This blog is ceasing to exist as coming from the author and will continue to be added upon by proxy from emails.

I hate emotions. I hate the fact that they make you inconsistent, and the fact that you can't explain them. In essence i hate feeling emotions, although generally i can avoid them. I have never cried in a movie, and never in front of someone. I almost never feel sympathy, almost never feel guilty, almost never care, almost never hurt. It is the fact that i have to qualify that with almost, that makes it all the worse.
i am sorry, one reason is that this concludes my whining posts, i will stop talking about me because "i fear for mankind because i consider myself the best of them and i know how bad i am" (George Bernard Shaw). You have better things to do than read my insights on me, because they do not really affect you.

I love sports, i love basketball, and i love the utah jazz. Maybe it is from being in a small market that can't attract free agents, that gave me an appreciation for loyalty. If the Jazz want to be a successful team they have to build through the draft and then hope that the players are willing to stay. That is why players who are loyal, players who are willing to even take pay cuts to play for one team throughout a career, are special. And yes being a jazz fan i have to bring up John Stockton. He is arguably one of the best point guards to ever play basketball, has 33% more assists than any player ever, more steals than any player ever, all star game MVP, yet most importantly never left utah despite never winning a title. Players of his talent are rare, players of his character and unassuming nature are unheard of, in fact once at the olympics he went around asking people if they knew where USA basketball was playing, and they would have no clue who he was. His loyalty is something that has forever endeared himself to sports fans all thoughout utah. In an era of Lebron, Bosh and other determining who wins a title by changing teams every year, it is nice to know that people exist who are willing to dance with those that brought them.
Loyalty is something I value highly, in fact is consumes many other issues, consistency, something that in my mind would solve all problems if adopted by all, is subsumed by loyalty. Loyalty to one's words guarantees integrity, loyalty to ourselves, ensures a consistent behavior base. Loyalty in many cases however is something that is only brought up when it hurts, nobody cares if you are loyal when things are good because things are good. Yet that hurt is why loyalty is important, because sometimes your best solution is just to suck it up, and keep trudging. Thus loyalty is something that forces us to, even when we disagree with a situation, stay true to both others and ourselves. If we get mad, cut and run, or otherwise abandon others, just when it strikes our fancy, then any commitment we make is worthless. It is only through a concerted effort to make any situation work within the frame work of the commitment, that commitments are worth anything. Loyalty is something that is important, yet it is something that requires us to deal with bad situations, and is the thing that gives any commitment be it work, personal, sports any meaning.
Also please note that i understand myself better than i understand anyone else, and so it is impractical and impossible to expect the same ideals to be valued as high as i do, if they are present at all. So my expectations for myself, including loyalty, are different than they must be for other people.

How fine can any of us really be?

Despite the prejudices against men with blogs among several individuals out there, and the instistance of others to post more, this is the best that i have come up with in a week and a half.
Perspective is something that far too often we lose sight of (yes i did just pun perspective). I maintain that humans cannot have contra casual free will, that is to say we can not act contrary to how we would react under a specific set of circumstances. This is important because it means that events could never have occurred differently than the way they did, both the good and the bad. However in evaluating any particular event (something that itself is contained in the circumstances), it becomes necessary to determine whether a particular experience was good or bad for us. The crucial mistake that many of us make when doing this however, is evaluating the event based on the new individual we have become, instead of the individual we would be without the event. Thus while we never have could done things differently then the way they happened, considering reality without them is crucial to evaluating the benefit of the experience. What you have to consider, instead of how do i feel now about it, is how would i feel now if the experience had never happened. Often we lose sight of all the benefits that have come of a particular experience because that experience ended in a particular fashion, yet in many cases it is only because of the benefits existed that the ending was painful. In the cases where the ending cause us to hate the entire experience, gratitude should be our response, because the ending could only cause us to hate the entire experience, if the experience provided something that you would not have otherwise had, otherwise known as the benefits of the experience prior to the ending. Our attention should not be on the ending itself, but on the fact that the ending only hurts because of the experience, thus our response should be one of gratitude that the experience ever happened.
i have posted a couple of songs and i still cannot find any funny pictures so here you get another one, that is one of the few songs that has never gotten old or repetitive to me.

