc. is innately revulsive b/c we've evolved that way; if we didn't, we'd be extinct as a species, we'd have committed intellectual suicide. But if you step back from believing there is a reason, from the "there has to be something" and "it must be some way" arguments, you might see that there DOESN'T neccesarily have to be "something" to accomodate your "true" concern -that humanity needs a purpose to exist. The beauty of it is that there ISno way to know what "truth", "reality", etc. is, and more specifically, whether or not there is a God. If life is about purpose, then wouldn't it be purposeless to already know that there is a God? I think the fascinating thing about this discussion isn't just that we don't- and what's more, cannot- know, but that it is so morally and intellectually impossible for us to accept. //// Speaking of morals and the good vs. evil argument: Rehema brought up "The Neverending Story," so I'll add another kiddie fantasy film to the wreckage: In Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal," the skeczes and the teras (<-made-up, I can't remember name) were creatures of evil and good, respectively. The plot of the movie was that this elfish creature had to "heal" the dark crystal that had cracked and split apart long before lest some astonomical event occured and the "reign of darkness" began. Anyhoo, when the elf made the crystal whole, the teras and the skeczes became one and the same thing. I like this idea b/c I tend to think there is beauty and awe in BOTH the dark and the light aspects of humanity, and while by no means do I advocate evil behaviour or run about vandalizing property or picking fights or worse, I still respect the forces of darkness (whatever) for their powers and complexities. I don't think that the relationship b/w good and evil is a struggle so much as it is symbiotic: Each needs the other to survive and to define itself. Maybe some of you remember reading Milton's "Paradise Lost" and being told that Satan was the hero of the tale, not the antihero- he gave us knowledge, didn't he? And while knowledge ain't always a pleasant thing, as Adams and Eves of the world over have found, it does, when combined with ignorance, gives us wisdom. And I don't mean ignorance in the sense of stupidity, but in the sense of one lacking understanding but WANTING understanding nonetheless- "curiosity" comes closer, I guess. (My HS English teacher did this with Coleridge, too. In "The Rhime of the Ancient Mariner," the Mariner was supposedly the good guy who in killing the albatross killed a lie; the sailors who hailed the bird as a sign of land were embracing a lie- they didn't KNOW that land was nearby. The mariner wasn't punished for evil but for good- his trials weren't punishments or "lessons" at all, but explorations.) I think what I'm trying to say is that separating good and evil is impossible, and stupid besides. Why do we need a Satan (or whatever creature of darkness- Khali, etc.- I'm trying to be all-inclusive, but I don't know much about other religions; help, anyone?)? Traditionally, we'd answer, "to offset God". Why shouldn't we ask the question the other way around?: Why do we need a God? Why, but to offset Satan. (cf. Sh.'s Henry 4th speech about H's transformation from boozer to king.) /// And why does God HAVE to come into play at all? I don't know how many of you are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's cultish "Cat's Cradle" (I'm betting most of you are) but its about (among other things) Bokononism, a religion that says up front that "it is founded on and nothing but FOMA (<-harmless untruths)". But it also says, "Live by the foma that make you happy and healthy and kind." This comes pretty close to how I feel about religion: I don't know if there is or isn't a single God/good or Satan/evil, and I wouldn't be much surprised if it were found to be true either way; in the meantime, I will remain believeing that I believe in my albino midget hermaphrodite god, and I will do what I find to be ethically righteous while knowing full well that it doesn't ultimately matter. It matters in my lifetime, yes, or seems to, and for no reason will I trivialize it, but what is life if not absurd, unjust, and irrelevant?

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 17:23:47 EDT 1996
Comments:
By the way, Kay, I agree with you on organized religion... I think it creates more divisions than it does unions. It places so many biases and labels and hiearchies on things- the ceaseless fights b/w religions, the holy wars, the discrepancies in social strata, not to mention imperialism (<-and to think this still goes on under the guise of (some) of missionary work, of saving the "poor people less fortuante than us" by forcing our beliefs on them.) There is a theory that martyrdom is the most selfish occupation one can have (<-also learned from my HS English teacher). It's based on the (evolutionary) principle that people will always do things for themselves. When one is "selfless"- in doing community service projects, charity, etc.- on feels better about his/herself, and in the purist, most guiltlessly pleasurable way. Evidently, Christ was the worst offender of them all. Think about it, won't you?

Name: Liz
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 18:30:19 EDT 1996
Comments:
Yay! Someone else has read about the Schrodinger's cat experiment! I'm so excited! One thing, though... I think it's total crap. The cat is alive or dead regardless of whether or not he knows it. His view of the cat does not determine its existance.

Name: kay
Username: Kchanda@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject: Again
Date: Wed Oct 2 20:19:41 EDT 1996
Comments:
Humams are imperfect. i hope we can all agree that that is true. God is a subject that we all or maybe it is i who alone walks around. I'm not saying the idea is of God is corrupt. I'm saying that the rules people make to reach God is binding - it hind our understanding of Him and perhaps ourselves. Everyone has free will. We also have something called faith. we tend to take somethings on faith; one whaich is God. There is someone to guide people to God. Bible. Man wrote the Bible. human imperfection flashes in my mind. if i talk as i believe in God that is not my intention. I trying to point out things - Open a new path in which we all can explore.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 2 20:38:04 EDT 1996
Comments:
I didn't have time enough to read any of Jonsey's ideas , but I would like to thank Liz for emphasizing one of the points I was trying desperately to express. In the same way that Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive whether or not Schrodinger knows it, so it is with Reality. Reality is there, whether or not we know it,but we will never be able to know by taking a measurement. And by the way Jonsey, I wouldn't be saying nasty things like calling me a kiss-up...I have ways of making you sorry. (Hmm, forum, Thurber Ha!)

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Kate
Date: Thu Oct 3 18:56:38 EDT 1996
Comments:
Nyah, nyah, nyah; go soak your head.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Oct 3 19:04:40 EDT 1996
Comments:
Today Thursday October 3, it was noted that I was "uncharacteristically quiet". Well the things we have been talking about can only be repeated so many times, and I don't know about you, but this difference-between-Hoeg- and-Hawking topic is wearing pretty darn thin with me. I am unable to see the ultimate relevance of our discussion. It was a stupid topic to begin with, lets not drag it out any longer. Quite frankly, I was bored silly, and I left class disappointed. It would be more interesting if some of these forum topics were discussed in class. I think its time to move on.

Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: "Cemetary Man" Viewing
Date: Thu Oct 3 19:34:16 EDT 1996
Comments:
A couple of weeks ago I commented on how my brother believes that the world is flat b/c he hasn't observed it to be round, and how he likes to think that life is surreal, etc. I also mentioned his favorite movie on the subject, "Cemetary Man". It's fairly plotless, but in an engaging way (your attention span won't be as tortured as it would be in watching, say, a Bergman film). It's based on the popular Italian comic book "Dylan Dog" (but never fear- the voiceovers are pretty convincing) about a cemetary caretaker, Delamorte, who with his mentally lax assistant Naughie is obliged to NOT ONLY bury the dead of his town BUT shoot and re-bury them when they come back as zombies. It sounds cheesy, but it's actually very cool and funny and bizzare. Is good!(Or as Julia so aptly puts it: Trippy!) So while I'm sure by now most of you are throughly sick of the existence question- I know I am- if you'd nonetheless like to see "Cemetary Man", I've reserved a (rental) copy of it for Saturday (Oct. 5) and will be watching it sometime this weekend with a few others. Join us, won't you? Contact me via e-mail and I'll let you know when/where I'll be showing it. (BTW, "Cemetary Man" is rated R for explicit violence, sex, and nudity, so if you're squeamish... well, come anyway, and we'll tease you mercilessly, you prude.)

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Above
Date: Thu Oct 3 20:36:45 EDT 1996
Comments:
Yeah, I know I spelled "Cemetery" wrong. Yeah, I know I am a moron.

Name: Rehema!
Username: rtrimiew@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Gelflings
Date: Fri Oct 4 17:08:26 EDT 1996
Comments:
The good creatures in "The Dark Crystal" are called Gelflings. 8)

Name: Liz
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Fri Oct 4 18:50:36 EDT 1996
Comments:
Kate - thank you. Thank you so very much. If we have to discuss Hoeg one more time, I will have a public and very embarassing nervous breakdown. Let's move on, shall we? Maybe we can have a vote on the forum over every weekend, and then discuss whatever gets the most votes. I don't know if Prof. G. has an agenda or not, but if not...

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: RE: Gelflings
Date: Sun Oct 6 12:08:11 EDT 1996
Comments:
Dark Crystal: Yeah, that's what the ELF things were called, but what about those blobby sand-colored mystics? I'm stumped!

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Topic, topic
Date: Sun Oct 6 12:14:41 EDT 1996
Comments:
I vote in favor of moving on; if we don't, I, too, shall throw a very bitter tantrum if we discuss anything at all relating to time, Hoeg, Hawking, or summaries of observations...

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Ok, let's see ...
Date: Sun Oct 6 15:01:19 EDT 1996
Comments:
Natives are restless, huh? Really think we've said/explored everything there is to say/explore about Hoeg/Hawking/time, huh? Consensus, or the Kate/Jonesy/Liz special interest group? Which isn't to say we should take their discontent lightly. For Kate to go from ecstacy to disappointment in one week is serious. So, let's see ... where shall we go next? Do WE have an agenda? Don't have much to say about Dark Crystals. But maybe Schrodinger's cat, determinism, free will, faith ... something along those lines? With agreement that such things are only worth talking about if they actually MATTER in some PRACTICAL way? And that they're more than just matters of opinion and taste? Everyone can have an opinion, but what matters is what the opinion is founded on? How good a summary it is of what observations? Oops, sorry, but .... oh well.

Name: Liz
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Sun Oct 6 18:29:00 EDT 1996
Comments:
Yes, exactly? Do we think that we've said everything there is to be said about these subjects? Hardly. That would take more chutzpah than we've all got put together. However, we may have said everything that we care to say... I think we're all just restless. I like your free will vs. determinism, etc ideas. And it's not a matter of things being practical - it's more a matter of getting frustrated with the limited vocabulary we have to deal with abstract ideas like time, reality, etc, and our frustration with dealing with such large concepts... can we narrow down a little?

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Clarification
Date: Sun Oct 6 19:37:13 EDT 1996
Comments:
Jeepers. Did everybody (myself included) wake up in a poopie mood today or what? Me, I'd love to continue discussing said topics, and I'm not saying that time, summaries of observations, reality, etc. don't have universal interest- they are the eternal questions, supposedly, and I'll accept that. What I do object to is redundancy and obstinace of opinion, and our talk seemed to be wallowing in it on class Thurs. I think Liz has the idea: refresh our discussion by branching out into less terminology-charged ideas/theories. After all, it's all the same question, just asked in a different way.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject: holy schnikees
Date: Sun Oct 6 20:38:54 EDT 1996
Comments:
Whoa there, I know for a fact that I spoke for many more than just myself when I complained of redundancy. And actually, I went from ecstacy to disapointment in not a week, but rather only an hour and a half. I look forward to Thursdays: Thursdays are my favorite day of the week. I enjoy dicussing far out topics, not because they are directly or immediately practical, but just because its fun. Personally, I didn't like the Hoeg and Hawking topic to begin with, touching on it in the first part of class would have been fine, but to drag it out throughout the whole entire HOUR- AND-A-HALF, Repeating and repeating the same things, the same ideas in different words, or with different analogies. Please. I like the idea of discussing the free-will-and-Schrodinger's-cat-like topics. By the way, I don't intend to offend anyone. This is what I think. Loosen up; be jolly - we're having FUN.

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Oct 7 21:20:09 EDT 1996
Comments:
"your headtrips are boring me"--Greenday It really sucks when a really cool thought/question is taken to such an extreme that it gets annoyng. I'm not talking about class specifically and I didn't mean to sound quite so negative. I was just thinking how people argue about the Truth so much. It's just fine and dandy to think that there is someone/something guiding your life, because it makes you feel better. And it's also very nice to say that there is no God and that you get to do whatever you want, because it makes you feel better. But these are both beliefs, which means that you don't know. You can think about it and decide that either one makes sense. But you can never prove anything. You can't disprove the possibility that you only exist in your head, but you also can't prove that you exist to all the people you think are around you. You decide that you've proved or disproved something, and then you have actually proved it or disproved it, but only to yourself, which leaves you back where you started. "Beyond your tunnel vision reality fades like shadows into the night"--Pink Floyd

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Oct 8 13:32:06 EDT 1996
Comments:
above by Julia

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Acquiesence (and its sequelae)
Date: Wed Oct 9 10:13:58 EDT 1996
Comments:
I'm ready to give up Truth ... if everyone else is. Interesting question, of course, is whether that means you can "do whatever you want", or whether in the absence of Truth there are some equally compelling mandates. Reminds me of a book I just finished reading: Towing Jehovah by James (?) Morrow. Anyone else seen it?

