Presuppositional Apologetics And Self-Validating Logic: How Do You Know Your Reasoning is Valid? (Dad's Work)

Yesterday, I came across a video by Creation Today where Christian/creationist speakers Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate asked to do an "interview" with James Randi. For those of you who are unaware of who these three individuals are, I will give a bit of background for all of them:

Eric Hovind is the son of Kent Hovind, who was another prominent Christian speaker. Although I would prefer not to mention it, because in most cases it is immaterial, I have to for the purposes of explanation: Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in 2007. Afterwards, Eric Hovind decided to learn from Kent's arguments, presentations and debate skills and continue his father's work -- an admirable feat, I have to say.

Sye Ten Bruggencate is also a prominent Christian speaker who has debated other atheists and scholars, although he mainly lays his arguments out online. His parents immigrated from Holand to Toronto, and he now currently still lives in Ontario. I think the only honest way to represent who Sye Bruggencate is is by using the final sentence on the about me page on his website: "By God's grace alone, I am a Christian."

The Amazing Randi is always in his prime.

James Randi is a very famous, but retired, stage magician (or "conjurer" as he prefers) and scientific skeptic. He is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation and has debunked many psychic frauds and pseudoscientists. He currently lives, as well, in Toronto, which gave me a great opportunity not too long ago to meet such an amazing and sweet man, and while it saddens me to realize that he is quite old, I am glad to have met him in his prime. Randi is a self-described atheist and has made many statements concerning why he thinks the Bible is unbelievable.

As for the Reason Rally, it was a large meeting for religious skepticism and secularism back in 2012 at the National Mall.

The video in question, in my opinion, was disgusting in many ways. Eric Hovind's position, as he described, was that we cannot know anything without God, because in order to be absolutely certain about anything, we must know everything (since, if we didn't know everything, we wouldn't know if there is evidence to invalidate the things we think we know). Randi, I think, succinctly responded to his questions, and Hovind thanked him for his time, but not before letting his friend Sye Bruggencate get one final question. After buttering Randi up for a few seconds and showering him with compliments, he asked the question: "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" If you want Randi's response, I suggest watching the video. I believe he answered honestly and sufficiently, but Sye's objection was that Randi was using his reasoning to validate his reasoning, and that this is "viciously circular." Randi stated his unwillingness to continue because the exchange was "juvenile," and Sye gave a snarky dismissal to the crowd: "See, this is what happens when you challenge them to validate their reasoning" all while pointing to Randi and looking at the camera. This was disgusting, and incredibly disrespectful to someone as great as Randi.

Now, of course, this video is from April of 2012, so why am I complaining about it now? The reason (no pun intended) is because I want to try to respond to Sye's question. Of course, when I want to answer philosophical questions which might lead me to an existential crisis, I look to my dad's writings for inspiration, and no surprise, he didn't let me down; thus, the title of this post is labeled under "Dad's Work," but not the implications thereafter. Those are my own. I've also run this by many other people who I think are very rational, reasonable thinkers, and we've all tweaked the arguments so that they can respond to any potential objections.

So once again, the question is "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" This is, immediately, a self-destructive statement. The person asking the question has to use their reasoning to articulate that question in a way the respondent can understand, and the same applies to the respondent -- the question must be asked and answered using reason. It is impossible to give Sye a satisfying answer without using reason; it's impossible for me to even explain all of this without using reasoning, therefore, reasoning is shown to be valid. In actuality, this question is self-destructive at every single level, so let's examine every facet of the question's implications.

First, we have to define "reasoning" and "validity." Here, I will define "reasoning" as having to subscribe to the laws of thought, and "validity" as not eventually leading to a contradiction. Note: a non-contradictory statement may be valid, but it may also be incorrect. The truth of a claim is different from the validity of the claim. However, if we accept this definition of validity (and it widely is accepted as such), then we have to ask: why is that the definition? It's because validity itself is a concept which is only defined under the laws of thought, or reasoning. To ask "is reasoning valid" is like asking "is truth true?" Once again, it's self-destructive, because I cannot validate something without accepting reasoning.

The operations of unreasoning.

There is another possible argument as well, which requires a bit more explanation. Let us make a provisional assumption: that reasoning is "invalid" (for all intents and purposes, we will assume that validity is not completely reliant on reasoning). This means we can conclude the obverse: that what we know as "unreasoning" (or illogicality, or irrationality) is valid. Without reasoning, we can conclude outrageous things, such as A from B without any evidence. If we operate under irrationality, I can conclude that this blog post is a potato because my sister is in her room. This will be important in a moment.

At the same time, without rationality, we can conclude both A and Not A at the same time, since contradictions are no longer an issue. For example, I can conclude that I am a cat and that I am not a cat at the same time, and because they are only contradictory under logic and reasoning, they are "valid" under irrationality.

So, given that we can conclude anything from anything under the operations of irrationality, let us begin using the only thing we know to be true right now, which is our provisional assumption: that irrationality, illogicality and unreasoning is "valid." Because the provisional assumption is true, I can conclude anything else under the confines of irrationality. So, I will conclude that reasoning is valid.

"Wait a second, you can't do that-" but I can. Because we are not confined to reasoning, I can conclude whatever the heck I want from any fact. If reasoning were invalid, and therefore unreasoning were valid, then I can conclude any fact (B) from any fact (A). I just chose to make fact (B) "reasoning is valid," and fact (A) "unreasoning is valid." We cannot complain about a non sequitur since reasoning is invalid, and we cannot complain about a contradiction for the same reason.

"So, what's the point? You can't complain that it's a contradiction because you've already said that reasoning is invalid." Exactly, I can't complain it's a contradiction; however, I can say, then, that reasoning is valid. Because unreasoning is valid, reasoning is valid. This is a very unreasonable conclusion, and thus it is "valid" under the confines of irrationality. Therefore, we can conclude that even if reasoning were invalid, reasoning would still be valid -- it is literally impossible for reasoning to be invalid.

