[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Monday, February 28th, 2011|
|Monday, Feb 28 2011
Annabelle found an old Star Wars picture of Qui-gon Jinn in the house tonight, complete with him holding a light saber. Annabelle thought that it was a picture of me! For some reason, this pleased me much more than it probably should have...
|Monday, January 25th, 2010|
|Monday, December 28th, 2009|
|"the chair test" for personality
I like the boldness of this test, which asked only one rather unusual question! http://www.blogthings.com/thechairtest/
You Are Energetic and Innovative
You're the type of person who can sit all day planning a new idea or a project.
You like to discover and create. You are likely to have a challenging career and challenging interests outside of work.
You give a first impression of being a bit obsessive. And while this is true, you never let your obsessions take over you.
You are an armchair scientist. You like to experiment and tinker with things to learn about them.
|Sunday, January 4th, 2009|
Your result for The Pop Culture Archetype Personality Test...
Ninja, Monkey, Punk, Cowboy
Druids are filled with a dramatic sense of wonder, viewing the world through rose-colored glasses as they watch everything come to life, from flora and fauna to mundane objects. They see the good in almost everyone and everything, yet struggle with the idea of ethical perfection (or lack thereof). They tend to turn away from the world and toward essence and ideal, and while they are concerned with all people and creatures, those things are valued only in that they are part of a greater whole; in this, they often struggle to find their place in things, and need to feel a part of whatever they are involved with. Fluent with language, they are keen to pick out patterns in people and things, although their somewhat otherworldly focus on the larger picture can lead them to seem somewhat absentminded. Nevertheless, they have a knack for explaining complex things quite simply.
Druids are often beset by Histrionic behavior, craving attention, reassurance and praise in everything they do. Emotionally exaggerated and often sexually charged, they become concerned with physical appearance, and grow uncomfortable when they are not the center of attention. Their emotions are subject to rapid shifts, and their actions are entirely self-centered, with no tolerance for delay in getting what they want. Their speech often lacks detail as their shallow emotions carry across into their dealings with others.
Famous druid types include Homer, Shakespeare, Dick Clark, Jackie Onasis and Julia Roberts.
Take The Pop Culture Archetype Personality Test at HelloQuizzy
|Wednesday, April 30th, 2008|
|Adventures in science and feeling ant-isocial...
For the past couple of days my bathroom has had a minor invasion of small "sugar ants," who seem to have a "thing" for my Aim toothpaste tube. I don't particularly like to kill them because they are, of course, just doing their own thing. I just want them to go do it somewhere else.
Given my attitude, and the fact I find the idea of using chemical pesticides more worrisome than having ants, I looked online to see if there are any good organic/natural ant repellants that might work. Sure enough, I found a person touting ground cinnamon for this purpose. Perfect! I even had a container of it that an old housemate left behind after they moved out. (I am not big on cooking...)
Anyway, I took my tin of cinnamon to the bathroom and sprinked it around. Here are my observations:
1. Ants do not particularly like to be sprinkled with cinnamon.
2. Sprinkling cinnamon around one's bathroom makes the place look rusty, but has the salutory effect of making the bathroom smell a bit like a pumpkin pie.
3. Once the shock of being sprinkled with cinnamon has worn off, ants seem not to care much one way or the other about the cinnamon.
Hmph. Back to the drawing board....
|Saturday, April 26th, 2008|
|Sunday, December 9th, 2007|
|The problem of suffering and evil...
As you can probably see, I don’t usually write in my blog very much. However, there has been a discussion going around at church recently (partly viewable here
) and I thought that this might be as good a place to discuss this as any. Plus a friend of mine with whom I discussed these topics thought that somebody might find them helpful.
The topic is “pain and suffering,” or “why God allows bad things to happen.” Is God so limited in power as to allow bad things to happen? Or is He uncaring or, roughly equivalent, is He so beholden to his own natural laws and notions of free will that he callously lets His children suffer from hunger, rape, terrible accidents, etc?
I would like to explore this question by examining a small, minor incident, rather than a big one.
The other day I decided to take my recyclables out to my car to take to the recycling center. On the way to the car, I tripped over the curb and fell flat on my face. I scraped up my hands a bit and managed to scatter paper all over the parking lot.
Naturally, I found this annoying. But as I was picking up scattered papers I was also puzzled. I mean really… here I was, trying to do some small thing to help God’s planet, and this happens. Shouldn’t I get some sort of veil of protection or something? I mean, nothing major, or even all the time. But if I am doing something which I think is within God’s plan (recycling stuff), why should I have to worry about something bad happening?
