Just The Right Name

I'm (re-)reading Anne of Green Gables. It is such a unique, lovely book. One of the dialogs is about names and it has such a fresh perspective on it, suggesting that the right name for things is very important. Anne always goes around renaming things to reflect their inner qualities. It reminds me of the same idea from The Never Ending Story where a whole world would die unless someone will give the princess exactly the right name.

It's a lovely idea and I think it has a parallel in real life.. That identifying something truthfully, precisely and thoroughly gives it strength to survive and flourish (or in some other cases, the ability to destroy it, but good or bad idea, identifying it opens the door to action). If you can't identify something it may show up randomly and eventually shrivel away unnurtured.

Well here is the dialog from the book:

"My father's name was Walter Shirley, and he was a teacher in the Brolingbroke High School. My mother's name was Bertha Shirley. Aren't Walter and Bertha lovely names? I'm so glad my parents had nice names. It would be a real disgrace to have a father named - well, say Jedediah, wouldn't it?"
"I guess it doesn't matter what a person's name is as long as he behaves himself," said Marilla, feeling herself called upon to inculcate a good and useful moral.
"Well, I don't know." Anne looked thoughtful. "I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I've never been able to believe it. I don't believe a rose WOULD be as nice if it was called a thristle or a skunk cabbage."

The physical appearance of evolved species

Watching some sci-fi movies got me thinking about the idea of humanoids and different evolved, intelligent, self-aware species having different appearances and originating from different species, such as a crocodile-resembling humanoid, an ape-resembling humanoid (us), and so on.

But here's what I'm thinking... Are all those options equally plausible? I think not. Human beings evolved to have diminished predatory characteristic as well no distinguishable characteristics of prey.

I mean, we have the right teeth to chew meet, but we don't have a vicious mouth designed to kill an animal by chewing on its neck, and we don't have long ears and super strong legs like rabbits do so they can escape a predator. In fact we developed in a rather new direction and in a leisurely way. We developed more and more toward the ability to self regulate (this is an observation made by Harry Binswanger).

But here is the main point here: Because we re intelligent we don't have an evolutionary pressure to develop either in the direction of prey OR predator. And the same thing will be true for EVERY evolved species, by which I mean mentally evolved.

The only way that will change is if somehow, a lot of only evolved species would exist and would have to kill one another to survive. But then let me ask you this: Have they all forgotten how to raise chickens??

Conclusion, such conditions will never be met for evolved species and therefore all of them will have a peaceful appearance, and not like a T-Rex.

Sure, you can have an intelligent predator, more intelligent than the others, but once they cross a threshold and become intelligent enough to farm, they no longer have an evolutionary pressure to maintain their predatory qualities and those traits will disappear over time.

The physical appearance of evolved species

Watching some sci-fi movies got me thinking about the idea of humanoids and different evolved, intelligent, self-aware species having different appearances and originating from different species, such as a crocodile-resembling humanoid, an ape-resembling humanoid (us), and so on.

But here's what I'm thinking... Are all those options equally plausible? I think not. Human beings evolved to have diminished predatory characteristic as well no distinguishable characteristics of prey.

I mean, we have the right teeth to chew meet, but we don't have a vicious mouth designed to kill an animal by chewing on its neck, and we don't have long ears and super strong legs like rabbits do so they can escape a predator. In fact we developed in a rather new direction and in a leisurely way. We developed more and more toward the ability to self regulate (this is an observation made by Harry Binswanger).

But here is the main point: Because we're intelligent we don't have an evolutionary pressure to develop either in the direction of prey OR predator. And the same thing will be true of EVERY evolved species, by which I mean mentally evolved.

The only way that will change is if somehow, a lot of only evolved species would exist and would have to kill one another to survive. But then let me ask you this: Have they all forgotten how to raise chickens??

Conclusion, such conditions will never be met for evolved species and therefore all of them will have a peaceful appearance, and not like a T-Rex's.

Sure, you can have an intelligent predator, more intelligent than the others, but once they cross a threshold and become intelligent enough to farm, they no longer have an evolutionary pressure to maintain their predatory qualities and those traits will disappear over time.