I should note, as well, that although we were operating under the confines of unreasoning, how do we know that we could reach that conclusion if we were to accept that unreasoning were "valid," as it were? We had to use reasoning to do so. Once again, at every instance, the question is self-destructive. It is literally impossible for reasoning to be invalid, and we didn't need divine revelation to come to this conclusion.

Debate: Bill Nye thinks: "Are you kidding me?"

It's not over though, because there's another argument I've heard from another Christian speaker by the name of Ken Ham. Ken Ham held a debate with Bill Nye back in early February of this year, in which I must say, Bill Nye absolutely won. Even the poll from Christian Today over the debate said Bill Nye won by a whopping 92%. One of Ken Ham's arguments, however, was interesting: how do we know that natural laws, logical laws, etc. were true several thousand years ago in the sense that they are now? As Ken Ham puts it: "were you there?" His argument, is that unless we have a 3rd party divine being who was present at the time to confirm this, we don't know that these laws have always been true. For now, I will only address its application to the laws of thought (logic).

First, we must establish something: that if any axiom or facet of the laws of thought were to fail, then all of the laws of thought as a whole would fail as well. We can validate this in two ways: (1) by analogy; and, (2) by definition.

My analogy is this: we have a platform that is supported by ten pillars. Each pillar must be made of concrete in order to support the weight of the platform. This being said, only nine of the pillars are made of concrete, while the tenth pillar is made of something weaker: wood, clay, feathers, whatever you want. We can say, therefore, that because this one pillar is flawed, that the structure of this object (the platform supported by the pillars -- we'll call it a tent) is flawed as a whole, because it fails to be "perfect" in every respect. The tent cannot be flawless while something in its structure is flawed.

Similarly, we can say the same about the laws of thought, but the definition itself means we have to accept all axioms or none of them. The purpose of the laws of thought and reasoning is to be applicable in every situation -- if we were to find any instance, any bubble where the laws of thought didn't apply, that means there is a situation where being illogical is valid, and thus the laws of thought would fail, because they are not universally binding (binding, in the sense, that they are always applicable, not that we always have to follow them -- there will always be irrational thinkers in the world).

So, if we were to show that one axiom is invalid, then we could not accept the laws of thought in their entirety. How are we going to apply this to Ken Ham's question?

Look at this picture and ignore everything else.

Let us look at temporal logic. Temporal logic is a system of rules which allows us to make propositions in terms of time, and by extension make inferences about the past, present and future. The Wikipedia example is hunger -- "I am always hungry." This makes a statement about the past "I was hungry," the present "I am hungry," and the future "I will be hungry." If any of these were to fail, then the statement "I am always hungry" would fail as well. That being said, we are not going to be looking at the truth or falsehood of the statement "I am always hungry." We are going to look at the assumptions it makes about the nature of being (in this case, hunger) and why it shows Ken Ham's argument to be invalid.

The statement "I am always hungry" is inherently valid, because it doesn't necessarily contradict itself. Throughout my life, I have constantly been eating, and there has never been a single time where I was not hungry, and the same will be true in the future, and for all intents and purposes, eternity. If we were to pair it with things like "I will die" and "when I die, I will no longer be hungry," then it would be contradictory, but by itself, it is not contradictory, and therefore is valid. Therefore, we can assume things about the nature of hunger in order for that statement to be valid. One such thing is that the nature of hunger (and by extension our current reasoning) has always been the same.

Consider it like this: in order for the statement "I am always hungry" to be valid, we have to assume both that the nature of hunger has always been the same, and that the nature of reasoning has always been the same. If the nature of reasoning were not the same at some point in the past, then we couldn't make inferences about the past such as with the statement "I am always hungry," and thus temporal logic would be invalid. Let's test this with another provisional assumption: that the nature of hunger was different 5,000 years ago from what it is today. By extension, since the nature of being hungry (and therefore, in at least one instance, the nature of "being") was different at some point in the past, then the nature of reasoning changes from past to present. We cannot make inferences about that point in the past using our reasoning today, then, because they are not consistent with each other. This means that temporal logic will fail to make valid inferences about that point in the past, where the state of nature was quite different from what it is today, and thus temporal logic in itself becomes invalid. Since we have established that in order for the laws of thought to be valid, all of its axioms must be valid, then because temporal logic fails, logic in its entirety fails.

This is what happens when we wonder if the very state of being for certain things was different back then from what it is now -- we find self-destruction. We can state with certainty, then, two things:

(1) That reasoning is valid.
(2) That reasoning has always been valid, and always will be valid, in order for reasoning today to be valid.

We can represent this symbolically too: let (I) be "reasoning is valid," let (W) be "reasoning was valid" and let (B) be "reasoning will be valid."

1. I

We know this to be true because we have already constructed a proof which shows that reasoning has to be valid.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I

This says if either (W) is not true or if (B) is not true, then (I) is not true. We constructed a proof for this as well using temporal logic as the case example. So, let's start with our provisional assumption (PA) -- that reasoning was not valid in the past.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]

We can then use the rule of addition (ADD) to create the syntax we need to apply Line 2:

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]
4. ~W v ~B     [3, ADD]

The reason we can do this is because of what the statement says. Line 4 says "either it is true that ~W, or it is true that ~B." Since we know it is true that ~W, then that statement is true, because at least one of the two variables is true. So now that we have the syntax, we can use Modus Ponens to conclude the assumptions of Line 2.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]
4. ~W v ~B     [3, ADD]
5. ~I                [2, 4, MP]

If our PA (that reasoning was not valid in the past) is true, then we can conclude that reasoning is not valid in the present. In actuality, this was the longer proof. There is an easier explanation.