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 9 11:26:48 EDT 1996
Comments:
Not to disrupt the continuity of our discourse, but: when will we make this a public forum, if at all? I know a few other people would be interested in this, possibly my world-is-flat brother. How many would be comfortable in making it public, or at least in asking a select invite-only few to participate?

Name: Kate
Username: keltring@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 9 12:19:19 EDT 1996
Comments:
I'm comfortable with having this made public, or with inviting a select few to participate. Either way. I know that I will never abandon Truth, but if one is convinced that Truth can never be found, then the searching and questioning which the quest entails, will only lead to frustration. The exisence of Truth cannot be proven, but a common version is accepted by the majority of members in society. One does not need an absolute Truth to have an operative society, but one must determine if an operative society is the highest goal to be had. Most often, it is claimed to be so. Within this society, a set of truths has to be established, so that chaos and anarchy do not prevail. These truths are formed into the constitution of a state, and its citizens, if they wish to be a productive member of the society, conduct their affairs within the boundaies provided by the truths agreed upon. Others decide that an operative society is good, but that there is more to life than that. These search for Truth, because they feel a negation of meaning that is more frustrating and depressing than the quest itself. If everyone abandoned the Truth, I think we would have a very dull existence (ha!)

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Oh for crying out loud
Date: Wed Oct 9 12:22:38 EDT 1996
Comments:
Hmm. Just get outta poli-sci, Kate? Now can we kindly move on, oh please oh please? (BTW, if entropy increases with time, as in Hawking, wouldn't that mean you can't keep anarchy and chaos down? or does this only apply to physical science? Confused, am I. Oh well.)

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 9 12:28:31 EDT 1996
Comments:
I haven't heard of that book, but it sounds interesting. I recently finished a book The Keys Of This Blood, by Malachi Martin, and I'd be willing to bet no one's heard of that one. It deals with several of the same concepts of Truth, but in a more political light. It is worth reading, and don't let its 700 page bulk daunt you. Even if you fail to pick up the author's points on Truth, you will have a wealth of knowledge, and a better understanding of the world, its politics and its history, in general.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 9 12:34:42 EDT 1996
Comments:
Jonsey, you're always confused. I wasn't in poli-sci. I was speaking of real life - politics is everywhere, in fact it runs our lives. I would think that the energy expended to create a government would be released into the universe, creating a greater disorder with regards to energy, but a greater visible order - like cleaning your room (then again, you wouldn't know about that...)

Name: Julia
Username:
Subject: senilenessJJ
Date: Wed Oct 9 15:33:44 EDT 1996
Comments:
Maybe the reason for people getting senile when they get older is that entropy increases with time. As time goes on all the thoughts and stuff in your head get disordered and you start to get really confused. Does this mean that people are mature for their age will get senile earlier? Are they more likely to get altheimer'? Just a thought, and stuff.

Name: kay
Username: kchanda@ada. byrn mawr. edu
Subject: truth
Date: Wed Oct 9 19:25:08 EDT 1996
Comments:
the search for the TRUth maybe frustrating. however, that search is more important than finding the absolutetruth. we know it is pointless to try to find something that can not and will not be completely understood. that search of it make it worthwhile. i hope all that is reading to this understands what i'm trying to say. the search adds spice to lives.i know i will seek the truth. through it will be endless. that's ok because when i search for the TRUTH it will be during those moment when i need something to do.

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: The above
Date: Thu Oct 10 08:56:40 EDT 1996
Comments:
Spice indeed ... but also a lot more, I suspect. I've had Jonesy's brother on my mind for the last several days. I suspect he's not unrelated to Galileo (which I just reread last night), and to Kate's concern about social organization (yeah, take a look at Towing Jehovah), and Julia's related concern about increases in entropy (can order arise from disorder?, take a look at Complex Systems on Serendip), and to why searching for truth (as opposed to Truth), is more than just spice, and to ... Hmmmm. An essay topic? 500 words or less?

Name: Rehema
Username: Rtrimiew@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Universe
Date: Thu Oct 10 14:09:43 EDT 1996
Comments:
I don't think that I'm getting the beginig of the universe theory. I understood how Hawking explained it but not how Grobstein did. Could someone explain it with an analogy or something?

Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: My brother
Date: Thu Oct 10 16:50:38 EDT 1996
Comments:
If you'd like to ask my brother Gabriel (Gabe) a question regarding the shape of the earth or any other philosophical/whatever question, now's the time. I'll be seeing him this weekend during fall break, so I'll relay any message(s). E-mail me. (BTW, I talked to him (indirectly) today; he was both flattered and appalled at being the subject of our talk.)

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Fall break
Date: Fri Oct 11 16:53:04 EDT 1996
Comments:
Frustrated with idea that I am less clear than Hawking, but will have to cope with it, I guess. A student in one of the other sections turned up information on Galileo at the Institute and Museum of the History of Science in Florance. There's a biography and a multi-media tour of the relevant rooms. In case you're interested. Have a good fall break everyone (or welcome back?).

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Oct 13 13:25:23 EDT 1996
Comments:
Well, maybe less clear, but more interesting... don't be frustrated. I don't think that is is possible for anyone to understand the beginning of the universe, yet alone explain it (not you, not Hawking). Each explanation leaves questions unanswered. - something coming from nothing, hmm, it seems more probable to me that an all powerful being should create the universe. I don't buy this virtual universe theory - it may be more "scientific", than the God theory, but it dosen't carry any outstanding observations that make it more credible. It is based on faith as well.

Name: jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:46:59 EDT 1996
Comments:
oh goody! I found an answer to mine own question about entropy increasing with time in the universe vs. in the earth (humanity; politics): "[the law of thermodynamics] applies only to closed systems that receive no imputs of new energy from exterior sources. The earth is not a closed system; our planet is continually bathed by massive influxes of solar energy, and earthly order may therefore increase without violating any natural law..." This from Stephen Jay Gould's new book, "Full House." (Intro anthropology students should know the name of the author.) hmm. So what does this say about the relationship b/w biology and physics? why should life arise at all if the univers is as a whole a closed system?