And then I realized that before I had left, I had considered taking the glass bottles as well as the paper, but I had not. Thus, when I fell I fell on fairly squishy newspaper, rather than breaking and/or falling on the bottles. So maybe it WAS God protecting me after all…
But would I have tripped if I had left, say, a minute sooner? Or a minute later? Or maybe if I had tried to take both paper and glass I wouldn’t have tripped at all? Or… or… The seemingly endless implications of this simple event seemed to spin out of control. In fact it made me think of what my Catholic friends say about such questions: It’s a Mystery. It’s not that the questions (suffering, pain, free will, predestination, etc.) are trivial; it is that they seem to be overwhelmingly unknowable. Life is filled with ambiguous events, from which we try to divine what “God is telling us.” If something happens to me or, worse, a loved one, is God punishing me for that fling I had with the airline stewardess back in 1988? If I win the lottery is God rewarding me for the $5 I gave to the homeless guy in 1995? Heck, even Jesus found the Divine Will to be incomprehensible at times (note Matt. 27:46).
While it is human nature to wonder about why things happen, I really find it more useful to ask, “What now?” That is, given some situation, what should I (or we, or our nation, or our planet…) do about it? Should I stop taking things to recycling as a result of my fall? (No.) Should I continue helping others, even though somebody pulled a knife on me while doing this very thing? (Yes). Should I distrust all foreign people because some nut jobs leveled the World Trade Center? (No.) Am I guaranteed safety and security while doing a Good Thing, whatever it is? (No.) Then why am I doing it? (Because it is Right and Good, not because God will automatically grant me a magic shield while I am doing it.)
|Monday, October 29th, 2007|
|What SF ship crew I should belong to...
Ironically, "Farscape" is one of the shows that I know the least about... it got canned right after I watched a couple of episodes. (However, it does feel like I spend a lot of time around muppets lately...)
Which sci-fi crew would you best fit in with? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as Moya (Farscape)|
You are surrounded by muppets. But that is okay because they are your friends and have shown many times that they can be trusted. Now if only you could stop being bothered about wormholes.
Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)
Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)
Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)
Enterprise D (Star Trek)
Heart of Gold (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)
Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)
Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)
FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)
Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)
|Friday, September 28th, 2007|
|Saturday, September 15th, 2007|
|My results from "The Alien Descendent Test"
Your Score: Superman
Truth, justice and the American way, huh? Well tread lightly, Herr SuperFuhrer. You’re a Zod-beating away from making your own Kryptonian/Human Master Race. I say this now, but watch me scream like a baby when that Daily Planet globe is falling right on me. Your Reich might be ok then.
|Saturday, September 8th, 2007|
|My brain type. I actually thought this quiz was pretty good...
Your Score: Ravenous Brain
Your brains craves 58 % Exploration, 64 % Affiliation, 76 % Recreation and 75 % Sensation
Congratulations for attaining such a rare score!
We have determined that you have a Ravenous Brain. When it comes to craving stimulation your brain just can't get enough. It takes a little extra for you to feel content in all four dimensions because your brain wants it all. In fact there are some days where it can be difficult for your brain to feel fully stimulated.
Above Average Systems: Exploration, Affiliation, Recreation & Sensation
Our Exploration system helps us to organize our searching and learning behaviors. If you are trying to look for an object or new information then the Exploration system is helping you out. When it gets properly stimulated then you will feel emotions such as curiosity and inquisitiveness.
Our Affiliation system helps us to organize our bonding and connecting behaviors. If you are strengthening your relationship with someone then your Affiliation system is helping you out. When it gets properly stimulated you will feel that you are loved and that you belong.
Our Recreation system helps us to organize our playing, joking and goofing around behaviors. Whenever you are trying to play a game or let go from the stresses of the day your Recreation system is helping you out. When it gets properly activated you feel a sense of relaxed jubilation and carefree optimism.
Our Sensation system helps us to organize our sexual arousal and pleasure seeking behaviors. This is one of the smoothest running systems in the brain, easily capable of fading in the background as it operates. When it gets properly activated your can feel the chemistry between yourself and another person.
Secondary System: None
Thank you for taking this test. You have the chance to scroll down to near the bottom of this page and give it a positive rating. Even one positive vote helps.
|Sunday, August 26th, 2007|
|Saturday, July 21st, 2007|
|This philosophical test was kind of cool. I think.
Your Score: N-A-R
You scored 55% Non-Reductionism, 66% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!
You are an N-A-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Relativist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.
Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism)
In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.
1. Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience, thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and Fichte.
If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist.
2. Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.
Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism)
My test measures one's tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism in regards to epistemology. As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality. The two types of Absolutists recognized by my test are Rationalists and Pragmatists.
1. Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.
If that didn't sound like your own views, then you are most likely the other type of Absolutist: the Pragmatist.