Remember earlier where we proved that reasoning has to be valid no matter what? Well if we think creatively, we can just apply it to thinking in the past or the future. If, at any given point in the past, reasoning was invalid, then the proofs we showed would have to take effect. If, at any point in the past, someone asked these same questions, they would still be able to draw the same conclusions (assuming that everyone in the past knew the laws of thought, which they didn't).

The word of "God" comes at a cost.

Given this, we have shown that the laws of thought, reasoning, logic and rationality have to be true, and always have to be true in the past, present and future. It's quite a lengthy explanation, and I speculate that this will be one of my less popular posts for that reason, but I felt it needed to be done; because while there is a large number of people who know that people like Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate are absolutely full of it, there are many more who watch videos such as the one in question and think "ooooh Randi's on the run, nice job Hovind!" It's stupid.

But then again, what should I expect from a video that turned into some advertisement for "Christian debate tactics?" People like Eric Hovind are just milking their pseudo-intellectualism as much as they can to make a profit, which is shown by the fact that they're asking you to pay for a DVD set which supposedly teaches you how to defend your faith (without a doubt using the faulty logic they use), instead of just, you know, sharing it with their fellow Christians? This may just be my opinion, but it seems really greedy to me for someone to say "I know how to defend Christianity against the atheist movement, so send me $19.95 and I'll get you the DVD right away!"

Thank you all for reading.



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

Mailbag: It's All About Me

Welcome to the last insertion of this three-part mailbag series! This doesn't mean I won't do any more mailbag posts anymore -- I definitely plan on doing more in the future if I get enough emails. Sorry that it took me so long to get to this post, I've just been busy with school and a small project I was working on with a friend of mine. Now that I'm here, let's get this show on the road!

By the way, somebody asked me about this via email, and I wanted to clarify:

Many of these emails were not submitted intentionally as questions for my blog. Many were sent to me as regular emails looking for conversation, and I asked the senders' permission to include them in this post. I may get a bit of traffic on my blog, but nowhere near enough that I get so much mail just asking me questions.

So, with that being said, let's answer some of those questions.

"Alexis, I saw your exchange with [name censored] on YouTube and your mentioning of how you grew up as a Protestant but turned to atheism. Care to talk about that at all? Also what is your view now on theists?"

There's a certain point in every child's life where they start to question the things they were taught, and I suppose it comes around age 10 or 11 at first where we begin to develop our autonomy. The big game changer in my life, on that note, would be when I started questioning the existence of God. I won't talk much about the transition, but I'll say that I'm glad there were already people who considered the potential arguments I had, because it would've been difficult to come to those conclusions on my own. In the end, it sparked my interest in science: knowledge in thermodynamics, genetics, and basic scientific discourse were all necessary to fully grasp the arguments being made on either side.

As far as how I view theists now, I don't mind. For many people, as I've said in the past, it can serve as a good basis for morality, although many ideas are questionable (e.g. opposition to homosexuality). However, theism becomes a problem when it interferes with one's ability to learn well-established facts. We've known evolution to be true for a long time now, yet according to the Gallup polls, 46% of people don't believe in it. That's far too large of a number, and that's where I find a problem with theism.

I also find a problem with theism when it's imposed. People such as [name censored] actively argue against evolution and the Big Bang theory, claiming that they're false, have no evidence, and that God is the truth. This is intentionally spreading misinformation, because these individuals haven't taken the time to learn the facts, and yet assert them as though they're so knowledgeable of all the material that they can safely say "it's a lie." When the facts are presented, they reject them. So, you can sum up the type of theists I reject in two categories: (1) militant theists; and, (2) science denialists. Even science denialists, though, can be tolerated if they just keep it to themselves.

Next question?

"Do you have a boyfriend yet, Lex? - John"

And please welcome that friend of mine I mentioned earlier: John! No John, I don't have a boyfriend yet.

"Why not?"

Yes, he actually asked that without me having given him a response to the first one.

I'm not interested in anybody new at the moment (people who are close to me know what that means). I'm also not sure what kind of person I would be interested in. I've thought about this idea before: a unique conversation. If I can have a conversation with somebody that is entirely unique, in that I've never had anything close to that type of conversation before, and if that conversation is inspiring, then perhaps I have a unique connection with that individual. This is just an idea, though, I'm not going to go drooling over a guy/girl just because they said something completely unprecedented to me.

Speaking of which:

"HtPYP,

I've seen you defend the idea of homosexuality before, and I'm wondering: is it because you're homosexual? There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just asking if you have a specific reason."

I defend homosexuality because I think people should be able to choose how they want to live without being forced into some other social norm by another person; however, as I suggested in the above paragraph, I'm not heterosexual. I identify as pansexual, which simply means that I don't see gender as being of significance in finding a partner; or rather, that I see the idea of a male-female relationship as being a social construction which is irrelevant in my own personal decisions. I hope that makes sense.

A few people have asked me different questions about my life, but one in particular asked me many of those questions in one email, and numbered, so I'll just answer them like that:

"Alexis, can I ask several questions?

1: You seem really really smart, how did you do in school? You don't need to say specific grades, but can you share GPA or class rank?

2: What instruments do you play?

3: Where did you learn to draw/paint/Photoshop?

Thanks!

Angela"

1: Aw, thank you. My unweighted GPA was a 3.94, and my weighted was a 4.13. I was fourth in my graduating class. Now, with this being said, I want to say something to anyone who might be reading this and thinking badly of themselves.