Name: jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:48:20 EDT 1996
Comments:
(BTW, here's another random quote applicable to our class: "Please do not forget that the sun really does rise in the east, move through the sky each day, and set in the west." (Gould again) Ha!)

Name: jonesy
Username:
Subject: bear with me, I know not science
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:53:14 EDT 1996
Comments:
oh, hey, and how do we know that the universe IS a closed system? If its connected by wormholes or whatever to other universes, wouldn't that make it interconnected to other sytems and therefore not closed? and couldn't that be an answer to "how can something come from nothing", that the beginning of the universe was sparked by something from another universe? huh? huh?

Name: julia
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Oct 16 23:17:00 EDT 1996
Comments:
If there are other universes, then I don't see how our universe could be closed off from them, or if it is, then it doesn't matter to us that they exist. Anyway, I think the thing about entropy and time in any closed system actually means, in THE closed system (referring to the biggest system we're in--not our country, not our planet, not our solar system, but the whole system). I don't know what the word for it is, but it's the thing that encomposses everything, including our solar system, etc.

Name: Anna
Username: amyers
Subject:
Date: Fri Oct 18 19:39:12 EDT 1996
Comments:
Yesturday I had this other thought. O.K. We're talking about how the universe might have had to have been created out of nothing, but then we had the idea that maybe it has just expanded and contracted for infinity. Even if this is true, there's a problem related to this first one. What is the universe expanding into? People were talking about parallel universes next to ours. Is it expanding into those somehow? If there is no space and time outside of the closed system, then how does it expand into the space around it? Arghhh! This is so confusing! I can't explain it. The thought of trying to imagine "nothing" drives me nuts somehow. See, the difference with Galileo's theories is that even though people couldn't concieve of earth going around the sun, it was pretty easy for Galileo to form a model of it and visualize it. This universe thing is different. It isn't so easy to show what nothing is. We talked in class about how people are trying to make a model, but how do you possibly do that? I sort of imagine nothing as just sort of white space. But then, that would be something, wouldn't it? Well, now I'm just babbling. I guess what I getting to is this:Have we reached a point in science where human understanding just can't go any farther? I'm sure many people would say no. Maybe we're evolving into having a new kind of understanding.That's a whole other thing that I've been thinking about because of Anthro and stuff. How are humans evolving right now? But I guess that's a whole different thing.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Oct 18 20:56:19 EDT 1996
Comments:
I believe that the definition of universe is everything that exists, so if there is something beyond this little expanding compartment that we call the "universe", it is also a part of the universe. The fact that our little universe appears to be expanding would suggest that it is finite. Life is full of things impossible to comprehend but some we are willing to accept, like the concept of infinity. Why are we unwilling to accept others?

Name: take a wild guess
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Oct 18 21:37:21 EDT 1996
Comments:
I read a book about war, and it said that nations go to war because there is international anarchy, and each state is concerned with its own security, and it will do whatever it has to do to maintain its security, which includes maintaining or increasing its wealth and power, by having a strong military, or having an ally with a strong military. States look after themselves and their people first, and they will do anything to stay in the race, even if it means attacking before their opposition has the opportunity to strike - militarily or economically. These states are like individuals in a state of anarchy. In a state of no organization or government, its every man for himself, and he will fight for his survival. In such a state so much energy and time and effort is wasted simply rivaling in co-existence that any serious progress cannot be made. In an environment where collective security is organized and prepared, man does not have to be constantly worried about whether or not his neighbor will seek his destruction, or if he will have food for dinner. Each individual has a place in society, and each does his part to contribute to the whole. The individual is able to turn his attention to his focused task, and to exploration and betterment of life in general. Without the organizational structures that have evolved throughout history, we would not be where we are now. All of these systems are constructed by humans, and they are faulty because humans themselves are faulty. These systems have become oppressive at times, but at other times they have stimulated growth of all sorts. An ideal system has never existed, and probably never will, but through trial and error, we have improved these systems. Individuals continue to challenge to status quo which brings problems to the front in order that they may be addressed and solved. If you don't like organization or government, try living in Bosnia.

Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: why celebrate organization?
Date: Sat Oct 19 14:31:06 EDT 1996
Comments:
Kate (I know you wrote the above, sheesh): does this comment have to do with what we discussed in class, about Galileo/imagination/belief, or entropy, or what? I'm kinda perplexed (yeah, yeah, I know; I'm *always* perplexed). In any case, I don't entirely agree. War (modern or no) is a highly complex and structured phenomena, even if it appears chaotic. It is not that dissimilar to "civilization." Even low-intensity-conflict, so-called guerilla warfare (e.g., the war in Vietnam, or the present war in Bosnia), is highly organized: it takes forethought in assembling a P.O.W. camp, babe, and in setting up instruments of torture to convince one party's opponent to behave or to assimilate or to be terrified (hmm, sound familiar?). Why, isn't it a brilliant strategy to use "innocent children" to throw bombs at yankee soldiers, hmm? Cruel, yes, but cruelty is the nature of organization/civilization, not the antithesis! Ha!

Name: Jonesy
Username: ejones
Subject:
Date: Sat Oct 19 15:04:53 EDT 1996
Comments:
Anna's comment struck me as very clever: I agree that the human imagination can only conceptualize so much (read: not much), and grasping the notion of nothingness is well beyond what we can know. And insofar as human beings evolving into s/thing else, yeah, why not? We've already, according to Anthro, gone from homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens; why not go to homo sapiens sapiens sapiens? Having said that, though, I now have to contradict myself: My understanding of evolution is that it is both random and best applied through disaster/hardship/struggle. A species that is already comfortable with its role in and expanse over the earth is not going to need to change to be more successful: it already is successful. That's why bacteria, arguably the simplest and most adaptable form of life, is also the most successful form of life; that's also why most mammalian species, more complex and more dependent on specific resources, are much less successful forms of life. Humans are exceptions only in the sense that we've already managed to exploit every resource available to us and we're not as prone to competition; we are well-, and in fact over-, populated. Yet anything we're presently doing to increase our lifespans and our intelligence, be it through medicine or education, is artificial, not natural, selection, if it is selection at all! (After all, has the world collectively become more "intelligent" or evolved through understanding? I'm not so sure.) Unless we are hit with some kind of apocolyptic event and must quickly and neccesarily evolve, I think its pretty unlikely that we'll evolve into something more readily adaptable to change (namely, change in imaginative thinking). And one more thing: "evolve" is a deceptive term; I'm using it here as a substitute for "become more complex/intelligent," but "evolve" could just as easily mean "become more simplified/(for lack of a better word)stupid." [Reccomended reading: Vonnegut's "Galapogos." (I'm telling ya, the man's got all the non-answers!)]