Also one last observation: It seems like there is a certain path evolution takes when there is abundance and low pressure to survive in a certain area; seems like species start to develop more toward appearance and sexual selection becomes a more dominant factor. That's how you get the bright colors and patterns of fish and corals you see in exotic climates (like the red sea). Right?

So it seems like, unless some disease or natural disaster will create a specific evolutionary pressure (like resistance to a certain virus), the most dominant factors for our survival and reproduction become things like: Our ability to think, to self-regulate, ability to get along with others, physical beauty and emotional well being.

For example if I try to think of a mutation that leads to something new, like say a few people start getting purple eyes, they might be more sexually sought after (similar to a colorful fish).. So basically one possible form evolution will take for humans is some kind of prettier human XD
I personally hope it won't involve any neon colors though, because I think that's just too much. It's one thing to look at it in an aquarium and a whole different thing to stare at it across the desk in business meetings every day.

Being "Too much"

Here is a personal-diary type of blog post about the theme of my life lately. And mostly in the last few years of me living here in the US.

I'm tired of being "too much". Rather than having my honesty appreciated as a refreshing change, people here rather see it as me being "too much".

I think they're much happier with the bunch of normal folk who play by the rules, never try to bring deep issues to the surface or discuss anything in a genuine way. People who play a social game of going behind their backs, of hinting their criticism rather than ever stating it.

I've had close friends like that before. The relationships seems close, and fulfilling, except for small little things that are not quite right. Like maybe they don't like how much attention you're getting from guys, so here and there they tell insulting jokes at your expense. If you bring it up it becomes about you: "Why do you have to make a big deal about small things like that?"

Try to discuss what's really bothering them, it is an impossible task. People would rather marginalize you as crazy than face the reality of their insecurities.

Are those relationships really that good? I've had close friends over the years. Eventually, when I couldn't solve these little "currents of malice" the friendship fell apart.

Some people can live with these friendships and be happy; apparently I can't.

And quite frankly, I think I'm fed up with being "too much". Why do I ever give that sort of judgment my sanction?

I think I rather just stay alone than try to be "normal" if that's what it comes down to. There's plenty of "normal" around; I don't find it particularly inspiring.

And who knows, maybe eventually I'll find people who want to be close to me who don't try to escape "too much honesty" "too much complexity" - but that have the inner desire to face something and understand it if there's truth to it, because being true is more important than being "normal".

I only ask myself, in a world where this approach is so unwelcome, can I really tolerate staying alone? Shouldn't I try to have those in-between friendships where a lot is really great except for small things here and there, which you're supposed to never bring up or acknowledge?

I feel like a misfit. Not just here in the US but possibly in the world in general. I see a lot, I understand a lot, and the feedback I get for that is "You are weird. You are not normal". You damn right I'm not normal. The only thing that seems to change lately is me questioning if I should aspire to be more like you and less like me.

Being part of history adds glamour to our present era

I've always felt like, the past is mysterious and interesting, the future is mysterious and interesting, but the present, just happens to be a random time in which I live, and it is plain and non distinctive. It has no fancy puffy gowns or cool futuristic suits full of new gadgets.

But actually I realized something, which is self evident but is still not experienced as such - that in a way we also live in history. The events that take place now, the specific characteristics of this era will one day be studied by the future civilization. they will look at our art, at our current events, fundamental philosophy and ideas, and will classify them according to how they fit with everything else.

To them, our clothes will be a mysterious, cool and bizarre thing just as the 19th century gowns are to us.

It's not that we have to see the world through their eyes, it's that we can choose to look at our time as being unique among other times in history (both past and future, because the world *will* change).

And to me, that makes all the everyday things acquire a much grander meaning. We are both unique and part of a whole. And that means we can cherish ordinary things, even something like sidewalks or cars. There'd come a day when those will no longer exist in their current form. And we (and whatever other number of generations) are the only ones who get to experience them.

My summer project - update

The update is that nothing is moving much. I am pretty much stuck as to where to get the background image from, how to get a good model reference picture from, since it's nude and requires sunlight and other small things (such as where to get the fabric from, what wood panel side to get etc' but that is really a small issue).

I think once I have the background decided on I will be on the horse and ready to move forward. This lead me to the thought today of "just pick one and go with it even if it's not perfect". Not an easy thing to do for me. When it comes to art I am very picky. The Atelier beat it out of me a little bit. I get there early in the morning and draw what is there, like it or not and eventually I like the result even if partially. However, it doesn't work well when I see something in the subject I really like and this is a case when I like the subject.

Maybe I can do the figure alone and linger with the background so that I can start working. Yes... yes... It may end up making the composition slight less than perfect but this is a summer project and the summer only lasts so long. This is indeed what I should do!

So the plan is to look through more backgrounds today, to test the appearance of pure sunlight on the body (it may be too much and I'd have to change it to something more subtle somehow, like indirect sunlight).

OK, let's get moving!

The process of creating my summer painting

You can follow me in my steps to create my first imagination-reference painting from the first concept/sketch to its final stages which will hopefully be at the end of the summer.

In the past I have been painting from my head and didn't use references with an unsatisfying result. This is my first time trying to work with references to achieve what I have in mind.


It all started one night as I was sitting at my desk, doing whatever - I don't remember what, when I had this image in my head and I had to put it down. I grabbed a pen and a sticky note and scribbled the following:

Then, I stored the little note in a drawer and didn't think about it much for several months and meanwhile got ideas for several other paintings.

Then, as my year at the Atelier (a form of a private, small art school) came close to an end I started thinking of my summer project and had a hard time choosing one idea out of the 5 I had. I decided to just go with the first one, which is this one.

A while ago, after I created the sketch, I started thinking and trying to develop the concept for the painting - the background and the story behind it. I didn't want just the figure in an empty space. The idea of a naked woman carelessly adjusting her high heel shoes was appealing to me as part of some context from real life, and I wanted to find the right setting to place her in. The first thing that came to my mind was a shopping area. She is going shopping, naked, but without much attention to the fact of being naked, but as if she were dressed.

Now, the thing is, I don't know WHY I was to paint that or why it has such a positive emotion for me, but it does. I feel that it communicates something good about the world. How else can someone go shopping naked and worry about nothing more than adjusting their shoe? It must mean that they like their body, they like life, they like the sense of moving and the sun and wind on their skin and can care for nothing except for that fun. In real life, this feeling would only be possible as part of a dream, because.. you'd get arrested, you'd get pointed at and so on and that's not fun at all. But the scene is not going to have people in her immediate environment. There will be people, but they will be further away in the shopping center. Not enough for any sort of interaction, just enough to make the shopping center look natural.


Now I had 2 problems to solve: References for the background and for the model. I have the pose in mind fairly well, but not the background.
so I started Googling for shopping plaza images to get some ideas of what I'd like to have, what would work.
I looked at several, each with its own pros and cons. Here are a few of those images:

Then I realized I am getting too overwhelmed by the list that started forming of what I like and didn't like about each one and so I made a document with a list of requirements from the background.
I like the first image the most for its distance, high brightness, clarity of it being a shopping center without too many details. I didn't like the street separating the viewer from the mall, I prefer something more accessible and inviting to the viewer like a parking lot.
I want the background to show blue sky so that it is clear it is daytime - morning probably.

Now my problems are getting a model, finding a place where a model can be photographed in broad daylight without anyone seeing, finding the precise shopping place I'd use as a reference (I can't use the painting above because it belongs to someone else).
The model will likely be me, though not accurately me, but some idealized/ approximated version. (I better not receive any cheesy remarks about this).


More on the list: deciding the canvas size, getting a canvas, paints, workable lightning conditions, blah blah, it's trivial.

I'm going to make myself an organized schedule so I don't end up drifting away and put in the required time. It's easy to go do other things while running into difficulties and I want to avoid that.

I am going to use all the knowledge and experience I've gathered in my year at Georgetown Atelier. I've done nothing but draw the whole year; no color, no painting. I don't have a lot of experience doing that, but I feel fairy ripe for the task anyway.

Stay tuned for part 2 as my painting and preparation process progresses.

There must be an angel

"No one on earth could feel like this. I'm thrown and overblown with bliss" - probably my favorite line ever.

Insecurity masked as self-involvement

Today I heard perhaps the best example to illustrate this "thing", which some, or even many people do.

A father and son started a project, sending an HD camera to outer space and back. They achieved this (how incredibly cool!) and when they got the camera back they put the video up on youTube.
[No link or details for this from me this time, feel free to search it on youTube].

So, to the point I was making: In the comment section, some people replied "this is not HD! The quality is OK but not HD like they say it is."

Now, how on earth can someone have that to say as their one, only comment? Is this really the most important thing you could think of to comment on this magnificent and exciting adventure/ achievement? How about the fact that a normal regular family sent an object to outer space?

One has to wonder, what goes on in the minds of people who make comments of this type.

The problem is not the criticism, but the fact that the comment does not focus on the achievement, but on the knowledge of the commenter. It's as if, a scientist creates a device for instant transmission, something amazingly out of this world, and in the article he mentions he used a PC computer, and the reply people would have is: "Oh, I have a mac, it would have been so much better... In my opinion macs have superior processing power".
It's as if the only thing they are after is to pour down their knowledge in front of others - that is THE thing on their mind regardless of what they see or hear.

The softer version of this would be unrelated to knowledge yet still self involved.
Like if an artist would display a masterpiece of figure drawing and an observer would reply: "I'm almost as well built as this figure, I go to the gym 3 times a week you know".

What is it with these people? They seem pathologically self-involved.

What they have in common is a constant internal focus on their self-esteem, instead of focus on the world, on facts and specifically on other people's achievements when they cross their path. The world is viewed through a filter of "How does this relate to my self-esteem" rather than "what is the meaning of this to my life?/ what is the meaning of this?".


The same problem presents itself when these people are involved in some intellectual discussion. Their replies seems to revolve around what they know (whether or not it's the essence of the discussion or a very minor, unrelated point). It's never around facts and knowledge.
It's the sort that likes to "insert their opinion" even when they have no clue on the subject and no interest in inspecting the facts on which their opinion is suppose to rest.

I know from myself that if I ever go into a thinking mode of "how does this subject relate to my knowledge" vs. "what are the facts of this subject and how do they relate to my goals" that I am pursuing the subject for the wrong reason and that my vanity is involved rather than selfish, healthy pursuit of my goals.


Those other people are chronically insecure and they build their whole thinking as a wall to defend against their insecurity. Instead of a mind that performs its function of gaining knowledge and pursuing goals, the mind turns into a self-defense machine that sees the world not for what it is but for opportunities to prove self-worth and to defend from recognition of ignorance.

This is why, in seeing the video of the camera launched to outer space, the one thing they find appropriate to say is: "According to my expert knowledge on the subject, this is not HD".

Does Vacuum exert force on masses?

Vacuum appears to exert force on objects and molecules, since they immediately and powerfully move toward the vacuum once allowed. For example, a jar sealed with vacuum seems to pull the lid toward it, or pull air into it once the vacuum is released.

However, all that happens is molecules moving where they can move, where they have space to move into. In gas particles barely have any effect on one another (besides collisions, gravity or electric forces are negligible). All that happens when molecules move into a vacuum quickly is that the movement is in a single direction. Normally, in an average density space, particles move in all direction, creating an even pressure in all directions and a net 0 movement of the particles (more or less). However, with vacuum, every particle enters into it - nothing moves out of it, creating a very distinct sense of movement. In fact the empty space does not exert any force on the molecules - it is just normal movement except there is nothing to balance it.

What about the jar? How could I explain the fact that the lid sticks to the jar so powerfully if the vacuum exerts no actual physical force?
Like so: The lid is actually pushed by the particles outside the jar. The inside of the jar can simply offer nothing to balance it, which is why the lid is pushed onto the jar so powerfully.

Using guilt as a weapon and emotionalism

I saw this incident involving an online game (Farmville) and saw a few interesting components about it.

First I'll tell you what the incident was. The game involves operations where a few people set a goal and need to do their part to be able to achieve the goal in due time.
It takes effort on the part of each participant and if the goal is achieved, there is a reward at the end for all participants.

It is possible, under the way the co-op is built to join an operation, not do a thing and get a reward at the end if other people manage to complete the task on time.

OK, so now that we're done with the boring details, here is what happened:

Apparently, some people join those operations but do nothing to contribute to their success. They wait and see if others do enough to get the task done and then do other things.

In this specific incident, one player wrote a note to one of those exploiters asking them to quit the operation so that someone who IS going to get some work done can join.

Guess what the reply was? The "exploiter" posted a note on the Facebook wall (publicly visible) of the one who sent the note saying: "You asked me to quit so I did!".

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? But it is actually complex and contains many interesting small elements.

For starters - this reply is unjust and dishonest. It is meant to punish the one who sent the note - to make them feel guilty - as if, if they felt guilty, it means the exploiter is off the hook for what they have done. The interesting component is that this is a good example of a second hander, but stunning, to me, in its depth.

Think about what it means - if the other person is made to feel guilt, then the other person is convinced that they were wrong about the case, therefore the exploiter can rest assured that they did nothing wrong because they rely entirely on the judgment of the other person's mind.
Notice that there is no reference to facts, no independent judgment - just an attempt to change the mind of someone else so that, in turn, one's mind can become convinced of the same thing. Insane, isn't it?

Secondly, I find it interesting that the exploiter's state of mind is entirely emotional, bearing very little rational structure. They received a note blaming them for something - the facts of what they are being blamed for do not register in their mind and do not matter. What they do register is that they are being blamed and that makes them feel bad. They then decide to shift the burden of that negative feelings to someone else, as if feelings can be poured from one soul to another. Using ideas is just a tool. In this case, the idea is that the person who sent the note has taken an action against someone and that this, by itself, is suppose to be bad.
Does the exploiter actually believe in such an idea? No - they obviously take actions against other people without any shame or inhibition. The idea here is used carelessly, without any thought, without any understanding that ideas matter. The exploiter felt something bad, and took whatever random action their subconscious could gather up to shift the emotion to someone else.

This guilt trick is very common: Someone judges you badly? Make them feel guilty for it, and, like magic, the blame is gone. Facts of the case? Who cares! Just work to change the content of the mind of the accuser and that would be enough.

It is a good indication of a mind of a second hander - a mind who relies on the judgment of others for its own certainty and ideas.


Another common thing people do is to be emotionalists. Now what does that mean? Obviously, ?I am not going out against emotions as such, nor against the pursuit of pleasurable emotions. The question here is not the goal but the means.

Pursuing pleasure by following every urge and every feeling one happens to have is not going to make one happy. Nor does this means that life consists of a constant struggle to suppress one's emotions that stand in the way of reason.
Without going into the details of what is ideal - here is one thing which is not ideal - what many people are doing, of which this exploiter lady is a good example.

Her emotions mean everything to her. She follows them blindly, with complete servitude. In her mind there is no room for facts or ideas, only for satisfaction of her emotions. Ideas in her mind have no relation to facts and should have no relation to facts - they are mere tools to achieve satisfaction of emotions.
So if insulting someone else (justly or unjustly, hypocritically or not) works to shift her emotions - there is no hesitation - she will do it.
This is an incredible mentality. I am very curious to know how this sort of mentality can develop. I have seen, at times, elements of something like that in myself, as a child - so I can understand it to some extent. But a mind devoted entirely to satisfaction of emotions bypassing rational judgment? That is fantastically bizarre.
One day I will discover how this sort of mentality comes to dominate a person's psychology. I'm guessing it involves some laziness as a child and after enough time it become automatized enough that the person does not even recognize anymore what is motivating them nor their departure from reality. All they know is their emotions.
There is more to understand about this.

The last interesting element is the use of emotions as a replacement of ideas. This is the least visible elements of the three elements involved in this case.

One element is the emotionalism of this woman (what motivated her action).
The second element is the second hand judgment (relying on someone else's judgment to substitute it for one's own) - however, there is yet another thing hidden here, which is: She was not going directly after this guy's judgment. Instead, she was going after his emotion. If she could get him to feel guilty, it would be as if he had judged her to be good.
People are not generally aware that there is a tie between emotion and ideas, but here is a case that shows it well. This guy feeling guilty in general could not be of any interest to her. She wanted him to feel guilt about THIS CASE. Now why? The reason is that the feeling of guilt indicates a judgment. What she was really after was his judgment, not his feeling - the feeling is simply an indication of a subconscious judgment.

OK, that concludes my thoughts about this.

Feel free to leave your comments below and let me know what you think.