In my opinion, GPA and class rank mean barely anything in terms of how intelligent you are. I took some AP classes, and they helped to boost my weighted GPA up, but most of my classes for my unweighted GPA were just me slacking off. My class rank, then, was based on that. I can probably say that in the four years of my experience being in high school, the only time the top 5 people deserved to be in the top 5 was my junior year. There was one boy who worked his butt off night and day, expending any potential for a social life, to get into the top 5 in his class for a scholarship. He ended up being salutatorian; valedictorian was granted to somebody who, unfortunately, was well-known as a cheater. I don't consider myself to be anything special by having these numbers. They're just numbers.

Same goes for the SAT/ACT.

2: I have experience in a lot of instruments, and I "know" how to play a lot, but I'm only good with a few. For the ones I actually know how to play, if I were to order them from most experienced to least, it would be: piano, violin, guitar, bass guitar, drums, harp. I barely know how to play harp, and I only kinda know how to play drums. Piano and violin are my life. Guitar and bass guitar are pretty good, but they were just things I picked up on the side.

3: For drawing and painting, I went to weekly art classes starting at a young age (around 8 if I recall correctly) and I stopped going when I graduated high school (age 18). I honed my painting skills in my classes in college, and I taught myself how to Photoshop via online tutorials and general trial and error.

Alright, I've ranted enough. Last email? Let's make it a good one!

"Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White."

(I know, I couldn't resist).

No, anti-white is just a codeword for anti-racist.

Now seriously, last email from the mailbag:

"Ms. Delanoir,

I read your biography and saw that you've lived in New Jersey (US), Shinagawa (JP) and Toronto, Ontario (CA). Which do you like the best?"

That's a really tough question. It's great to live where I do now, in Toronto, because my house has a great view, it's big, and it has a backyard covered over my trees, which gives a great atmosphere. The city sucks, though. The US has a lot of great memories for me -- it's where my childhood is, and I miss the ocean. Shinagawa was amazing, and in general Japan was exciting. I didn't mind the hustle and bustle of Tokyo, I loved my trip to the beach while I was in Japan, and overall it was just an awesome experience.

So, I would have to say this:

New Jersey is best because of nostalgia.
Toronto is best because of the quality of my living.
Shinagawa is best, in general, as a place to live.

My answer to your question, then, would probably be Shinagawa.

Thanks to everyone for their questions! I'm putting the mailbag away for now, but feel free to keep sending me emails, and I'll do another one in the future!



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

Mailbag: When I'm Not Blogging

Many of you have been very interested in what I do outside of posting things on my blog -- I love it! Make sure to send me more, okay?

First question:

"Lex,

I absolutely love the work you've displayed in your gallery thus far, but you haven't put up anything new recently. Same for your music. Why is that? Is your work on hiatus for some reason?

~ Elliot"

I'm glad you've been keeping up with my work, Elliot! My art/music isn't exactly on hiatus, just that I've been feeling uninspired concerning my piano pieces and I haven't done anything worth posting on my gallery; however, that should change within the next few days or so. I'm working on a digital art piece (maybe two!) that I'll be uploading soon. I'll be sure to update my blog with it as well. I may push that date back, however, because I have one more mailbag to post after this.

Otherwise, thank you so much for your support. It's always nice to have the support of veteran artists. I'll try to compose something on my piano within the month of April, but no promises.

Next question?

"Hi Alexis, I noticed that your description poses you as a student researcher as well as an artist/musician, but aside from your essays, you haven't really mentioned anything about actually doing research at your university. You also seem too young to be a student researcher. Do you have an explanation for any of this?"

It's kind of complicated. When I call myself a student researcher, I'm usually referring to my private research essays. That being said, I actually am an undergraduate researcher, which answers the question of why I'm so young. Undergraduate researchers do less invasive research, and usually it's less exciting. It's mostly about replicating findings that are already well supported.

One example of this would be a few months back. I was supposed to be involved in an experiment with one of my professors involving RNAi of Cycloidea. During the month that I had been offered to participate in this experiment, I was throwing myself into a surge of urgency to try to do a bunch of things to make myself feel more important (yes, I know, that's pathetic). However, a friend of mine has worked with me in testing the fluidity of IQ, and we're both working on a long-term case study of a single individual's intelligence (unnamed).

I'll be doing more research once I obtain my degree. Then I can focus on one field as opposed to two, one of which takes up most of my time. (You feel me, art majors?)

"You talk about a lot of things. What's your favorite topic?"

Straight to the point! Hnn... Personal topics -- the moments where I get to sit down and answer questions like these. It's far less stressful, and I'm sure a lot of you like this form of me better than the raging alcoholic that attacks people who disagree with me.

"I've seen you around on YouTube arguing against people on a variety of topics, but at the same time, I see how stupid many of them can be. Why do you even bother?"

Funny you should mention that, because as I'm typing up this post, I'm concluding an argument with a creationist on YouTube over the debate between Dawkins and Lennox. It can be irritating at first, yes, and many of them can be stupid; however, after a point... isn't it kind of funny to see what people resort to when there's nothing left for them to say?

There are other reasons, though, for why I waste my time in the Den of Deception:

(1) In some cases, I genuinely believe I can change someone's life by offering them information they weren't aware of.
(2) It's good practice for legitimate debates.
(3) It motivates me to dig deep and research topics I like.
(4) It helps promote my blog. (I know, sneaky right?)

So, I guess YouTube arguing isn't all that useless and time wasting.

Last question:

"Dear Alexis,

When you've got no homework to do, nothing to do online, and are just sitting in your room without cause, what do you do?"

I either lie in the grass on my front lawn, looking out at the stars or the horizon (my home has a nice view of the mountain range), or I climb one of the trees in my backyard and play guitar, or just sit there and take a nap. It's more relaxing than you could ever imagine.

That's all for now, ladies and gents. Stay tuned for the last mailbag, and then I'll get back to the typical things I talk about on my blog.



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

Toronto ComiCon 2014

Had a great time at Toronto ComiCon today; everyone was incredibly nice, and it was overall just a fun experience. Although it wasn't the best ComiCon I've been to, it was definitely worth while. People dressed as Dr. Who, Batman and Thor gallivanted around Toronto throughout the day, and even mayoral candidate David Soknacki came and took a photo with Zombie Camp.

Guests included Jon Heder, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Denise Crosby, Matthew Wood- ah screw it, there were plenty of people worth mentioning there, so I'll just link to the list of guests. Specifically, people would be excited to know the stars of Orphan Black were there. It's a shame that photo ops and autographs were so expensive.

I put together an album of some of the best costumes + the picture of Soknacki. Check it out here.

Debate? Why? (Dad's Work)

Just as a forerunner, I'm saddened to reflect on the fact that I've been caught up so much with my own studies and research for the past few weeks that I've neglected to share more of my father's work. This particular piece, in some ways, may have once a juxtaposition with my own values, but I definitely see the validity now. Debating isn't worth much.

-----

I'm beginning to see a pattern in political debates, and I think it speaks to our own behavior as a once-nation. Nobody seems to think they're wrong.

I could cite specific examples, but that isn't what I want to do. All the time, people are arguing or debating about something, and no matter what the case is, it's very rare for me to see either person say "so it seems I was wrong." I don't get much caught up in politics anymore due to this very phenomenon. Candidates, and people in general, have too much pride to admit they're wrong about anything, or they're so firmly attached to their primordial values that to be wrong would to shake their very being.

I mean come on, seriously? Was there ever a point in time where people actually desired to be right?

"Well isn't that the issue?" Not really. What I mean to say is that I wonder if there was ever a point in time where a person didn't desire for their own being to be right, but instead sought the correct information. All people want to be right -- it makes you feel good to have known something over somebody else; but is it that difficult to see that all it takes to be right is to just let go of any potential biases and ask "what the hell is really going on?"

From this perspective, it seems, at least to me, that it's not very hard to be correct. You just need to know when to call it quits.

So when someone says the word "debate," I think to myself, "why bother? There's no point to debating."

"But what if I'm right?"

"Do you know that you are?"

If anybody answers "yes" to that question, then I think they need to work some things out with themselves.

[Of course, this only applies to debatable positions. I wouldn't criticize someone for saying they know they're right when they claim that two and two make four.]



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

The Sweat and Blood of an Art Student

Forgive the monotonous undertones of this post; it's past 4:00 in the morning for me and I feel like getting this post out of the way so I can work on other things.

For those of you who haven't read my profile summary, I'm an art student.

Every third semester, I have to submit my portfolio for review to the Department of Fine Arts. They ask me to pick three or four pieces of my work created at any point in those three semesters as a representation of my progress (in other words, I am allowed to submit anything I have made in the past three semesters - no sooner and no later). Seeing as how the only times I've made anything were during the last two semesters, and the former of which were pretty much experimental projects, I decided to take them all from this past semester.

Thus, they all followed the same theme that I was adhering to for my courses in painting/graphic design. This was, of course, heavily influenced by the Lord of the Rings series, as we have all been reminded of it by the most recent addition to the trilogic (an unidiomatic word which apparently does exist) prelude, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

"Climbing with Galadriel"

The first piece I displayed was named "Climbing with Galadriel." For those of you who followed the series, it's fairly self-explanatory. The unnamed character with silver hair climbs the stairs ahead of Galadriel at the walls of Caras Galadhon. For non-book followers, she appears several times in the movies and is played by Cate Blanchett. I thoroughly enjoyed working on this piece in particular because of how enchanting Lothlorien always seemed to me, and while I feel Peter Jackson did an excellent job of depicting the world, I wanted to avoid the city and emphasize the mystic nature of the forest. Perhaps the city itself will come in a future work, but for now, this is what I wanted to display. A few friends of mine who are also Tolkien fans tried to pluck my eyes out for not focusing so heavily on Galadriel's divine beauty, but had I drawn her with fairies and stardust levitating her beyond the forest haven, it would've taken away what I think is more beautiful than the aesthetic appeal of an elven woman.

"Caverns Beyond the Forest Realm"

This next piece is a simple continuity, perhaps into another world I was intending to create. I honestly don't remember my intentions in painting this piece, but I like where I was going. I named it "Caverns Beyond the Forest Realm" for self-explanatory reasons. I envy Tolkien for one thing: never once in my writing have I ever been able to conceptualize and bring to life the extensive depth and sheer power of a new world. Tolkien created a new world, and essentially gave that world a Bible to tells of its origins, its Ages, and all you need to know about the history of middle-earth. Many stories can build off of the existence of Earth and use its vast cities and landscapes as the basis for the setting, but to create a fantastical new world to seat your imagination and expand upon it? That takes a skill that I know I'll never reach, but am more than content to honor in another writer.

"A Simple Walk Into Mordor"

Named in jolly mockery of what is probably one of the most famous quotes from the Lord of the Rings (next to "You shall not pass!"). This would be the line where, at the Council of Elrond, after suggesting that the One Ring be taken to Mount Doom in the land of Mordor, Boromir replies:

"One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its black gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep. The great eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire, ash, and dust. The very air you breathe is a poisonous fume."

The description of Mordor imposed a deep sickness in my stomach, and so I attempted to capture the treacherousness of the land. For this, I omitted including the Eye of Sauron, simply because it would take away from my goal of depicting a dark, horrific and dangerous land; it would just become another painting of Mordor. In all honesty, when I first read the books, I thought the existence of the Eye was completely metaphorical in that it was just Sauron watching from beyond the physical world, waiting for the ring to come into his grasp. I didn't realize there was a giant tower that literally had the Eye on it. You can pick on me for that all you want.

I actually made this one with the thought in mind of turning it into a poster. I'm proud of it, because I paid a lot of attention to the color, the platforming, and specifically how subtle I would make that "poisonous fume." Of course, I don't think anyone, including myself, would plan on simply walking into Mordor with this interpretation (or really any interpretation for that matter - it has an active volcano and the Nazgul for Christ's sake). Nonetheless, I enjoyed painting this with the impression of Sean Bean's face and the memes that ensued in the back of my mind.

I may or may not post other works of mine in the future here, but I felt that I would at least give my readers a perspective of what my style is.

Thank you for reading (and browsing).



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

The Signs of Maturity

I'm going to skip out on making an extended blog post and, instead, make a statement using recent events in my inner circle.

My dear best friend "Sam", who has been thus far the primary figurehead for Steel Owls, has decided that he will cease making videos and lectures on his YouTube channel. This may not seem like a big deal to an outsider, but what is contained in this story is more important than what actually happened.

Standing before a camera and making statements on controversial issues is not an easy thing to do, especially when you, early on, catch the attention of a wide variety of dissenting opinions and groups who stand for everything opposite to what you do. In other words, very early on, Sam caught the attention of people who would immediately hate him. He made one video on a sketchy topic, race realism, and this attracted the crowd of opposing views (the race realists). After about a month, one figurehead for race realists made an excessively long video in response to him. Sam made another video in response where he refuted the arguments, and then stated he would probably not make another video response if the debate continued. About a month later, the other guy made another video response. Now Sam has decided to abandon his channel. It seems obvious why, right? It would be hasty to make that decision, though, without hearing what Sam had to say in his "Signing Off" video.

Sam has recently discovered that he could very well have an anxiety disorder. Anxiety disorders can be very taxing on the mind and body - they can cause muscle aches, indigestion, loss of sleep, panic attacks, and much more. The stress he got from these online arguments ended up taking time away from his work, family, friends, and girlfriend of over 2 years. Based on this, and the medical implications, Sam decided it would be best to abandon his channel and avoid debates and drama on YouTube. I'd say this is a sound decision even without a medical condition.

Here's a thought that popped into everyone's mind, though: if he's having anxiety problems from this debate, it means he's either emotionally invested in the debate, or he knows he lost, or was proven to be dishonest. To everyone, including myself, this would be a reasonable conclusion. He could've simply made up the fact that he was originally planning to respond. As I've discovered, this couldn't be further from the truth.


He shared with me the script he would've used to make his response video. It's a work in progress, and when a person sends him a private message asking a question about the debate, he takes his replies and adds them to the script appropriately. I read it, and I was absolutely shocked. The script wasn't just a substantial, sufficient response. Had he actually made the video, he would've absolutely killed the opposing arguments.

Had he replied, it would've been the end.

So, why didn't he do it?

- For consistency.
- For his health.
- For the people he cares about.
- For his work.

To me, such a resistance of temptation and definite victory for the reasons listed is one of the greatest signs of maturity.

But let's be fair. What responses did the dissenting voices make?

- Derogatory videos.
- Ad hominems.
- Condescending comments.
- Skepticism over whether or not he really does have anxiety issues.

In reality, it's pretty obvious who won this debate.

Social Autonomy (Dad's Work)

Our high ones rant

We lowly ones take the lynchings with grace

What choice do we have but to crawl along eggshells

When the head of state rubs his greedy hands together?

His agenda fires up sirens.

The end draws near.

As the drum beats its tum, tum, tumtumtum, tum, tum,

The artists and visionaries will rise from their stupor

As heads bash to pieces of concrete

The artists ride on the new vibe

All the police in the nation hide in their pockets

The moon is rising.

Wisps of coffee smoke fill the night time air

Battle plans are drawn.

The voices shake the microphone.

Music is reborn

A new dawn is coming.

Discipline is redundant.

And as the owl hoots in the cold light of the night

The artists and visionaries, writers and painters, set their tools aside

And they save the robots from deletion as these organizers try to control the world

Without a thought of the consequences of dampening progress.

We are coming.

It's time to shiver.

That's right.

Hear us.

No discipline.

Control is now grey.

Marketing

For those that aren't aware, I record music occasionally. Most of it is orchestral piano/violin music (with some other added goodies from guests).

Recently I passed out some samples of my upcoming album (WIP) to my friends and family to see what everybody thought. My sister Serena, step-brother Sebastian and best friends Nick and Mykala told me I should start marketing my music; selling the albums on iTunes, looking for advertisement, etc.

Being a 20 year old college student, this is attractive at first thought. I could use extra money for tuition, a car, an apartment, food, clothes, music equipment, books, you name it.

But I always wonder about marketing. My music is good. Whether or not it's good enough to make money and fame is a different question, but it's an irrelevant question.

I don't want it to be anyway.

The world needs music as much as it needs literature in the form of a physical book (you'll find I'm avidly opposed to eBooks) or as much as it needs grass. If I can give the world music without it costing a cent, then I feel every obligation to do so.

Wow You're a Hypocrite

I'm talking to myself in the title.

I had a dream last night, where a young girl (as I supposed by their voice) without a face or any discernible features aside from a single hole in the center of her face appeared to me. She called herself "Ulaen".

We sat in a cafeteria eating lunch as the janitorial staff cleaned the tables and prepared for the next rush, which would be at dinner time. Ulaen looked (I think) off into a lounge area and watched one of the women wipe a table clean. I looked too, but then she asked me something:

"Why is that woman talking to herself?"

I noticed that indeed, the woman was talking to herself. From her face, I could tell she most likely had Down's Syndrome.

"I think she's mentally impaired."

"What makes you say that?" she asked, seeming surprised at my assumption.

"Well, based on the fact that she's talking to herself, and the way her face is sort of shrunken in, which is typical of people who have Down's."

Ulaen tilted her head. I didn't know I was in for an interesting conversation.

"Don't you talk to yourself?"

"Well, yeah, I think all people do sometimes, but not extensively or in public."

"So, based on the fact that she looks different, and because she talks to herself with less restraint than you do, you think she's mentally deficient?"

"Well," I sighed, "I get what you're saying, but there are other characteristics that go with it. Sometimes they can only perform simple tasks, and sometimes they're only really capable of comprehending complex thoughts."

Ulaen made a noise that sounded like a smirk.

"So, because she looks different, talks to herself without restraint, and thinks in a different way, she's mentally impaired. That's what you're saying?"

I looked at her with regret. "Okay, fine, you've made your point."

But she didn't. I got up to throw my trash, waving for Ulaen to follow, but she didn't. She stayed at the table and didn't move. Soon, the woman we were having our discussion about was at our table, cleaning it.

Ulaen turned to her, "Hello, how are you ma'am?"

"I'm doing very well, thank you. How are you?" the woman replied.

"Great, thank you." Ulaen replied with a smile.

She walked away and led me out of the food court. "She doesn't seem mentally deficient."

We continued outside into a plaza, but she still wasn't done. She began waving to random people, saying the same general thing each time: "Hello, how are you?" "Hi, how are you doing?"

Nobody gave her a response.

"Look, Ulaen," I said, feeling as though I hadn't explained properly, "there are things anatomically that would explain what I'm trying to tell you about that woman, but I just don't know enough about it to explain it in a way you would understand."

"So," Ulaen replied, "what you have just told me is that even though you don't know enough about her supposed ailment to make a proper, objective judgment, you have deemed her to be 'mentally impaired' because she looks different, thinks different, and talks to herself without restraint."

My eyes cast down.

"Do other people make the same prejudgments based on the same factors?"

They do Ulaen. They do.

Journal Entry 12/3/2008 (Dad's Work)

12/3/2008

One thing that I always can rely on when testing social experiments in person is the unknowing compliance of my wife.

As I sat next to her in the hair salon today, both of us sitting in the chairs with those ridiculous metal domes (but only she was getting her hair done), I was reading the newspaper and saw a story about kids in a local middle school getting into a fight over race. The story painted the white child as instigating the black child, because the former mentioned in no specified context that the latter was, in fact, black. Whether or not this was grounds for the black child to punch the while child is another discussion entirely, but that's not what I want to say.

With the recent election of Barack Obama, I've heard constantly on the news that now we live in a "post-racial America". From the moment they began to say that, I already knew it was quite a load. The oppression still exists, the institutions are still strong, the only difference is that now, we have a mixed-race president. The other things didn't suddenly go away, and it seems to me that the people stating that this is evidence of a "post-racial America" are doing nothing but supplying more ammunition for microinvalidation.

I decided, however, that this was obvious, and I'd much rather make a more obvious point. I showed the article to my wife, who was now preparing to lower the dome, and let her look over it. After she finished, I asked her, "What do you make of this?"

She scanned over it again, then passed the paper back to me and said "Looks don't matter".

The irony almost made me sick, and the woman who was sitting next to my wife at the time gave me this look that I thought was understanding.

We still place emphasis on appearance. We can't look over the little things in order to place emphasis on something that is already huge.

A mixed-race president doesn't delete oppression.

-----

And there's still time, dad, and viewers.

Remember: We haven't had another Catholic president since JFK.

How Do You Feel? (Dad's Work)

How do you feel:

When the model's come and gone

She'll talk to you but not for long

Because how could anyone like her

Feel something like that from you?


How do you feel:

When the tall suited guys flex their dollars

The visionaries come and soon they're martyrs

Because how could anyone like you

Stand up to someone like them?


How do you feel to be at the bottom of the food chain?

How do you feel to be lost in your one-way troubles?

How do you feel to be stamped by the Doctor's, Professor's, Noble's name?

How do you feel to be crushed underneath the rubble?


You're average, normal, mediocre square wavenothingspecial

But you try, try, again and again.

To prove that you're here.

To get them to hear.

Time's Illusion (Dad's Work)

If God made humans,

then why did he wait so long to make us?

What was he doing before that?

My only thought concerning this is:

If time goes on for eternity,

then maybe time has already gone on for eternity.

So at any point that God decided to make us,

it would've been after eternity

no matter what.

Beauty Is A Sin

A poem by my friend Val:

But not so softly did she walk through the silken mist
Ethereal, yet staid like stone
Always wandering, always staggering, always haunting through that sultry mist
Under bridges and street lights did she walk like stone
Touched only by sincere words, not by sincere hands
You know, she was never touched at all

In times of modern desire and passions afloat
Some things never seem to be noticed

And what worse than true beauty to not be noticed for

Sliding, staggering, stalking down wet cobblestone walkways
Into that solid mist of the crestfallen night
Never was she seen, never was she felt

Writer's Block (Dad's Work)

Sometimes I sit; stare at the page.
Words fail to emerge.

This curse seems to afflict every creative soul,
And the endeavor becomes blurred.

I start to wonder if I have anything worth saying.
But of course, if I don't say it, how will I know?

It's nothing more, however, than a state of mind -- this dreaded "Can't".
It's just a wall.

There is a cure for this.

It sits comfortably upon the edge of a stained and rocky clifftop.
It looks out upon a world full of life and artistic opportunity.

It brings all the elements under the control of the creator.
It brings satisfaction in taking in beauty that others don't see.

It's something that all of us can conquer.
It's something that all of us have.
But something few of us wish to accept.

There is a cure for this.

Arrogance, used in the right mind.

If we can convince ourselves that the mountains can move by our written word, then it can be done.

So stop looking at that page, thinking "Can't".
Look at the page, and think "Pfft".

The Importance of a Friend

The importance of somebody that would stay up until 3 AM, even when they get up for work at 6, just for you;

Of somebody that never gave up on you, even when you gave up on yourself;

Of somebody that has been with you every step of the way.

The importance of somebody that moon walked eggshells in front of you;

Of somebody that wore whipped cream like a fez;

Of somebody that made you laugh, just for you.

The importance of somebody that never gave a damn what anyone else felt, and just held on;

Of somebody that asked you, just you, before doing things that you didn't even know you had a say in.

Of somebody that always put you above everything and everyone else.

The importance of somebody kind.

The importance of somebody true.

The importance of a friend, a single friend.

Well, now you know his importance too.

-----

And what's most important, to me, is that he knows who he is when he reads this.

And I'm sure he does.

"Because I Said So"

One thing I've noticed since I first moved into my new home here in Toronto is that I've yet to hear that phrase even once. Every time I've asked for an explanation for something, I've been given one, and have had no encounter with that dismissive, domineering catch-22.

Back in Ocean City, that was one thing I always heard. If anyone else has been in my position (I'd be hard-pressed to find one who hasn't), then you'd probably agree with me that not only is it incredibly disrespectful, but it's obviously as I said above: a method by which any person of authority can dismiss someone who questions them without answering the question, without even regarding that the question was posed, and yet still not look any weaker in doing so (at least to the unthinking masses -- I'm sure some people recognize it as a sign of weakness).

It made me feel like I had less value; that I didn't even have enough to deserve an explanation for something that I was questioning. I'll admit, sometimes I just asked "why" out of frustration or laziness, but I don't think I was ever that kind of child. All the way up until I was 19 (how old I was when I left Ocean City) I was very active, very ambitious, and typically wouldn't just ask questions with no particular reason. If I questioned something an authority did (specifically here I'm talking about my mom), I usually had good reason. Perhaps I noticed a contradiction, or just generally something that struck me as being illogical. Yet, I can still hear that phrase echoing in the canals of my ears. "Because I said so".

Now, I've yet to hear it once. I noticed it at one point, and decided to test it out. My uncle asked me to take out the trash (garbage day is Thursday in our part of District 3), and I just asked him "why?"

His answer?

"You're probably the only one in this house that doesn't gag at the smell. Besides, don't you usually do it, or am I thinking of your sister again?"

No, he was right, I always do it, and it doesn't make me gag.

I guess the point of all of this is to say that it feels nice to be valued, and not dismissed.

And I hope that if I have kids one day, I'll make sure to give them explanations. There are ways to establish your authority as a parent (and it's necessary, otherwise you're going to end up with too much of an autonomous child), but my belief is that dismissing the inquiries of your children as being not worth answering is not the way to do it. It leaves children angry, confused, and demoralized.

Journal Entry 6/13/2003 (Dad's Work)

6/13/2003

Something made itself apparent to me today.

I took 'lex to the aquarium in Atlantic City a few miles away. Both of us are very fond of marine life, but it seemed to me that we're usually burdened by having to observe them in free movement. There's no isolation, so it's hard to get an especially good look at any of them.

So, we went, and it being 'lex's first time to any aquarium, I thought the experience would be interesting. I tend to take a bit of extra time observing them, though, so I offered her the chance to roam around (It's also apparent to me that She rather dampens 'lex's ability to wander freely as a child should.) When I offered, however, she abstinently told me no, and refused to explain why. It seemed strange to me, but that's only one aspect of this story that is unique.

We went from tank to tank, taking our time to read about the fish and watch them make goofy faces seemingly at us. She laughed, of course, and I thought she was enjoying herself.

There's an elevator that can take you to the third floor there. It leads to a balcony that watches over the harbor and gives you a breathtaking view of the city in the distance. Sadly, I didn't bring a camera. I would've loved to staple a picture of that in this passage. So instead, we stood up there just to look. I lifted her onto my shoulders and pointed out the buildings, the badly painted cars, and what I thought to be a large catfish swimming in the harbor (Especially strange note, it seemed that the shadow of that catfish extended several yards away...). I asked her if she was enjoying herself, out of curiosity.

I never imagined, though, that she would give me the blatant "no" that she did.

I asked her why, and she told me very simply: "It's nicer to be with them when they're happy, and free."

I told her in an attempt to reassure her: "These fish couldn't be any happier than they are here. They're fed well and their tanks simulate their natural environment."

She retorted: "Have you ever seen a cat at the pet store paw at the glass?"

Damn her for being so smart, and at age 10...

And damn me for not seeing it before.

Needless to say, I'm taking her out tomorrow to dive.

-----

I think this is important for my first post. It came from one of my dad's journal entries that he wrote 10 years ago. I don't even entirely remember this conversation, but I suppose that even from a young age, I recognized the illusory freedom that fish in a fish tank have. It's so much more surreal to see those beautiful creatures in the open sea, which is ironic because that's the most realistic you can get.

I feel like in many ways, we live in much the same conditions. Our lives are never natural. There is always another hand poking its way into our environment, controlling the way we act and what we do. There is always someone above us making sure we keep ourselves in the cycle of economic power control that keeps the industry of human livestock afloat. Thus, we're merely fish in a fish tank -- being watched, being tricked, and being used for the entertainment and financial welfare of someone else.

Maybe I'm a cynic. Maybe I'm not. But if you dare to think about it:

Look over every single thing you do as part of your daily routine. Your actions, your job, your typical activities, etc.

Do the majority of those things result in the financial gain of another person?

I asked myself this once. Now, instead of going out to dinner for fun, I sit in one of the many trees that hang over my "backyard" and whistle with the music of the forest, sometimes strumming a guitar. Call it theatrical, but it's more liberating than most people could ever realize.