Name: Natalie
Username: nkatz@brynmawr.edu
Subject: thoughts
Date: Sat Oct 19 15:49:57 EDT 1996
Comments:
Hey guys - this is my first time exploring the world of the forum - very interesting I must say. I think that Hawking, Hoeg and the rest of our literature should now be laid to rest. Why don't we abstract a little and go onto media of a different topic and a different sort of reading. I have an article from Time magazine that deals with good and evil - for me the most interesting question in my life is - what drives people? Are we inherently good or evil? (BIG question huh?) Anyway this article is very interesting and maybe if anyone is interested in discussing it further in class, over coffee in the future etc I can get you the article. Personally I find this article fascinating and religion, science and truth etc all come into play here - why are we doing all of this - what drives the human mind, spirit and are we inherently good or evil? I know that this sentence was getting too long (an English sin!!!!!) I will pen off now - I hope that everyone had a wonderful weekend and cannot wait for physics lesson on Tuesday (no offence). Has anyone looked up Galileo on the Internet yet? See ya

Name: julia
Username:
Subject: evolution
Date: Mon Oct 21 15:16:57 EDT 1996
Comments:
"jonesey"--Who's to say that being able to exploit everything around us isn't being extremely well adapted? (At least until we destroy ourselves.) You could say that making and using tools is an unnatural adaptation as much as chopping down trees and building spaceships. But apes use tools, and I've never heard anyone say that apes are too well-adapted for their own good. Maybe everything that we do is just the point we've evovled to; we began to breathe, then walk upright, then think, then talk, then write, then create the society we now live in, and then we will either destroy it or rise above it. It seems to have been a very natural progression.

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Julia
Date: Mon Oct 21 17:04:23 EDT 1996
Comments:
Yeah, maybe. But terms like "rise above" and "destroy" really show just how much we think we're in control of the world and our fates. We might have evolved to be able to think abstractly and make tools and so forth, but was this a "progression" done *by* us or *to* us? Active or passive?... And sure, I think we humans are successful, but in a parasitic way. The world seems pretty stable at the moment, but historically, it's full of non-predictable, non-controllable "disasters." I mean, take away a simple staple resource, or release a little human-ova-killing bacteria (cf. "Galapogos"), and we're so inadaptable that we'll be gone, man, gone. Our self-awareness can only get us outta so much trouble...

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Some new themes?
Date: Thu Oct 24 09:16:37 EDT 1996
Comments:
Nice to have Anna, Natalie on board. The more perspectives, the more order? Intrigued (as always) by the Jonesy/Kate dialectic. What IS the deal on war? And "evil" for that matter? Are they a consequence of too little order ... or too much? Is evil inevitable in the absence of government/organized religion/ etc., or is there something which tends to "good" regardless? Maybe not only evil but good from disorder? Check out Prisoner's Dilemna for some observations bearing on the matter. And what exactly does all that have to do with an expanding universe (you DID read Hawking?), and whether we can imagine nothingness (remember Beckman's addition to my outline of science?), and whether we're in control or not, and what we might or might not evolve into next (Merlin McDonald, Origins of the Modern Mind, is some nice food for thought on this subject)? Stay tuned. I think we'll get to most of it. One way or another.

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste
Subject: Addendum
Date: Thu Oct 24 10:03:56 EDT 1996
Comments:
Oh yeah, also related (of course) is Ann's question: "have we reached a point in science where human understanding just can't go any further?" There's a recent book on the subject by John Horgan, which has kicked up something of a fuss (go to Serendip's Science and Culture section and click on "Science as discovery or invention"). Is human understanding limited or infinitely extensible? Is a question that's been on my mind since I was a kid. Think I know the answer now. Has a lot to do with how we got to the state of worrying about whether we can imagine nothingness ... and what is likely to happen next. Anyone else thinking about this? Any guesses?

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Oct 24 17:58:23 EDT 1996
Comments:
maybe our knowledge approaches everything, but never gets there, like if you graphed "human knowledge vs. time," as time increases, knowledge would increase, but it would increase less and less as it approached the assymptote of everything. We could be at a point where we know a lot and seems like we're not gaining anymore knowledge because we're very close the asymptote. But sometimes I think we don't know much at all. Maybe all this science stuff is wrong and the Church was right. Actually, more right than Galileo, but not as right as Greek mythology, so as time increases, knowledge decreases. Or, as knowledge increases, time decreases, if time direction isn't fixed. Anyway, I was kind of making the point that we don't know anything--we don't even know how much we know. And if there is an infinite amount of possible knowledge, which I guess there probably is, there would also be an infinite amount of non-knowledge, which means that it doesn't matter how much we know, because it is just between nothing and everything. since both directions go on infinitely, there is no meaning to a measurement of how much knowledge we have, except more or less than before, which has no meaning because we don't know which direction is before and we don't know if wether we're gaining knowledge or not.

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Oct 24 19:22:51 EDT 1996
Comments:
(who posted above?)

