skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."--Harry Emerson Fosdick
harry was a clever guy. i don't agree with all that he supported or lead, but some i do. and whether or not i agree with any of it, i can at least acknowledge that he is a very clever harry. a very clever harry indeed.
cynicism isn't a good thing. i'll rarely be so absolute in my statements (the fruit of being a psych major--you qualify everything you say with "usually," "often," or something equivalent), but i feel bold enough at this moment about this particular point that i'll just go hog wild. webster defines a cynic as "a faultfinding captious critic; especially: one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest." "captious" being "marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections." honest, practical, pragmatic, realistic--these are the vessels or reasoning that, often, cynicism will use to present itself. the fact is, you can be honest, practical, pragmatic, and realistic without being cynical. it's the difference between "we've poor odds" and "don't bother trying" or "i haven't had the best experiences in dating" and "screw dating."
i'm a cynic at times. depending on subject and timing, i certainly can have a cynical streak as i suppose many of us can. i guess it depends on when and where you talk to me--but if you know me well, you probably don't even need to. either way, like harry pointed out, it's typically an absence of something, and i'll add negative experiences, that lead to cynicism.
this being the case, i think just about every person i know has "discover[ed] what [i] lack" already.
logically, though, i can't seem to make the connection that this means one can see what a person is optimistic about, and see what they have. my best conclusion is that an optimist is a person who may or may not have a lack in a given area, but fails to see the point in being a cynic about it, and sees the value of positive outlook.
in some areas i'm quite the optimist. in others, eh, not so much. but according to the logic i've pieced together--that's very stupid. i should just be an optimist.
as i've begun my trek into the next semester by beginning my studies and trying to fill out all my rotc paperwork including a comprehensive graduation plan for my degree in psychology, minor in chemistry, and requisites for rotc. so, jumping in with both feet, i've once again broken out the school year's glasses and backpack and am gearing up for battle.
many of you know and adore linus from the classic comic strip 'peanuts' (and many of you also adore my nephew, linus, who is all the more adorable). he's famous for always carrying his blue blanket, despite infinite encouragement from the other characters and numerous attempts to do so. whatever the reason, he can't seem to operate properly without it.
for a period of time, he also had a pair of glasses which he wore because he found that his eyes would water whenever he read and ate potato chips at the same time. they were eventually phased from the comic strip, but he did have them for a time to ensure he could enjoy his reading and eating potato chips.
me and linus have a bit in common.
for me, i have a sort of matching set of comfort blanket and glasses. my backpack is my comfort blanket during my studies. even when i've no intention to study, it comes with me. whether at a computer, desk, or on a lawn i for some reason require my beat-up old puma bag. and "glasses is glasses" here. i may be able to study a bit without glasses, but when the frames come out it's business time. time to eat chips and read, so to speak.
all in all, they're both basically serving the functions of a) making me more comfortable to study, or 'getting me in the zone' and b)somehow convincing me that i'm more effective than i may actually be. that's where the placebo part of the title comes in. do these things actually make a difference? maybe. m&ms may also help a cold a bit, but really the difference is made in the fact that your brain is convinced that those m&ms will make a difference. likewise, over time these glasses and this bag have driven their way deep enough into my sulci to make that sort of difference. and yes, i realize that me considering them as placebos sort of ruins the whole thing. whatever.
so. glasses on, backpack at side.
let's rumble.
not to make everything about anatomy, but a quick mention that it's pretty awesome. yesterday we were studying the leg and we got to look at this HUGE specimen of a leg. pretty rad stuff. handling it was tricky business, though, and i needed the assistance of the girl across the table just to turn it over. very exciting.
anyway, so this leg got me to thinking about robots. every time i see muscle structures i find my mind wanders to far away images of threepio and his gears and pulleys, as well as other robots. the same way our muscles pull various points to create movement of the body, various hydraulic pumps and pressure tubes keep the same sort of duties. of course, they have the upper hand in being able to both pull and push (where as our muscles can only pull--that's whey they need opposing muscles). however, they don't have the biological structure that can repair itself and improve with use. i guess you just have to decide which is better. having muscles that are more easily damaged or strained, bearing in mind that they can (usually) repair themselves; or having techno-muscles that only weaken with use and must be externally repaired, but are generally much more versatile and powerful (not to mention, after a few missions, you can upgrade with future-aged money).
of course, the skeleton on the other hand is of a more insect-like nature. while inner structures surely help in supporting the internal parts and wiring, the casing which contains it all is surely reminiscent of an locust's exoskeleton. just think, if i crush your leg in a compressor (horizontally), you're body is designed to be able to take some of the pressure in your softer tissues before your bone structure is damaged. painful, yes--but you could still limp home. on the other hand, a robot's leg (or limb otherwise), if crushed even a bit, causes immediate damage to his casing and thus his support structure. walking home would be no treat where every step further damaged your vertical support as it crinkled under your weight. following this same example, though, if your meaty leg was so thoroughly compressed that the bone was broken or otherwise damaged, to correct the damage takes a)a hefty load of time and babying, and possibly b)operations where the external tissue must be somehow bypassed to correct the injury. meanwhile, robo-friend catches a cab, gets his leg casing replaced, and is running marathons within hours--if he was already planning on them. otherwise, he would still probably want to just rest.
the closest thing to vital organs that a droid has is circuit boards and batteries, and those are more like an rc car than anything else. we wouldn't want wires frying our systems nor would robots want wet, fleshy organs flopping around causing problems. no need to compare apples and oranges here.
sensory organs are one where you win some, you lose some. we have eyes that allow us to process great amounts of information, ears that hear things nearby. robots have "eyes" that can pinpoint and analyze moles on individuals in distant cities and "ears" that can hear a pin drop in a pin-making factory. one point robots. likewise, if we lose sight or hearing, good luck replacing them. robots? one trip to the shop. two points robots. lucky us, though, robots stop there. touch? sure, they can tell you the temperature in the room in kelvin without a pencil and paper, but they can't delight in shag carpet. that's what the the sense of touch is all about. one point humans. next, robots will only eat to be polite (like when they're offered a bowl of tomato soup with some toast), and by "eat" i mean dispose of via their self-contained mini blast chambers. when they can enjoy marshmallow cereal like i can, maybe i'll reconsider this one. two points humans. the last sense to consider is smell. this is a draw because, no, robots can't really smell anything. however, how often do we with we couldn't either? that makes a two point draw between robots and humans on this one. we're all winners (unless you include cyborgs, then most of us are losers).
it's important, as we remember these points, that the miracle of life is something that provides us with those things we've needed and utilized for our survival for thousands of years. those same ones we used to create robots. things that robots will never have.
remember also, we created robots via the miracle of electronics and provided all of them with the things they need to one day rule over us.
it's the circle of digi-life.
"Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