I read an interesting article the other day, it stated that the burden of proof is on religious individuals. It says that if i told you i could fly the burden would be on me to prove that fact, now suppose i said that i knew it on faith. Most people would discount me as a lunatic or toss me out the window and say "well fly then".
For those of you that have seen the matrix, i feel that one of the essential questions of that movie, is for the red pill of blue pill, or put another way are you content with reality as you conceive it or would you prefer objective truth. This question is posed by multiple philosophers with varying conclusions, to me, the real question becomes what is happiness, an emotional state, or knowing truth. This question is crucial when considering the validity of divine providence. If happiness can be found in ignoring reality and (crucial and) in the belief of a supreme being, than religion should be something that is adopted by all, however if happiness is found in knowledge of truth then while not disproving the need for religion it does require then proof of the existence of divine beings independent of their relationship to us.
As i have watched my friends leave on the belief in something that i struggle for a knowledge for, i wish that i had either a. their ability to ignore reality, or b. their knowledge of truth. Those of you that have followed this from the beginning know that i posted several logical arguments for the existence of God, yet the reality is the only absolute proof i have is not the existence of a diving being but is instead on the happiness that religion entails. I don't know if a God exists or even if he/she/it knows of my existence, however i do know the comfort that a belief in those two things can give because i have observed, witnessed and felt it, yet that could just as easily be attributed to evolutionary biology as divine intervention. With that being said however there is a clear distinction between knowledge and belief, yet i still wish my belief was as solid as my friends' appears to be, because to this day i struggle.

 Next,
Definitional debates are something i am not too fond of, yet they do have their place, for without them our ability to communicate would be distinctly hampered. Yet in many cases they have failed to reach a conclusion, in no words are these more clear than emotions. What is love or happiness? The inherent problem with trying to answer any of these questions, is that the words themselves seek to be symbolic of something that no two people have experienced. When we say that we are hot, we are appealing to previous experience of the individual we are talking too, specifically that of being near heat. However, when we say "i love you", we are relying on a similar experience being present in the individual we are referencing. This would not be a problem except for the fact that emotions are inherently internal, there is no reason why that individual we are referencing has even felt something similar to us let alone the same thing.
A great example of this exists in colors because of their nonessential characteristic to items (or that i can have both a blue or a yellow ball), the question is, is there any indication that you and i are both observing the same color, or is what i view as blue and call it as such, you view as yellow and call it blue. So when i say that i have a blue ball, there is no reason to suggest that you have a ball that i will view as blue.
Yet descriptions of our emotions (emotions, another thing i am none too fond of) are useful on the off chance that the individual we are communicating is feeling the same thing or something similar and thus able to understand. Yet perfect understanding is physically impossible, because our emotions are shaped by our experiences, something that is different for everyone, so while someone may sympathize with your emotions they can never empathize. Yet (yes i just started all sentences in this paragraph with the word yet), our inability to communicate our emotions perfectly, does not remove the existence of that emotion or its prevalence in our lives.
My condolences if you read all of that because it probably means you have no life. And i probably don't have one either for that matter because i spent much more time writing it then you did reading it.And if you can understand all of that, wait i forgot you can't perfectly understand the reasoning behind my arguments, both because of my terrible ability in expressing and articulating them, the shakiness of the arguments themselves, and the fact that you can't perfectly understand anything i do, because you aren't me.

We often praise that are inherently opposed. We idealize the man that holds to his beliefs no matter the cost, yet we also manage to praise the man that is willing to make compromises so a better solution is found for all. This plays an important role when attempting to engineer a perception of yourself that prevails in society. This means that individuals will find something to praise in those they like, because any characteristic can be construed as being good, that also means that individuals will dislike who they will, and will find reasons to justify that decision.

I am opposed to the attitude that i have noticed which places importance on "being yourself", because yourself is how you are, there is not a person that you "really" are that you could act like, the person you act like is the person you are. Most individuals care about other's perceptions of them, and alter their behavior accordingly, this does not mean that they are acting contrary to who they "really" are, merely that who they are takes others perceptions of them into consideration. The majority of people, if not everyone, falls into this course of action, altering their behavior to create an image for society (ironically that image could be someone who is trying to be themselves). While this behavior is not wrong or objectionable, it does fall into a fallacy, the fact that individuals will find both reason to praise and criticize in any image we choose to create. 

So while altering our behavior to gain society's liking, is flawed, our altering our behavior to gain any particular person's liking is not, because each person will find reason to criticize or praise, as opposed to criticize and praise. The distinction is key because altering your behavior to gain a particular persons liking, makes logical sense because they can, exclusively, like a particular image. The question becomes then how to determine what image is liked by which person, to this i have no answer, for i am as equally likely to be called thrifty and cheap for not spending money, and i have noticed no correlation between one type of person favoring one and one favoring the other.  Thus while it makes logical sense, it is an impracticality that i have no solution to.

And thus ends my philosophical thinking, for those that care the score currently stands at attic 7, cameron 2. And finally i don't have a funny picture to post and so i will post another song despite my aversion to repetitiveness. This song is one of my favorites, especially because of the fact that it has such a strong Vienesse Waltz beat.

Next post: why not having mood swings leads to a happier life.

What is it that causes us to invest ourselves in something we have no control over?
While this question has many applications, in this instance i choose to apply to sports, because the reality is (with a few notable exceptions) sports is the only thing that i choose to get emotionally involved with. The joy of success and the pain of failure only exist because we emotionally invest ourselves in the outcome. Why do we choose to do this when most teams don't win championships and most players fail to be remembered? The answer has several reasons.
1. There has been interesting research in something called mirror neurons, these are neurons that essentially cause us to picture ourselves doing something we have not yet done. These exist in evolutionary terms because instead of growing a coat of hair over hundreds of generations, you just see your parents kill a bear and wear its coat and you do the same. This is important to sports because they allow us to picture ourselves out there, thus even though we may never play on a professional sports team, we can still see ourselves out there succeeding or failing with those that are. (for those that want more info. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mirror-neurons.html).
2. We care about sports because it exemplifies what we hate/love, and what we wish to be. Sports is home to some of the most inspiring stories i am aware of, from Magic Johnson's all-star game despite the fact that he had HIV, to Brett Farve's 399 yard 4 touchdown performance on monday night football despite the fact that his father had just died, to phillip humber's perfect game despite multiple teams discrediting him (please note all of the above performed 'despite' something, another beauty of sports), and these are just individuals success stories there are plenty of underdog teams winning against the odds. Yet sports is also home to individuals that we despise, from Michael Vick hosting dog fights, to the white sox world series betting scandal, to the patriots spying on other players to win. Sports allows us to see individuals on the extremes of the spectrum like no other occupation does, due to the constant media attention and the fact that they do not have to gain your approval to perform.
3. Finally we watch sports to see others succeed where we have not. The phrase "Any Given Sunday" exists because it imports one fact, that your team could win any game. Many sports stories that we cherish deal with the fact that the team beat the odds to win. This allows us to hope that our team may win that next game, or championship. This hope can then transfer to ourselves, if we haven't won yet we still could, or inspite of ourselves, even if i don't win my team can. This is the root cause that many of us watch sports, because in a world where it increasingly seems you can't win, sports allows us to think that we still can
I spend countless hours reading papers, boxscores, watching sportscenter, and the games themselves, yet despite all the disappointment and the losses, i still love it. Even if i won't say that sports "has always been there for me", it has always seemed to be around, from games as a little kid to watching the most recent OKC, Dallas game and Durrant missing the game winner (despite what sportscenter says). Sports is one of the extremely few illogical/emotional things i enjoy. Both its beauty, Ray Allen's jump shot is prettier than most women, to its lack of beauty, Meta World Peace elbowing a guy in the face (yes his name is meta world peace).  And now as the NBA season draws to a close, it just reminds me of how thing were, when the the jazz were fighting for a playoff spot and played pheonix, back before i realized how much i would miss it as soon as it was gone.
I love sports and so should you.

There is a distinction that i often make between the individual that we are and the individual that we pretend to be. While there is an argument to be made that the individual we pretend to be is contingent on we actually are, or that the individual we pretend to be is the individual we become, neither of those arguments negate the fact that there is a inherent difference between the two.
Thus we move on to the real discussion, discovering who we really are. Yes i realize the previous sentence was cliché, i meant it that way, for although it is generally a load of crap, that does not remove the validity of the question. Understanding yourself is something that is incredible difficult, because of the inherent inability of you to separate who you are as opposed to who you pretend to be or who you wish yourself to be. The only way that i can conceive is to observe yourself in extreme circumstances where your ability to think about your reactions is limited, daily routine is not indicative of natural character because it is designed to portray an image or to emphasize or deemphasize particular strengths or weaknesses. It is in the extremes that we can begin to determine what we are truly like, extreme comfort, discomfort are perfect examples. When we are extremely comfortable do we become gluttonous and do things we might regret or do we become generous and pull ourselves back from the brink. In extreme discomfort do we bemoan our fate and revel in the discomfort of others, or do we become industrious and good-natured. It is important to note that the examples given were extrapolations of seemingly minute thoughts and actions that occur in the heat of the moment.
However there is a key component to the discussion that is generally ignored when it is commonly discussed. The ability of rational action in opposition to this essential/natural character, it is possible for us to act contrary to our origional impulse. The interesting thing however is that this ability to act in opposition is something that is a essential characteristic that different individuals posess in differing amounts, i posess it to the point of ignoring the origional impulses completely and to not act on any extrapolation of emotions/feelings, others just enough when it counts, other not at all.
Thus in conclusion we can only truely understand ourself in moments where our ability to censor is absent and the ability to censor is something that is essential to consider as a characteristic.
Now here is the point that i start feeding my massive ego. My life is tightly compartmentalized, everyone that i know (with no exceptions) is aware of me only insofar as i let them. Which is why those of you that i know personally (those that i don't why you read this blog is beyond me but thank you) rarely know what is the catalyst for these posts. However if in finding blogs for those that i know i have discovered to an extent i had not before, that everyone struggles. Which is why i find myself to be so seperate, i have perfected being content, to the point that being sad or happy is almost an impossibility. My ability to ignore my feelings is both my greatest strength and my greatest weakness. While those of you i know may not know the catalyst for these posts, know that one exists and i do not ramble without reason.

And for those of you that actually read all of that, i had a drive today and this song popped on my ipod. While i don't particularly like it, it does have several redeeming aspects

Well i finally troubleshooted the problem that was not letting me post on this blog, and it looks like me and the operating system ubuntu are about to become very familiar.
I had a massively long post regarding something that has been on my mind today, but instead you get this.
One of my personal heroes is John Adams, someone who was unapologetically argumentative, had unquestionable integrity, and someone who was incapable of editing himself in writing or posing for posterity. His relationship with Abigal Adams is one of those stories that is not told often enough, yet when she died the only recorded words he said were "I wish i could lay down beside her and die too".   

Time heals all wounds, but occasionally it is time that caused the wound

i like to think that people are reasonable, that given the choice between an ideological stance and a actual solution, the solution will win. However this belief is becoming something that is more difficult to tolerate by the day. People are so attached to their opinion that there is a lack of acknowledgment in  not only the validity in the opinion itself, but in the fact that they have reasons they are that way. I have no problem with extreme positions, in fact i often assume extreme positions for the sake of argument, but what i do have a problem with is the discounting of extreme (or more realistically moderate) opinions without regard to the truth of any of the claims behind the opinion. Just because it is not your opinion does not make it untrue, or illogical.
If you know me (or you could probably discern from reading the style of this blog if you do not), then you know that i am an argumentative person, I love to debate people. This is redeeming for on key reason. If someone cannot defend their position from attack or disbelief then they should not have that opinion. However this is a flaw in other regards, 1. people discount what i say for the sole reason that i am saying that for the sake of argument, regardless of if that is true or i actually believe what i say, and 2. because it means that i am conflicted in all of my internal viewpoints. I actually believe, care for/about, trust, know, or understand very little. In this regard i follow descartes philosophy (articulated on his first meditations of philosophy), that is really only one thing that i know for a fact, I EXIST. This is evident for the fact that if my mind did not exist in some way then i would be incapable of coming to his conclusion, i think therefore i am (conginitus ergo sum). This inner conflict which works wonders for debate, allows me to maintain moderate positions, and argue with people over the simplest of things, is the one defining characteristic i have that i pride myself on, yet is also is the one thing that prevents me from having sympathy, empathy, major emotions, or any other aspect that makes humanity different from the things it creates. My point however for this paragraph has yet to be made, being that individuals must see the validity of points behind if not the opinion itself, debate both formal and informal is probably the best thing for this, being forced to adopt a position at the flip of a coin and then argue persuasively for that side is something that many individuals in the news, in seats of power, around us, perhaps even us, could use.
This phenomenon of polarized individuals, is not a modern phenomenon, the only reason it is prevalent today is the availability of inside information on those individuals. It is due to human nature that we wish to know truth, and for many the avenue to accomplish this is to ignore objective truth and accept your opinions as facts. The need for a logical defense is something that every individual's beliefs are due, even including religion.
Now that my rant on stupidity on the individuals that think it intelligence is over, i am going to get something to eat

I love Applebear, having been away from it for a year, i have just consumed 64ozs of goodness.
I have been doing a lot of thinking lately and this song keeps popping in my head 

 

Everything i say or do is a calculated gesture, there is a conscious decision for everything i do. That calculation is predicated on the possible reactions of those involved. Recently, people i know personally have been reading this, the problem with that is that eventually i will have to interact with you, and those interactions will be biased because of your reading this blog. That is why posts here are so hard to come by, i sit down and write four or five drafts before posting anything, i put less work into college essays. This is all because by your reading of this i will not be able to predict your reactions due to the fact that i am not around you when you are reading this. Thus if i know you i ask one simple thing of you, please do not react or think differently of me because of these (even if i know that is am impossibility)
I have come to the conclusion that i do the best thinking in three locations, my front porch, the shower, and when driving. Thus when you have one of those days where it is just after sunset, the radio is blasting, the window is down, it is neither to warm or to cold, you are driving familiar roads, and the world feels as near to perfect as i have seen it, i can get a lot of thinking done.  One thought is the above, just how great the world is at that moment, another is for the one aspect that is missing.
We are creatures of contradiction, we (or as a matter of semantics i should say I) revel in both silence and sound, or music. We love winners, but we also love the underdog, some thing that only exists because of having lost. Perhaps most distinctly, we love the serenity that comes from being alone yet also seek to be in the company of others. These are all actions that require us to want multiple things at the same time, for these impulses are inherently contradictory in their nature. This teaches us (or again semantically me) something important about the human condition, that our wants cannot be allowed to define our action, for our wants are all- encompassing. Because we want inherently contradictory things, there must be something that determines which of these"wants" will win in the battle to determine our actions. Of this principle that is the determining factor i have little knowledge and experience with, so i will leave alone. However the point i wish to make is two fold, 1. we are creatures of contradiction and thus are capable of wanting multiple things, 2. that something determines how we act that is independent of our wants.
Finally happiness is not predicated on the fulfillment of our wants because of principle 1. above, for if our wants are inherently contradictory than by accomplishing one we will have failed at another. Thus fulfillment of wants cannot be the prerequisite for happiness or the lack of that fulfillment the prerequisite for sadness, else we would never be happy or sad or happiness and sadness would coexist, which i posit they cannot. Therefore when seeking happiness one must look external to your wants at any particular time.
Don't you just hate people that make points after they say the word finally, i mean it defeats the purpose of saying finally if you continue after it. So, happiness being external to wants, is the point i was trying to make throughout this post, and i will end my discussion of it here. (For Now, insert diabolical laugh here) . Oh and the missing aspect of my drive was something that was one of the contradictions above

Apparently i have to be more careful about what i post here, because people do exactly as i mean them to.
Finals are almost over, the question now becomes what have i done or not done that i regret this previous year.
1. Waiting as long (and in many cases still waiting, mainly just to see if i can) as i did with regard to a 2 a.m. walk and Jan 5.
2. Not finishing Dragon Age in the past week
3. Not getting better at pool/water pong/racquetball than i am.
4. Not figuring out about the best root beer in the world, earlier
5. Doing ballroom at all, that was just a bad idea
However with that in mind here are the things that i have yet to decide if i will regret
1. covering myself in shaving cream sliding down old main and swimming in the fountain in the middle of campus
2. eating two habanero peppers without drinking anything for five bucks (although that did hurt coming out the next day)
3. eating a stick of butter, solely because i said i would (yeah that one is still inside me)
4. playing skyrim for 160 hrs.
5. listening for hrs on jan 5, taking a 3 hr walk that somehow ended up on the A on someones birthday (yes i managed to resist,barely)
6. Watching all 3 lord of the rings extended editions straight, twice
7. watching big bang theory for hours with my neighbor in our front room
8. Playing Mass Effect (all three of them) straight through
9. Sitting on our front porch and scaring all of the neighbors
10. Rolling through the snow in my underwear
11. Playing bad-mitten in the snow
12. sliding down old main in a trash bag, fake kissing someone on the A, playing football in the snow
13. Watching obscene amounts of television
14. Spending most weekends by myself

you know life sucks most of the time, but that does not stop it from occasionally being freaking awesome

Free Steve Nash: Appreciating the Nash in Phoenix Era

April 26th, 2012 by Evan Hall

Scott Winterton / Deseret News

Genuinely believing that the Jazz would beat the Suns on Tuesday night and clinch the final berth to the playoffs, I decided to invite over one of my friends to watch the game with me. Under different circumstances, I would choose to watch it alone and thereby free myself to express as much desperate sadness or indulgent exultation as I deemed cathartic. After all, there’s hardly any commiseration to be had when watching a game with an opponent’s fan. But this was different. This time, I realized that my emotional response to this game would be critically limited. As a Jazz fan, I could only experience what this game meant on a very self-interested level, and what I wanted to experience and appreciate was what this game meant for basketball. At least potentially, this game could mean the end of the Steve Nash era in Phoenix, and if the end of any era carried significance for the basketball cosmos, it was this end of this era.
So I invited this friend over. His name is Gerritt, and he’s a lifelong Suns fan. Over the course of the game, he admitted this season was more than a pleasant surprise. After the game, he even made a weak attempt to downplay the devastation of the loss, because “hey, we didn’t even expect to be competing for a playoff spot.” We both knew he said this less to portray an accurate sentiment and more to assuage some of my survivor’s guilt. This one hurt for him, and we both knew it. As the game wound down, I asked him if he wanted Nash back. “I don’t think so,” he said. “I would feel bad for him. He deserves better than this.” This obviously referred to the much-maligned supporting cast that the Suns front office has assembled for Nash, but it also suggested some debt owed to Nash–that someone, maybe the Basketball Gods, maybe Miami Heat GM Pat Riley, owed it to Nash to get him out of his Phoenix Fiat and into the driver’s seat of one of the NBA’s Lamborghinis.
I’m not presumptuous enough to conclude that because my altruistic Suns-fan friend can shirk self-interest and wish his team’s superstar a happier future somewhere else that every Suns fan feels the same way. But I’m also not cynical enough to think that a large portion of those fans–fans who have long been Nash’s strongest supporters–would have him collect dust on the shelf of NBA irrelevance. I’d like to believe that they recognize that whatever happens to their franchise player, it should not take away from the many years they spent enjoying him. Even as an unrelated bystander, I could not help but enjoy those years. Nash and his SSOL Suns represented a way of basketball that thrilled me aesthetically and more importantly, that inspired hope within me. Every time I watched Nash’s teams play (and the Suns-Jazz game was no different), I felt imbued with an extra dose of optimism about the NBA future. After all, if this team that played in this way could be successful, maybe one day, I’d be watching a league full of teams willing to push the ball off of made free throws, only to shoot transition threes. It was a naively romantic notion, to be sure, but it fascinated me.
***
It’s a sad truth, but it’s a truth nonetheless than an artist’s audience rarely wants to experience the whole uninhibited power of his genius. Even in those cases when the audience claims to want it or impetuously demands it, they do so ignorantly. They actually want it on their terms; they want an altered, streamlined version of that whole genius, fashioned to their needs and their tastes. It’s why The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s masterpiece and most unobstructed burst of brilliance, was also a commercial failure by his standards. It’s also why Kobe Bryant was most maligned during his seasons of gratuitous and unrivaled gunnery.
Nash’s artistry, on the other hand, was one of the few exceptions to this trend. Not only was Nash given a shackles-free offensive system in which to shine freely, but he was also blessed with a fan base that adoringly revered everything that he was. With fans like Gerritt, Nash enjoyed a relationship as great as any in the NBA between fans and a player. With Nash in Phoenix, we saw a rare combination of uninhibited but truly appreciated genius.
This is not to say that the players that comprised Nash’s teams were perfectly suited to draw out the legendary talent within him (a ridiculous thought when considered side-by-side with a mental picture of Channing Frye’s face). Fortunately, Nash didn’t actually need that type of specialization in his team. The beauty of Nash’s brilliance was that it could not help but manifest itself, and its brightness was made all the more stark by contrast with his deeply flawed teammates. In Nash’s earlier years, his critics could point to Amar’e Stoudemire’s athleticism or Joe Johnson’s dead-eye shooting as explanations for his astounding assist statistics. But instead of exposing Nash with their departures, Nash’s former teammates exposed their considerable offensive detriments. Most statistical measurements of Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Jason Richardson or any of his other early teammates would show a distinct drop-off after their exodus from the vicinity of Nash’s contagious skill set.
Ironically, it was not until after their departures that we could see the true value in Nash as a basketball player. With this more recent motley crew as Nash’s collective sidekick, we saw Nash’s brilliance truly unleashed. Without the restriction of talented but entitled teammates demanding the ball, Nash achieved an even more transcendent level of statistical success. Not that his statistics were any better (though they weren’t worse), but that they remained static, even when saddled with the likes of Robin Lopez. Nash raised absolute nobodies to temporary levels of greatness. Nobodies like Marcin Gortat, Jared Dudley, and yes, even Channing Frye. Unlike other elite point guards like Rajon Rondo and Russell Westbrook, Nash did not need to be surrounded with blue-chippers in order to access his unadulterated genius. If anything, players of that talent level did and would detract from Nash’s accomplishments. Sad as it may have been to watch Nash direct his world-class symphonies with a high school orchestra, it was Nash’s true calling to do so. Steve Nash could make the most inexperienced violinist produce auditory gold and he could inspire even the sloppiest of cellists to play for stretches of clear, mistake-free beauty. In Phoenix, Nash received that opportunity, and every once in a while, we would get so caught up in the beauty of his performances that we would almost forget he was doing it with an inferior set of musicians. That such a thing was possible, that Nash could shine more brightly than he ever had before with players like this, proved his abilities in a way that being on a contender never could.
Now to the original point. Maybe Nash does deserve to move to a contender for a chance at that elusive grail, and maybe he does deserve better than this. Personally, I would love to see him playing in the postseason again. But whatever is decided about Nash’s future, Nash’s past should remain untouched by regret and his career should not be defined by a championship. Certainly championships are one form of success, but they are not the only form. At least in the case of Steve Nash, success was much more rewarding than a walk to a podium and a handshake with the President. In fact, in the case of Steve Nash, success was the rare unbridled expression of sincere brilliance, and that is what Nash deserves above all else: a standing ovation.

I prefer to think that that one of the most underrated virtues is that of consistency, i have often criticized people for acting differently around others than in private. I have felt that if we all acted the same then the vast majority of problems would be solved because then a reputation would be reflective of an individuals actual attributes rather than their portrayed attributes. This criticism is still valid, in my opinion. However, i am worse then most when it comes to the actual application of consistency, my behavior is heavily influenced by who is around and who might hear. Point in case last night, when i am by myself i act completely different than when it is the neighbor and i. And this behavior is drastically influenced when the roommates come home dragging a few people in behind them.
The worst part of this, being aware that it is taking place. There is little i do that i do not think about, and thus i know what i am doing and what i am changing.The entire time my behavior was changing i was thinking about the fact that i was buying into everything that i hate about society, our need to be accepted by others. Maybe it was because of the sheer discrepancy between my behaviors last night depending on who was around, but i have rarely been more ashamed of myself (not because of the actions themselves, but the change thereof, and how they affected those around me).
Moral of the story, why is there a disconnect between what we do and what we think is right? (Not really a moral, i know but the question is one i wish i knew the answer to)

Just going through some old essays and i found this,

The legacy of humanity as a whole and individuals specifically is that of their actions, not their intent or what actions they refrained from. However one’s actions do not exist solely without provocation of circumstance, they are triggered by certain stimuli and are the resultant of multiple factors. Plato asserted that the highest form of thinking was that of philosophy, the discussion and contemplation of the various esoteric aspects of reality. This proposition is based on the assumption that one’s thoughts lead to one’s actions. Thus humanities’ legacy is based on its thoughts or its belief system. This is what interests me, what and why people believe a certain way. Far too often individuals don’t understand why they believe the way they do. Too many beliefs are gained from others with no thought as to why the original owner of the belief thought it and as George Orwell said “if [one] cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them”[1].

People’s beliefs are influenced by those they respect as a natural by-product of voluntary association. We succumb to not only “peer” pressure but to pressure due to society in which we are exist. It is this society that installs one’s moral code and their conduct. Yet individuals respond differently to similar societal influence. By analyzing how individuals act and why they act one can determine if it is these slight differences in society causes the massive difference between saints and demons or if it is due to the inherent character of the individual. Therefore, questioning the beliefs of others allows one to glimpse the very nature of humanity and whether one is doomed to eternal incompetency. This is why I intend to both informally and formally continue in my examination of the origin of others actions. In essence I intend to follow the Socratic Method of asking why to every response I receive. Debate has helped me in developing the instinct to ask the questions that can be most productive; however I have been stymied in examining the psychology of individuals, an inherent part of determining the origin of thoughts. This is what I hope to gain, an understanding of the electrical processes behind mankind’s inclinations.  

Being born and raised in Utah has been both a boon and a detriment to me. It has been a boon in instilling the highest code of ethical behavior, however it has been a detriment in strongly encouraging me to reject all “lower” forms of behavior. I have found that often one’s beliefs are rooted in tradition and parents without any consideration for the merit of the idea independent of external influence. Questioning others beliefs has not only helped me to clarify my own, I hope that it has forced others to defend their ideas. Our legacy will be our actions, which will be determined by our beliefs; it is wise that our beliefs be based in independent merit and are subjected to scrutiny.

---

[1] (Memorable Quotations)

Is honesty ever actually wise? This question arises because on my way back from a jazz game (yeah we are in the playoffs), i did something that i have not done before, given someone opportunity  to ask any questions and they would receive a honest answer. This is not to say that i lie with every statement i make, but merely the possibility that i could lie allows for both, the other parties uncertainty in my answer, and the knowledge that i am not bound to answer questions that otherwise would remain unanswered (for a reason). The actual questions asked are irrelevant to this discussion, and will remained unanswered (for a reason) to the rest of you. However because the world is a worse place because of the honesty, should i have given them the knowledge  that the answers would be honest. Because there is a distinction between honesty and the knowledge of both parties that the answers are honest. Of this i am unsure, maybe the world is better because of it and i am just ignorant of the change
Oh dd i say we made the playoffs

as i am in a melancholy mood here is one of my favorite songs,
"Those Nights" Skillet

I remember when
We used to laugh
About nothing at all
It was better than going mad
From trying to solve all the problems we're going through
Forget 'em all
Cause on those nights we would stand and never fall
Together we faced it all
Remember when we'd

Stay up late and we'd talk all night
In a dark room lit by the TV light
Through all the hard times in my life
Those nights kept me alive

We'd listen to the radio play all night
Didn't want to go home to another fight
Through all the hard times in my life
Those nights kept me alive

I remember when
We used to drive
Anywhere but here
As long as we'd forget our lives
We were so young and confused that we didn't know
To laugh or cry
Those nights were ours
They will live and never die
Together we'd stand forever
Remember when we'd

I remember when
We used to laugh
And now I wish those nights would last

St. Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological argument for God

1. Every finite being must have a cause.
2. A casual loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. That is to say an infinite regress is impermissible.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist
5. This first cause, we call God

Now in the issue of fairness,
The evil argument against god

1. God is all powerful
2. God is all good 
3. God is all knowing
4. an all powerful and all knowing god could have created no evil
5. good and evil are inherently contradictory, therefore God cannot be or stand evil
6. Evil exists in the world
7. Therefore, God as a all powerful, knowing, and good being does not exist

 the one Linux user who checked this blog, nice,
 

Despite all my years of training in debate and argument,
despite all of my deep thinking of logical reasons for every part of something based on faith,
despite all of my discussions on deep doctrine
i can't do what my RM of a roommate just did,
put something plain and heartfelt into a couple of sentences
Those sentences convinced someone that i have been talking to all year, to do something i never thought possible, one thing i learned in debate, is that to actually convince someone you have to do several things, 1. admit some of their premises (say you are right except for this tiny little thing, even admit they are right if it is something tiny) 2. respond honestly to their questions, don't try to prove a point 3. listen more than you talk,
Yet despite all of these strategies the best way to convince someone is to just simply ask, i hope that i can someday have the power of, not the best educated, eloquent, social, or objective, person that is my roommate. For his power and strength of belief in his ideas, completely overwhelmed my logical arguments that i used.
On a sadder (or happier) note, one of my good friends called off a wedding today; I actually do feel about this (something that doesn't happen often, maybe i am just in a reflective mood), he is to young to get married and should not. Yet that in no way removes any of the pain that he must be feeling now. Sometimes what is right and what feels right are two completely different things.  

Does the knowledge of a definition of a thing change the nature of that same thing (in essence does knowing something change it)?i realize that this is a complex question which seems irrelevant, however this is most applicable in the definition of relationships. The question then becomes by me terming a relationship something does that change the nature of the relationship, or when i term a relationship something does the relationship remain the same as it was before i could pinpoint a precise definition? This begs the question, is the nature of a relationship dependent on our perception of it? While most would argue that it does, my point is that the nature of the relationship is inherent in your definition, when you change your term for the relationship, that change was inherent in the previous relationship. This is also used to explain the lack of relationships, both Platonic and romantic, why is there a need to term you relationship as friends if that is what you already are, unless (which i disagree with) your putting a term on our interactions inherently changes those same actions.
Slightly confusing and to all appearances irrelevant, this are the questions i waste my time contemplating

My thought of the day, why is it that we know people by one thing and often harm them because of it?

I am going to have to learn to love the devil rays and the buccaneers because i am going to be spending the next two years of my life, starting July 25, in Tampa Florida 

C. S. Lewis Natural Law Argument for God (Mere Christianity)
1. Good and Evil exist
2. Humans are capable of distinguishing the two
3. something must exist to make good, good, else bad and good would merely be two opposing forces neither better or worse than the other
4. because good is better than evil, a god does exist
Note: this is a extreme simplification of a great read, this also only proves the existence of a power which has the ability to determine morality or lack thereof

Descartes Ontological Argument for God (Meditations on First Philosophy)
1. Truth must be something we can trust beyond a doubt to be true
2. Our very act of thinking proves our existence to be truth (Congnitus Ergo Sum)\
3. Man can only understand something that he has previously conceived
4. Man can only conceive something he has previously experienced or can extrapolate from experience
5. Infinite is inherently inconceivable to finite beings, because of the inherently contradictory nature
6. God is an infinite being
7. Therefore, the idea of God cannot have originated from man, it must have come from God
8. In order to implant the idea God must exist
Note: this only proves the existence of an infinite power that can interact at a intellectual level with man, not necessarily that God is a flesh and blood being

The differences between individuals are the causes of the greatest joy and suffering that exist in life. The fact that opposites attract is only interesting because of the fact that we like something that is inherently contradictory. This contradiction goes far beyond good girls liking bad boys, there is actually a biological tendency to be attracted to someone with differing genetic codes (they actually smell different depending on your own genetic code). This tendency has profound implications, we cannot be harmed by those similar to us, by their very nature they resemble us and  thus we can't blame them for their actions, not only that but their actions were anticipated by us because we would have done the same and thus are not surprising. This surprise is the worst part of any action that hurts us, the fact that we didn't see it coming.
That is why relationships are best served when they are with individuals that we cannot understand. Because the greatest pain and suffering exist from those we cannot understand, however the world is not all dark thus, the great joy and happiness exist from those we cannot understand as well. I often deny the existence of love, and in a conventional sense i am correct, love doesn't exist (at least for me) in some emotional experience, it only exists as a capitulation of yourself to another. This is neither good nor bad but is unique, therefore the greatest joy one can experience in a capitulation of yourself to another completely.
This discussion has multiple reasons for arising, one is my neighbor and all that has happened, another is the fact that i have a letter lying on the counter at home. Opening up is often stated as something good, i disagree, however this is my only justification for that letter, my happiness and others. Capitulation to something greater than yourself is the truest form of joy because you can never be happy doing what you would naturally do, happiness or sadness can only arise from a change on yourself by yourself (the existence of this ability is something i will discuss at a latter date). Sometimes (as i watch the matrix) ignorance is not bliss, and truth and happiness are not mutually exclusive.

I am an introspected person, i care first and foremost about myself. In every case my involvement with the outside world consists others involving themselves in my life as opposed to the alternative.
Yet in reading many of the blogs of my few friends and of people in general, i have realized one crucial thing, we are unaware of our own attempts to meet the social norm. Often the most happy people i knew were those that struggled the most, one of my neighbors recently went to the hospital for depression, funny she seemed like the happiest person i knew, several of the people i know through debate, are struggling with unknown demons. Whether this tendency to want to make others like us is good or bad is irrelevant, the fact that it occurs is what is interesting.  But most importantly most time we are unaware of what is going on. Thus in reading the blogs of those i know, i have discovered not who they want to be, but who they are, that begs the question how do we wish to be known for whoare desire to be or for how we are.
Therefore, in an attempt to find, what i hope are nonexistent appeasement tendencies, i have started this, for all of the two months i have left.