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Rants
Date: Thu Oct 24 20:18:06 EDT 1996
Comments:
Noooo!! Order can be bad! Evil can be order! No good! Argh! Chaos, randomness- these things are taken for granted. So let's give it up for l'anarchie! Hear, hear! // Supreme order, order taken to the extreme degree, means (or can mean) organized religion and war and industry and imperialism and fascism and nazism and CONFORMITY and intolerance and brainwashing and persecution. // The question is, Do we wanna be conformist bumblebees?? Drones rushing about, following some arcane signal to work in such and such a way, follow such and such a command? Do we wanna exploit the flowers but never, as the line goes, stop to sniff them? Do we, I ask you, friends, colleagues, wanna collect pollen on our hairy legs (ok, well, mine aren't, but, uh... oh, never mind) for the express purpose of making our particular hive more successful, more "superior," of "conquering" and manipulating our environments? Do we, huh? Huh? // And the answer is that yes, we do! Because that's the kind of lousy, selfish creatures that we are. Otherwise we'd have gone extinct by now... But oh, how I wish the answer was, "No"! That we're individuals, that we should be free. Be able to change and rebel without the agony of social pressures. (Growth and assimilation does not equal change.) "How does the busy bumblebee-" indeed! Hurumph! The fact is that, as busy bumblebees, most of us work for the sake of working, not to gain wisdom or expand our horizons (and mark my words, there is a difference between "wisdom" and "knowledge"). Y'know, we're just 50s vaccuum cleaner door-to-door sales reps, we're Willie Lowmans, we are! What an absurd world this is. Ha!

Name: Jonesy again
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Oct 24 20:20:29 EDT 1996
Comments:
Speaking of absurdity, will be showing "Dr. Strangelove" sometime this weekend. Everyone is welcome. E-mail for details.

Name: Natalie Katz
Username: nkatz@brynmawr.edu
Subject: evil,truth,religion
Date: Fri Oct 25 14:24:14 EDT 1996
Comments:
Well, we have entered the realm of dealing with "real" problems as far as I am concerned. Some questions I would like to throw out onto the forum is: Is religion a quest for truth or a way to avoid it? For example, I have seen and heard many people use religion as a way to avoid questioning them- selves and others. I have heard priests tell me that I will not go to heaven if I do not believe in their religion or even better their religious reality. I have seen believers blindly follow their religion and faith into war and death. Is this the solution and is this the truth of religion? I do not hear Churches say to their followers - question what we tell you and think about what we say - find the truth of your belief in your own heart and we will try to help you without persuading you to follow us. I do hear them say that People must have faith and believe in what the Bible tells them because then they will have Eternal Life. What is eternal life anyhow? These concepts I know may be being used in a figurative sense however when you are dealing with masses of people who want to follow you - are you telling them the Truth when you say that they will live forever if they say their prayers every night. I know that I am simplifying this slightly and the whole concept of religion is to form a set of rules by which we may live and to treat others as we would be treated. However, how good is it to lead people to believe that there is an afterlife as such and that they will be saved from their sins when these words are only speculation? For me religion is something that is used to control people and to convince them that there is a meaning to life. No doubt that in our realms of reality there is a meaning to what we do. However, in the main frame of things I don't feel that our significance is as great as we think it is. We are at the top of the food chain and also the most dispensible - doesn't that say something? About evil - for the Bible revenge is evil and to kill is a sin. However, the Bible does not mention anything about killing animals or animals killing for survival. Killing is taken in a broad sense and I know that that is not the intention of the author of the Bible - but has anyone ever thought about it? We know that animals have some sense of emotion for example - elephants mourn their dead etc. Is is just as much a sin for us to kill as them. Where does mother nature fit into this picture? A great deal of what I am saying is inspired by the article and my search for the meaning of life arises out of this incessant need to know the Truth about what drives people and what is evil by definition? Evil and good are definitely two sides of the same coin for without one we would not have the other. Enjoy your weekend. Sorry for such a long message!!!!

Name: Liz The Very Tired
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Sat Oct 26 18:25:41 EDT 1996
Comments:
I think that Natalie's brought up some interesting points about religion. Although I consider myself religious, I find people who are fanatically religious in any religion to be very frightening. It seems to me that if you are "God-fearing" enough, you can justify doing absolutely anything you want to by saying that God "made you do it." This is very scary to me. I have met very few people who use religion as a way to think more about God and what He means to them - most seem to view it as a way to cling to an already accepted way of thinking and stop making any kind of effort themselves. This is not all, mind you, but a significant number.

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Oct 27 12:54:43 EST 1996
Comments:
Ummm... Yeah.

Name: Julia
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Oct 28 23:06:40 EST 1996
Comments:
"Once, when I was a child/ I caught a fleeting glimpse/ out of the corner of my eye./ I turned to look/ but it was gone/ I could not put my finger on it ------Pink floyd

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject: "Cosmic Gall"
Date: Fri Nov 1 12:38:16 EST 1996
Comments:
Physics poetry - ha! Here's a poem called "Cosmic Gall" by John Updike: Neutrinos they are very small./ They have no charge and have no mass/ And do not interact at all./ The earth is just a silly ball/ To them, through which they simply pass,/ Like dustmaids down a drafty hall/ Or photons through a sheet of glass./ They snub the most exquisite gas,/ Ignore the most substantial wall,/ Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass,/ Insult the stallion in his stall,/ And scorning barriers of class,/ Infiltrate you and me! Like tall/ And painless guillotines, they fall/ Down through our heads into the grass./ At night, they enter at Nepal/ And pierce the lover and his lass/ From underneath the bed - you call/ It wonderful; I call it crass.// ("In 1930 physicist Wolfgang Pauli hypothesized a new, unseen particle called the neutrino in order to account for the missing component of energy in certain experiments on radioactivity that seemed to violate the conservation of matter and energy....Although the neutrino, because it barely interacts with other matter, was once considered the ultimate "untestable" idea, today we regularly produce beams of neutrinos in atom smashers, perform experiments with the neutrinos emmited from a nuclear reactor, and detect their presence within mines far below the earth's surface." Michio Kaku, Hyperspace 187).....All those small particles we were discussing just reminded me of this poem - I had to share it...

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Nov 1 13:11:30 EST 1996
Comments:
Interesting, Kate. Didn't know that poetry was such an ecstasy for you. (huh, huh) I don't know much about particles (uh, No kidding!) but in regard to perspectives and smallness, I did read a great review of a new film called "Microcosmos," a documentary of insect life 3 years in the making. Hey- I hear, "Field Trip!"

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Real problems
Date: Sun Nov 3 09:25:10 EST 1996
Comments:
Real problems, indeed. Relevant for both religion and science. And if I hear Liz properly, the suggestion is that what constitutes evil is absolutism, belief in knowing Truth, whatever its origins. Reminds ME of a favorite poem, by Rober Frost Let's see if I can do better than Kate at making it come properly on separate lines. If so, I'll teach you all how to do it.
Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction

Ice is nice

And would suffice.

Nu? Not bad?