Epistemological Pragmatists are fundamentally identified by their definition of truth. Truth is, on this view, merely a measure of a proposition's success in inquiry. This view is a strictly scientific notion of truth. A proposition can be called true if it leads to successful predictions or coheres best with the observed facts about the world. Thus, for the pragmatist, knowledge of reality is possible through scientific reasoning. A pragmatist emphasizes man's fallibility, and hence takes baby-steps towards knowledge through scientific methodology. Any truth claim for a pragmatist is open to revision and subject to change--if empirical observations lead us to call even logical rules into question (like quantum physics has done for the law of the excluded middle), then we can and should abandon even these supposed a priori and "absolutely certain" logical rules if they do not accord with our testing and refuting of our various propositions. As a consequence of this, a pragmatist doesn't feel that scientific knowledge is based upon unfounded assumptions that are taken to be true without any sort of justification--rather, they believe that the successes of scientific inquiry have proved that its assumptions are well-founded. For instance, the assumption of science that the future will be like the past is adequately shown by the amazing success of scientific theories in predicting future events--how else could this be possible unless the assumption were true? Pragmatism borrows elements from realism and yet attempts to account for the critiques made by skeptics and relativists. It is essentially a type of philosophical opportunism--it borrows the best stances from a large number of philosophical systems and attempts to discard the problems of these systems by combining them with others. Famous pragmatists of this type are Peirce and Dewey.
Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism)
My test measures one's tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism in regards to ethics. As a moral Relativist, you tend to see moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address any empirical fact about the world. My test recognizes two types of moral relativists--Subjectivists and Emotivists.
1. Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result, Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider "good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche.
If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Relativist--the Emotivist.
Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists associated with the Vienna Circle.
As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-A-R. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an R-S-O.
About the Author
Saint_gasoline is a crazed madman who spends all of his time writing OKCupid tests and ranting about philosophy and science. If you are interested in reading more of his insane ramblings, or seeing his deliciously trite webcomic, go to SaintGasoline.com.
|Sigh... I'm just another proletarian superhero wannabe...
Your Score: The Do-Gooder
You scored 7 idealist points, 10 detective points, 0 kick-in-the-door points, and 0 help points!
You are a good person at heart. You try to do your best to help the world out against evil, although you aren't always appreciated for it. Although you try to do good, sometimes personal goals, or life, gets in the way of superheroism.
Examples: Spiderman, The Flash
|Wednesday, May 16th, 2007|
|What a surprise! Not. :-)
Your Score: Teacher
You scored 76 intelligence, 54 diligence, 45 charisma, and 52 compassion!
You are well-rounded and nurturing. The future of the world is in your hands. People will never understand how difficult your job is until they try it. "Don't you spend all day coloring pictures?" Ha. Right.
Other jobs you might be good at: pretty much anything you enjoy
|Sunday, April 8th, 2007|
|Friday, April 6th, 2007|
|What kind of dice...?
Take the quiz at dicepool.com
You are the large, round, friendly d20! (You probably didn't know this, but the shape of the twenty-sided die is called an Icosahedron.) You are the friendly, outgoing, outspoken, leader of friends. You are often looked up to, even though you don't normally deserve it. Most other types secretly wish they were you, and you'd give them tips on how, if only you had a clue yourself. Your charisma is often all you need, but you have your occasional moments of brilliance as well--just never when it's actually needed. You are the all-around good guy, a dependable chum, a respectable foe, and an inspiration to those who need one. Who says you can't get by on a smile and good looks alone?
|Saturday, March 17th, 2007|
|results for the "Ape or Angel?" and "Who Would You Be in 1400 AD?" tests
You scored 59% carnal, 85% intelectual, and 73% emotional.
|You are the Fae|
Be you elf, or faerie, or just a greater form of human you are possessed of great intellect and profound emotion. You are likely of at least some artistic inclination, and what ever you lack in profound carnal desires you make up for with emotional and intellectual interest in the same things.
|My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:|
||You scored higher than 31% on carnal|
||You scored higher than 86% on intelectual|
||You scored higher than 63% on emotional|
You scored 10% Cardinal, 61% Monk, 47% Lady, and 54% Knight!
|You are of the intellectual breed and yet you are also very interested in war. You are of the aristocracy and head the cavalry a safe distance from the carnage of the front lines. You believe in defeating your enemy with not only might, but also wit. |
You scored high as both the Monk and the Knight. You can try again to get a more precise description of either the Monk or the Knight, or you can be happy that you're an individual.
|My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:|
||You scored higher than 4% on Cardinal|
||You scored higher than 87% on Monk|
||You scored higher than 67% on Lady|
||You scored higher than 56% on Knight|
|Thursday, March 15th, 2007|
|Friday, February 2nd, 2007|