The Irrational Forces

For whatever reason, I have terrible luck with any bureaucratic process. Perhaps it relates to Phillip K. Dick's idea that there are irrational forces at play in the universe. These irrational forces, should they exist, have made it difficult for me to: graduate, get jobs, and apply for grad school. As I am trying to take my life to a new level, these irrational forces have set themselves against me, in the form of bureaucracies. There are three ways that these irrational forces are keeping from achieving my goals: stupid people, the necessary communication between bureaucracies, and my own attitude toward these bureaucracies.

The first is the basic problem of all systems. Stupid people plague the essential set-up of all bureaucracies, they are the people that depend on bureaucracies and constitute them. It only takes one stupid person to mess up the entire system that the bureaucracy instituted. Clearly, this is an example of the irrational forces at work. A system made for stupid people and comprised of stupid people can only be the result of the irrational.

We now know that bureaucracies are composed of, and instituted for, stupid people. Whenever there is communication between these bureaucracies, there is communication between stupid people. As we all know this never works out well, and the result expected is never the result that occurs. An example of this is when one administration office has to send transcripts to another administration office. The expected result is simple, the transcripts are mailed and received at the appropriate time. The irrational forces do not let this happen. Somewhere the transcripts are lost.

Of course, when I am forced to deal with these institutions my true feelings come out and my desired results do not occur. As I usually approach the stupid people with disdain and animosity, they do not appreciate my sentiments and probably sabotage my papers.

Sharks Blog

As of last night the San Jose Sharks have gone into a two nothing deficit. They now are in a very awkward, but previously experienced, position. The Sharks need to force at least a game six scenario; in order to do so they must beat the Anaheim Ducks, in Anaheim, twice. The Ducks home ice advantage is not the biggest obstacle for the Sharks; it is the Ducks goalie, Hiller, that presents the biggest threat. Overall he has a ninety-two save percentage, the Sharks have thrown seventy-five shots at Hiller, and he has only allowed two goals. Even still, the Sharks have been dominating in almost every area. They posses the puck, out hit, and out shoot the Ducks. There are three areas that the Sharks need to improve.

First, the Sharks need to win every face-off. Too many times, the Ducks are able to either clear the puck out of their zone, or keep the puck in the Sharks zone, after a face-off. Winning face-offs will help the Sharks possess the puck and make the Ducks adapt to the Sharks game. The key here is the one-on-one battles; the Sharks need to be stronger when they are battling for the puck. Marcell Coc and Joe Pavelsky are our best face off men. Yet, Goc does not seem to get very many face-off opportunities. Sharks need to dominate the face-off, as it will give them more puck possession and allowe them time to set-up in the offensive zone, giving them more opportunities to score goals.

Second, the Sharks need to improve on their entry into the offensive zone. Most entries are even given directly to a Ducks defense-men, or the Sharks go offside. The best remedy is to stick with one style of entry: either skate in with speed, dump the puck into the corner, or pass the puck into the zone. Doing all three throws off the timing off the timing of the other players on the entry; the other players are getting confused on how the person with the puck is going to enter the zone. A good entry into the zone will allow the Sharks to possess the puck in the offensive zone in the manner that will allow them to set-up good passing and scoring opportunities.

Third, and most important, the Sharks need to improve their power play. They forced the Ducks to go to the penalty box six times. That is six opportunities to make the Ducks play with a man down, and they did not capitalize on any of those opportunities. In order to score on the power play, the Sharks need to hold the offensive zone with crisp passing, and quick shooting. They can hold the zone better by winning their face-offs, and entering the zone effectively. However, the key is to shoot. Even though the Sharks are out shooting the Ducks two to one, they are not scoring. The only remedy is to shoot more; they need to force Hiller to fall to his pads, then throw the puck into one of the top corners.

Clearly, it is Hiller that is keeping the Sharks from winning, he is on fire. The Sharks were able to get two goals past him in the last game, they need to do more of the same in their next game. The Ducks have been incredibly lucky in the first two games, the sharks have hit a total of three posts, and the Ducks goals were flukes. On defense the Sharks need to be tighter on the man they are marking. The Ducks luck probably will not last into the rest of the series, and Hiller's streak is probably going to end on Tuesday night. This is going to throw the Ducks into a shame spiral and the Sharks will be able to finish out the series in game six.

The Dangers of a Cursory Undersatanding of Camus

As a philosophy student I come across a lot of different types of ideas and concepts. Over a year ago I was introduced to an existentialist philosopher by the name of Albert Camus. In class I had to read The Myth of Sisyphus, as a result my life will never be the same again. Rarely can a piece of literature have such a profound effect on an undergrad. I did not know it at the time, but there is a relation between Camus and my anarchist sympathies.

A key point of Camus' philosophy is that of the absurd. If I understand this correctly, the absurd refers to the relation between humans and the world. It says there are essentially three things that exist: the subject, the world, and a tension between the two. The subject looks out in the world, and tries to find meaning. Unfortunately for the subject, there is no meaning in the world, and the subject is left with an unfulfilled desire for meaning.

So, humans exist in a world without meaning. Even though the world has no meaning, the subject still posits meaning on the world. The most obvious instance is any religion. Religion supplies an explanation for the way humans are supposed to operate in accordance with the world they live in; hence, religion supplies a false meaning and reason for living.

Now, there is a similar relation between the way religion operates and the way government operates. A government provides its people with false meaning. People become patriotic toward their government, they feel as if their government is righteous. According to a person like Camus, nothing can be further from the truth. Hence, we should dissolve all of these absurd institutions, like religion and government, that provide humans with false meaning. It is an anarchist movement that wants to get rid of these institutions.

Refilling the Well

This semester I have written essays on Foucault, DeLeuze, Xunzi, Kungzi, Popper's theory of Demarcation, and the current condition of anarchism, just to name a few. Why, then, is it so difficult for me to blog? Writing essays on the ancient Chinese and the post-modern philosophers should make it easy to blog. These blogs are simple, I need to pick a topic and write about it, and yet I cannot find something suitable to blog about. I have tried to blog three different times today, and each time resulting in the biggest brain fart imaginable. Hence, an examination of why I cannot fucking blog, seems to be a decent topic of discussion.

First, I am clearly overwhelmed by the amount of work I have had to do this semester. Of course, this is not a good sign, as I am not even half way through the semester, and I therefore will have several more essays to write. Indeed it does seem as if the well, of blog topics, has dried up (this topic is among the last remaining drops of inspiration). So, I must figure out a way to come up with interesting topics to consider.

General frustrations always seem to be a good inspiration for a lengthy blog. So, I must begin by considering what it is that frustrates me. Already, I have been inspired by various ideas, for example: Sharks injuries. I could write very long blog about the way the Sharks have suffered from their regular season injuries. However, the opposite inspiration would serve the same purpose. Writing about things that make me feel good will serve the same ends, for example: even though the Sharks are incredibly injured they still manage to be in first place in the league. Of course my hopes for the future would inspire lengthy blogs as well, for example: In the future I would like the Sharks to win the Stanley cup. By simply examining the forms of inspiration I have discovered three future blog topics.

This shows that venting the frustrations of blogging helps to inspire possible changes in the future. Now I do not feel compelled to come up with grand topics of frustration, such as the inefficiency of the government, or the problems with the theory of "the state of nature." I can merely blog about the mundane frustrations, such as stop lights or broken shoes. Clearly, in the infinite bounds of mundane topics, a brief, four paragraph exposition is always accessible. One need only reach into one's anus and extract them before one's deadline.