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Testing, testing
Date: Sun Nov 3 09:34:48 EST 1996
Comments:
Yeah, yeah, better, but not QUITE what I expected. Let me try something here. First I'll use the p tag, like this

, then I'll use the br tag, like this
, p tag

, br tag
. By the way, you can also use a boldface tag, to get emphasis. Remind me sometime to recite another of my favorite poems, The Cremation of Sam McGee. There's a reworking of it on my home page.

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject: Rebuttal
Date: Sun Nov 3 15:45:18 EST 1996
Comments:
Or to quote Dennis Hopper from Apocalypse Now: "this is how the [expletive] world ends, man! Not with a bang, but with a whimper. And with a whimper, I am [expletive] splitting, jack."

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject: Huh?
Date: Sun Nov 3 15:46:44 EST 1996
Comments:
Okay, would you kindly explain the line thing more effectively for the technologically impaired, please?

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 3 15:51:49 EST 1996
Comments:
I favor fire as well..."I love the smell of napalm in the morning...smells like...victory!"

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject: A-N
Date: Sun Nov 3 15:51:58 EST 1996
Comments:
Yeah Kate... I KNEW Kilgore would be your favorite! Typical. :)

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 3 15:58:25 EST 1996
Comments:
Wow, you know I was really impressed with that poem indentation thing, just shot down, you know, shot right out of the sky in fact, but did you figure out how to fix this word wrap yet? Now THAT would really impress me...

Name: julia
Username:
Subject: indenting
Date: Sun Nov 3 20:53:36 EST 1996
Comments:
what's a tag? (as in p tag, br tag, and boldface tag)

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: tag, tag, who's ...
Date: Mon Nov 4 10:45:51 EST 1996
Comments:
I'll tell you when you get older. Maybe Thursday.

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject: Testing, testing, 1 2 3
Date: Mon Nov 4 13:03:23 EST 1996
Comments:
Okay, so to quote a poem or a song or whatnot... Ahem...

"Our Love" by (ex-Kid in the Hall) Bruce McCullough

"Our love is like standing on an ice floe outside of your house,
Watching you mount... another man.
Our love is like jiffy pop. It takes a long time to rise,
And when it does, it doesn't quite feel like... the real thing.
Our love is like Santa Claus.
The only people who believe in it are small children
Who don't know how the world really works. Our love is like our best friends' love. Only better!
Our love is like a Bruce Springstein concert.
It's not that great, it's really long, but wow! What energy!
Our love is like having sex with a dwarf when you're drunk.
Sure it's great at the time,
But the next day at work, you feel guilt, and shame,
And an array of sadness.
Our love, and I mean this in a nice way,
Is like taking Lassie out into the desert,
Removing her teeth with a hunting knife,
And shooting her in the head with the gun you and she built together.
Our love is like the Brady Bunch- no! the Partridge Family!-
No! the Brady Bunch!- no! the Partridge Family!-
No! WKRP in Cincinatti.
No, I know what our love is like:
Cops, that racist, welfare-hating crackhunt.
Our love is like our parent's love.
The only difference is that I won't wait till you die to leave you.
Our love is like licking the ass of a
Dead squirell that's lying bloated in the sun-
Only there's a negative side?
Don't get me wrong, I like our love.
It's just that its not very... funny?"

Ha! Of course, one can always substitute "our love" with "our class"...

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Nov 4 13:04:44 EST 1996
Comments:
...the hell? Where did all the emphasis stuff come from? Okay, *that* was a failure!

Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Nov 4 13:06:52 EST 1996
Comments:
Heeeeelllllpppp! Grobstein! Fix this!

Name: The Bobsy Twins
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Nov 4 13:17:09 EST 1996
Comments:
Prof Grobstein, now look what you did entrusting the technologically retarded with html playthings. We made a mess, sorry. Is there any way to erase postings....please?

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Someone called?
Date: Mon Nov 4 15:10:44 EST 1996
Comments:
Speaking of myths ... PG as prometheus, or maybe Mickey Mouse with the brooms in Fantasia? Alright, KAZAAM. But I thought I'd leave a few traces, to remember by.

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Nov 4 17:25:57 EST 1996
Comments:
Prometheus? Eww. I don't wanna see Grobstein liver. Mickey works better, if only because, having seen the horror that is his office, I think we all know that Grobstein is a bit slack when it comes to order and cleanliness. (Hee hee)

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Mon Nov 4 17:28:07 EST 1996
Comments:
Oh, and thanks for fixing everything, Mr Wizard. (though really... you needn't have left any traces behind...)

Name: catz
Username: nkatz@brynmawr.edu
Subject: are we going slightly mad?
Date: Tue Nov 5 15:59:20 EST 1996
Comments:
Well guys, another interesting session on the Lib Stud 2 forum! What about some more poetry guys? I have lots and lots of quotations for all of you should you be interested. I collect them as a hobby. "Morality is a private and costly luxury." I have forgotten even my favourites - it has been one of those days! Any- way, I will get back to the forum as soon as possible with some more interesting (????) quotations from the rich, the famous and the nobodies! Let's see if I can remember one that I can end with: "In youth we learn, in time we understand" Take that professor! (Just joking!) A bientot, mes amies! (thursday)

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Nov 6 16:05:45 EST 1996
Comments:
I think William Blake put it best:

"Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd."

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 10 13:00:31 EST 1996
Comments:
I believe that it is my fault that our discussion has stalled - posting that poem really got us off track, not that it was bad or evil, I mean good things came out of it like p tags and br tags and whatnot. This being so, I will take it upon myself to re-stimulate discussion. I think that our class has articulated within the past few weeks that there is a fuzzy line between good and evil, for example good things can result from an evil act, or good intentions can lead to an evil act. Within a society, absolute good and absolute evil are not recognized collectively, however "absolutes" are created by the society; these are "what is acceptable" and "what is not acceptable" in order for the common good of the society to increase. Laws emerge from these, and thus order. The "absolutes" are established through myths, and myths spring from the inner well of humanness which desires to explain everything. But like we said in class, myths are not untrue, so our society and its order have a foundation in truth. Even though some of us insist on seeing it all as a big lie, it can't be so because it is founded in truth. Rather it is a big game, and the more people who are educated about it, and the more fiercely you care about it - through politics and religion or whatever - the more fun it is. The game is short. Life is Shorter. Play Hard. Ha!

