The Faith of a Heretic

MIT scientist Matt Wilson claims that NREM sleep is “taking the past and trying to figure out how that might relate to the future and in REM actually trying to experience the future, move into the future.”

Proof for the existence of astral divinities and the pillar of singularity? That’s what I dream about. Very strange.

5 years with Dwarf Fortress and my first fortress is doing OK. The “Abbey of Death” is built into a muddy hill.

Level 0 – The surface, with fortifications for fighting off Goblin attacks. I thought the ballista would be able to shoot down a Z-level, but I have been informed that it cannot. Built about 4 years after settlement.

Level 1 – The main fortress and surrounding countryside, industries on the right. Channels and bridges made this year.

Level 2- The Dwarf social level. The first place where I struck stone, hence the stone industries and first quarry on the right. On the top left of this zone you can see my emergency water system, which runs down 5 levels (to below where water can freeze) and is controlled by a set of three fail-safe floodgates.

Assorted Screenshots:

Ground Hog Slaughter – Ground hogs kept coming out of the ground and disrupting my cowardly wood cutters. I dispatched a squad of soldiers to slaughter them, who surrounded the hole with dogs and then shot the groundhogs from the surface. There was so much blood it pooled upward.

Blooper! – Female dwarf miner has her baby while mining, and loses the baby in the rocks.

Diagram – Brainstorming diagram for the emergency water system.

Status – Overview of the fortress.

Based upon the Richard M. Gummere translation, a reading.

Epistles 1-5:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 6-10:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 11-15:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 16-20:
YouTube | Download mp4

A major topic which has been on my mind in recent weeks is the essential nature of a librarian: are those who choose this discipline philosophers or technicians?  It must be said at risk of pedantry that being a technician is fundamentally different than practicing philosophy: the former is informed by a professional obligation to work a craft, the latter is a lover of knowledge who works a craft as an end in itself. In the Platonic sense: the philosopher is concerned with flourishing of the soul, while the technician is concerned with contracts and technologies. The nature of our vocation is such that there is no clear or simple answer to this question: we straddle both the humanities and science, serving as guardians, as gateways between knowledge and access. My cognitive dissonance on this topic goes back to our discussion of whether or not we should provide a man with the knowledge necessary to commit domestic terrorism or whether we should intervene.

The mainstream professional opinion (accentuated by Rubin and also the majority of other students in the discussion) is that we should be neutral dispensers of knowledge: we should, as a good technician asked to fulfill his contractual obligations, effectively and efficiently answer queries without judging the knowledge or those asking for our reference assistance.  We as librarians are not responsible for the actions of others who take the knowledge we have made available to them, even if it results in the slaughter of others.

Yet something about this doctrine is deeply disturbing to me. It is one thing to look the other way when a strange man in a trench coat asks you to help him access BDSM zines, we might write that off as eccentric and expediently provide guidance. We are not to judge morally those who inquire for their own personal entertainment or intellectual stimulation, but we are to judge and act against those who intend to injure others, not only as librarians, but as human beings; it is an entirely different sort of engagement when we assist a criminal in his research to slaughter innocents.

The thought experiment does not involve an engineer visiting a library to look up a special formula to clear abandoned buildings; it clearly implies that the would-be researcher is looking to commit arson or terrorism. This becomes not a matter of ethics for a librarian but a matter of ethics for a human being. Before you help our would-be destroyer kill his neighbors you must first address the question of whether or not this sort of collaboration is befitting a citizen of the community. Doctors take an oath not to harm, but those who aided the Nazis in whipping up Zyklon B were still considered criminals, even though they may not have dropped the tablets themselves. By aiding a would-be terrorist in committing acts of terrorism, you are an accomplice in those crimes and violate your sacred trust as a guardian and conduit of knowledge. I can think of no way to reason out of that conclusion.

It is our duty as American citizens to pry into others privacy when they relate to us that they are planning to slaughter others. The proper reaction for a virtuous individual would not be to aid the criminal, but to immediately report him or her to law enforcement, and then ensure that an escape is not possible, performing a citizen’s arrest if need be. Terrorism leaves the domain of “personal beliefs” and enters into the realm of action. It is unacceptable for a librarian to plead neutrality on this topic.

Librarians should instead serve as wise guides to knowledge, steering the ignorant, confused and curious toward materials which would enrich their mind and character. Take the example of a distraught individual who is looking for books on how to kill oneself. I might comply with that request, but I also might suggest other volumes which might be more befitting of wholesome, skillful knowledge. I suppose that complies with a general ethical maxim of mine, that one with power and knowledge should be a steward and caretaker of those without either. In this sense it is my responsibility to act against the terrorist, so that others may be preserved. If that course of action is incompatible with the ALA doctrine of librarianship, then chances are I won’t be working as one.

It was refreshing that after some heated debate in which I defended my views against the status quo doctrine that you provided a reasoned opinion on this matter which, while not as brazen as my own, seemed to support the notion that amorality in librarianship is dangerous and dubious. This topic became immediate recently with the discussion of policy’s influence on our discipline, wherein I argued that if net or information neutrality was infringed by policy makers that it would be our personal obligation as librarians to boldly resist and act against it. That is perhaps a topic for another time, as I am already over the expected length of this reflection.

To conclude, I feel compelled to behave as a philosopher and not a technician. Whether this will result in professional friction is irrelevant to me: to act otherwise would be to betray those around me and to disservice myself. It is not enough simply to perform a craft, to have knowledge. Our station demands that we wield our tools with wisdom and with justice, else we act as a destructive rather than creative force in the world.

I think a major information policy change we will have to adapt to as professionals is “net neutrality.” While the internet may remain neutral, in the sense that corporations may still be restricted from controlling what a user can access, the discussion over it has created a precedent in which it might be reasonable to do so in the same way “intelligent design” is considered to be a rational surrogate to sound science simply because it has had such a degree of media attention. Accordingly, firms such as Google have collaborated with the People’s Republic of China to restrict Chinese internet users from seeing information censored by Big Brother. In the future we may be faced with having to answer the fundamental question: should knowledge be free, or should it be restricted? Furthermore, if it should be free, and if the powers that be deem otherwise, what is our duty as professionals in response to that?

Oddly, information was once restricted and restricted – monasteries and the early colleges once were the exclusive repositories of knowledge, and to access the volumes within was a costly and privileged affair. Even up until the 20th century knowledge was a safely guarded treasure, restricted to elites, and rarely made available to the masses. Whether this was by virtue of lack of technology and resources, or by inclination of the elites maintaining those collections is irrelevant, as with the formation of public schools and libraries, information was then recognized by the public as open. Now, bizarrely, we are in some ways degenerating to a bygone era in which the princes and kings of the land controlled access to information, and our strongest firms are all too eager to collaborate with repressive regimes. Capitalism knows no good beyond profit, and accordingly, blinding a few billion people seems perfectly acceptable if a buck is made. While it may not be probable it may be possible that in the future information and it’s most common mode of proliferation (the internet), may not be neutral. If legislation is passed which corporatizes the internet, and profit becomes the lowest common denominator in the determination of access, those with the most wealth (as in the past) will have the greatest access, and those with the least, will be barred.

If this were to occur we would be faced with the question or whether we would accept this new law or reject it. Would we become activists and revolutionaries or maintain the status quo, changing how we shade our professional expression overnight? While I do believe that it is in the interest of a good teacher and guardian to stagger access to information in the Platonic sense – there should be no wall which bars an individual from accessing information. To this end I believe librarians should throw caution to the wind and reject such an abhorrent policy, for it only would contribute to a closed, fearful, superstitious and ignorant society. These are the very failings we as professionals are tasked with dispelling: we are not merely dispensers mindlessly referencing and maintaining collections, but we are also teachers. And with teaching, come a judgment of the good, and a judgment of how a healthy state should function. Should we not only condone but take part in a system which propagates ignorance and fear by restricting access to the truth?

Ultimately that is what an age without information neutrality would bring: a void of understanding in which the truth cannot be derived because it is obfuscated by policy walls. Republican government and its populist, democratic conventions rely upon a healthy, informed and wise citizenry to appoint virtuous representatives and so maintain the harmonious functioning of the state. Without the ability to think and to find information freely, the citizenry is disarmed in this regard, and is powerless to know what is the case and what is not the case. We librarians, along with our academic colleagues, might be the only defense to restore sanity if a policy such as this were to be enacted.

Disorganized rant spam, away!

You really like saying Oscar Mike – at.any.possible occasion. I can just imagine a suit puffing on a cigar with his legs kicked up: “Well boys, you see, Americans wanna kill, they love em some Generation Kill, so let’s just make it into a video game, see? Big bucks.”

Invasion of the US by Russia:

• Where are all the planes based? How did they cross European and Japanese airspace, and the span of two entire oceans without being detected? Whatever nonsense reason the game gives for not being detected doesn’t matter, they would still be visually identified. And by the way, no Russian aircraft has that range, nor could the Russian military ever remotely be able to execute such an operation. Where are the planes going to rebase and be resupplied? It’s as realistic as aliens invading the US.
• OH NOES A BTR??! Since when is a Cold War relic like a BTR considered a piece of heavy armor that is immune to grenades? Why doesn’t anyone in the platoon have an AT4 or Javelin (the former of which is a standard feature in the US fire team)? Why would you fill the precious space in your sticks with 50+ year outdated vehicles? Since when do BTRs have firing systems like Strykers, and why are they firing ammunition which is capable of blowing a 2 meter hole in the side of a house? Since when are BTR tires bullet proof, and why wouldn’t the sergeant think to disable the vehicle with grenades rather than scream bloody murder like an AT-AT was coming down on them?
• On the topic of AT4s – where is the first time we see one? In a Russian oil platform converted to a SAM site. Why do the Russians have AT4s and why are they massing hand held AT weapons on an oil platform?
• At first I thought the tracers going up in the sky were from US AAA platforms, but later on you have to take out Russian AAA that is firing into the sky. This implies that all of the AAA is Russian. Why would the Russians try to shoot down their own invasion? Also, traditional AAA is pretty useless in the modern era, and its especially useless when fired up in random swathes like WW2 flak.
• I’m not sure why you decided to give the Russian paratroopers a make-believe uniform – but i’m not bitching about novelty, only the fact that they look IDENTICAL to the US guys running around. How did this not come up in play testing?
• Using a Stryker as a heavy piece of armor? See BTR. Why not the Bradleys that were featured in the convoy which rescued the platoon from Taco Bell in the previous mission?
• Nit pick: no nuclear attack? Do the Russians really think they can invade, occupy and hold the US cities with conventional forces? It’s absurd. Protip: you will need more than BTRs and paratroopers to take out US armored divisions.

Rio:

• I can’t think of worst level design in my all my years of gaming.
• The Rio levels take the most infuriating aspects of the Battle of Bastogne from yesteryear Call of Duty games and combine them with the visual overload of a Japanese anime. I love being corralled to go one exact way or be immediately killed. In previous games if you strayed a foot the wrong way, you were blasted with a 88mm HE shell which you somehow miraculously survived like a stun prod, in this game, you are blasted by militia from rooftops all around.
• The shotgun you start with is so absurdly unrealistic that it made me chuckle. 10 foot maximum range, and only really effective at 1-5 feet. If you run out of ammo for your rifle as I did, prepare to die dozens of times and have to listen to the same lines of dialog over and over again. The shotgun will not get you through.
• Am I supposed to hate “soap”?
• I can never tell what’s going on because my AI team mates don’t use any coherent strategy or bounding over watch, instead running around at random intervals.
• I have a feeling the cigar puffing exec just wanted to cash out on Resident Evil 5 fare.

Slaughter at the airport:

• Seriously?
• Who thought it was a good idea to play as a terrorist mowing down dozens of innocent civilians? Are you trying to give Lieberman and his mindless cronies exactly what they claim games to be?
• I would love to meet the animators who painstakingly detailed the death throws and possum-playing of the innocents the player is commanded to mow down.
• If you ever wanted to play as a gunman in the Beslan massacre, your prayers are answered!
• When I tried to do the right thing, and kill the bastard leading the death squad, I was given a game over screen. Do you seriously intend to FORCE me to do this? I know, I know, there is an option to skip this stage, but what were they thinking?
• Why would the operative’s ID be revealed when he was killed? IF that happened in real life, and those sort of false-flag operations are very common, the CIA/DoD would just deny the existence/affiliation of the operative. In any event, it’s absurd to think it would lead to World War III.

Snow level:

• Only redeeming experience from this decadent game, mainly because I felt like I was Solid Snake again. The ice climbing thing was pretty cool. That’s about it.

Must play Combat Mission: Shock Force to cleanse myself now.