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 10 13:08:39 EST 1996
Comments:
Ow! Kate hit me.

Name: Jones (and above)
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 10 13:11:13 EST 1996
Comments:
Recommendation: don't say anything that Kate doesn't agree with after she's gotten out of a rugby game in which she's punched people in the gut. (...am I in an abusive friendship, here? Ow!!)

Name: me!
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 10 15:37:20 EST 1996
Comments:
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be." -KV

Name: Liz the Hopelessly Overworked
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Fri Nov 15 18:35:21 EST 1996
Comments:
Right, this is from a while ago, but I haven't gone on in a while. Emily, about your poem - I LIKE Springsteen! In fact I LOVE Springsteen! I won't go as far as a dear friend of mine and say that he's sex distilled, or his own aphrodisiac, but the man has some pretty damn funky songs. Wow, that was off the topic - Julia, was that "Comfortably Numb" that you were quoting before? |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Nov 15 18:36:31 EST 1996
Comments:
That last thing WAS a really cute picture of a snoozing cat, but P.G.'s page screwed it up. .

Name: Jones
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sat Nov 16 15:57:02 EST 1996
Comments:
Okay, Liz, you don't hafta blow a fuse, there. :) I don't think the point is that the Bruce is a disagreeable guy, just that he's...uh... less than brilliant?

Name: J
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 17 21:27:16 EST 1996
Comments:
AAAAHHHHH! I hate this myth paper nonsense. How can we define that which is indefinable?? (is "indefinable" a word?) Hmm... I think I'll sing me a (MST) Bouncy Upbeat Song to cheer m'self up.

Whenever I want to cry & bawl
Because I'm feeling sad...
I think of ironing boards & drywalls...
And then I don't feel so bad!

Whenever I'm feeling down & blue
And sorry for myself...
I get some staples & some glue...
And I'm happy as an elf!

Whenever I start to mope & pout
And there's nothing left in my soul...
I check the toilet paper & if we're out
I buy another roll!

Have you ever touched a Post-it Note?
Have you ever looked at boots?
Have you ever sat down in a chair?
Have you ever used a paper clip?

So if you listen to our advice
And you wanna feel terrific!
Do things that make you feel nice
I wish we could be more specific!

Name: J
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Nov 17 21:29:37 EST 1996
Comments:
Oh my... I think I'll just bash my head against the computer monitor now. Maybe that'll jar my b.s.-machine into gear. HA!

Name: Anna Banana
Username:
Subject:
Date: Fri Nov 22 17:34:57 EST 1996
Comments:
Well, I finally found time to write on the Forum and I must say that I don't quite know what to make of it all. I like this quote thing, though. I have this awesome Outward Bound Book of Readings that has some great, relevent-to-our-class stuff in it. On that note, I'll add to Kate's ideas about life from a while back. Who thinks that "Life is an adventure or nothing at all?" (Helen Keller) I do. Just sparking some new ideas. I just have to add that my next adventure is a plane flight going to Boston (home (sort of)) at 9 pm tonight. I'll miss ya'll, but YAY!!! Have wonderful breaks!

Name: julia
Username:
Subject: life, the universe, and everything
Date: Wed Dec 4 11:13:43 EST 1996
Comments:
yes, Liz, comfortably numb. I haven't checked out the forum in a while. Too busy with lib. stud. papers I think that life very well might be either an adventure or nothing at all. Prbably at least both.I think that yesterday's lecture about DNA and stuff was very interesting. I was wondering--the stuff in a cell besides the DNA and protein helps to decide what goes on in the cell and what the cell does, so what determines that other stuff? I think it's relly cool that everybody is using quotes and poems and stuff, even though I can't think of one right now. and stuff.

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject: Long live TP
Date: Thu Dec 5 15:38:02 EST 1996
Comments:
I know what you mean, Julia, I haven't even thought about this forum thing in forever. I only dropped in today b/c I thought I'd write s/thing to the effect of "R.I.P., we hardly knew ye."

Btw, I just joined a nift-a-rooney Thomas Pynchon e-mail list (as if I have the time or stamina!), and since Julia mentioned poetry, I've just got to quote the funny intro--

Welcome aboard, gee, it's a fabulous or-gy
That you just dropped in on, my friend--
We can't recall just how it start-ted,
But there's only one way it can end!
The behaviour is bestial, hardly Marie-Celestial,
But you'll fit right in with the crowd,
If you jettison all of those prob-lems,
And keep it hysterically loud! --T. P.

(As you can see, I'm a big fan. HA!)
Incidentally, the list has a thread about the schism between the sciences and the humanities... OH NO, _Two Cultures_ fodder!! Ahhh! Will it never cease? ;)

Name: Me again
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Dec 5 15:40:44 EST 1996
Comments:
Btw, what kind of brain *was* that from lecture last tues.? And I sincerely hope the good prof washed his hands before lunch-- ew, brain cooties.

Name: Kate
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Dec 12 17:33:17 EST 1996
Comments:
The Emperor is Naked.

Name: Jonesy
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Dec 12 17:37:28 EST 1996
Comments:
Yeah, well King Midas has ass ears.

Name: Liz the Grumpy
Username: escheier
Subject:
Date: Sun Jan 26 19:26:01 EST 1997
Comments:
Yay! I am officially the first person to write in this illustrious second semester of ours. (Which, by the way, started out with a bang for at least one of us: Public Safety, to whom I entrusted Harvey, my beloved PC, temporarily lost him in the nether recesses of Merion. It's kind of sad that my alter ego is a computer, and that the high point of my day was salvaging half a jar of Nutella from the clutches of my friends, but you know, it's all good. Can we all tell that I'm procrastinating from writing my paper? I mean, we're reading some really incredible books this semester, and what do we get for a paper? "Analyze this here poem." Sorry, I don't mean to complain, I'm just grouchy and someone on the floor above me is playing Alannis (AK! Name of the devil! Name of the devil!) which doesn't help. I'll go (sigh) write my paper, and hope y'all are having more luck than I am... And in the spirit of quotes (now this one is TOTALLY unconnected): "Do you know on this one block you can buy croissants in five different places? There's one store called Bonjour Croissant. It makes me want to go to Paris and open a store called Hello Toast." -Fran Leibowitz

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Sep 5 09:57:03 EDT 2000
Comments: