sweet
HEY!! thought you will like to know that Candi_Cruz its now live on dirtystage watch it now.. don miss it!
What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
From the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surje… I find the definition of Surjection, Surjectivity, Superjectivity but it is in mathematical language I don't understand, all these symbols of 'functions' I don't get.
I take it to be pure or transcendental (abstract) objectivity, abstracting from Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, where the (perhaps now unfortunately outdated) term 'Superject' means object, to Whitehead, 'eternal object' (a Subject or 'subjective form' being process, I take the other to be the product.) Is the object, using the term superject, the 'product' as in multiplication?
Superjectivity, or surjectivity seems to me to have a very precise mathematical definition, just like the differences between injectivity and bijectivity, and subjectivity.
My question, precisely put, is whether there is a more precise definition of subjectivity and superjectivity (certainly the one is just as precise as the other) from mathematics?
What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
I take it to be pure or transcendental (abstract) objectivity, abstracting from Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, where the (perhaps now unfortunately outdated) term 'Superject' means object, to Whitehead, 'eternal object' (a Subject or 'subjective form' being process, I take the other to be the product.) Is the object, using the term superject, the 'product' as in multiplication?
Superjectivity, or surjectivity seems to me to have a very precise mathematical definition, just like the differences between injectivity and bijectivity, and subjectivity.
My question, precisely put, is whether there is a more precise definition of subjectivity and superjectivity (certainly the one is just as precise as the other) from mathematics?
What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
Subjectivity and Profundity
Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.
So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.
Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.
Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.
Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.
Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that?
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?
I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.
The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?
I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."
So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.
The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?
I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."
So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
(no subject)
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.
Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).
See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...
Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.
Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.
Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.
The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.
The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.
There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.
Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.
The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.
Thanks a lot,
Randy Dible
Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).
See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...
Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.
Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.
Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.
The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.
The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.
There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.
Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.
The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.
Thanks a lot,
Randy Dible
Pythagoreans -> Essenes -> Christianity -> Darwin ?
It recently came to my attention that Jesus may have been a member of the Essenes, and that the Essenes may be an offshoot of the Pythagoreans. The Essenes are suspected of being responsible for the dead sea scrolls. The Essenes were vegetarians, and Jewish books that allowed for eating meat, or slavery were seen as fiction by them. As Darwin was a Christian there seems to be the possibility of a direct line between Pythagoras, and Darwin.
New stuff for the info page WIP
I have doing an increasing amount of volunteer, and activist type stuff. The more I do the more I feel that I need to encourage other people to get involved because there is just so much that needs to be done, and too much money/political power opposing progressive interests. Most organizations promoting something or another are doing so because of some moral value that it's members hold. They tend to be limiting in their scope. Churches are the most common organizations that promote a large number of morals instead of just a few. I thought that pytharwinism is sort of like an atheist cult so perhaps I could utilize the power of logical beliefs to convince people of the morals I have adopted over the years. I assumed that it would be easy to show that my values were just a case of sound reasoning because I am a logical person, and I came up with much of my theory of what the universe is years ago. It turned out that I didn't have as clear an idea of why I ended up with the morals I did as I thought. I've been working on a new introduction for the info page for quite a while now, and don't have it ready yet, but would like to share what work I've done so far. I think I am much more clear about my world view than I was before, but I haven't done much to work in my morals yet. I think I will just talk about them with entries over the next few week, or months, and then try to work them back into the overall idea later once I have a clearer way to explain them. So without further delay here it is so far.
( About pytharwinismCollapse )
So it isn't nearly finished. It is starting to feel like a book, and I really don't know when I will have it done. I hope it is interesting. I'm not totally sure if I am going to move in this direction. I think I might fork, and have one side be the numerical evolution stuff, and another community for activism separate from any dogma, or world views, but I'm not sure yet.
( About pytharwinismCollapse )
So it isn't nearly finished. It is starting to feel like a book, and I really don't know when I will have it done. I hope it is interesting. I'm not totally sure if I am going to move in this direction. I think I might fork, and have one side be the numerical evolution stuff, and another community for activism separate from any dogma, or world views, but I'm not sure yet.
(no subject)
Hello sleeping commnity, I have something to post finally.
I'm not a numerologist. I don't know why the number 3 is more metaphysically powerful than the number 2, but it is. Passion and enthusiasm, which sometimes can be enough to sway a croud, aren't even necessary. You can manufacture faith out of nothing and there are an infinite number of patterns and lines that connect key to key-all deceptively simple.
Bob Dylan
sorry if this doesn't exactly fit what this community is for, but I just tried this and found that it worked very well. It's fascinating how much of music is math.
I'm not a numerologist. I don't know why the number 3 is more metaphysically powerful than the number 2, but it is. Passion and enthusiasm, which sometimes can be enough to sway a croud, aren't even necessary. You can manufacture faith out of nothing and there are an infinite number of patterns and lines that connect key to key-all deceptively simple.
Bob Dylan
sorry if this doesn't exactly fit what this community is for, but I just tried this and found that it worked very well. It's fascinating how much of music is math.
World Naked Bike Ride
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org
The ride was on Saturday, and I missed it for multiple reasons. Maybe I will be brave enough to do it next year. I think it is a good idea. Mass media has been promoting the myth that nudity, and sex are the same for too long. They have also been promoting that people need to have perfect bodies. So people seem to think that being naked in public is like having sex in public which is absurd. They also think that their bodies are something to be embarrassed about and ashamed of if they aren't perfect. I think being comfortable in one's own skin is part of self esteem.
Now this also has many other positive aspects to it. Removing cloths also removes most indications of social status so people feel much more like one another. It is exercise. It is a protest of the dependence on cars, and how their dominance of the streets almost makes it unsafe to bike except in large groups. It is a protest against dependence on oil.
I haven't been ignoring this group. I have been working on a new info page, and it has become quite large. I want to clarify things, align it to the new focus on values, and remove chaos. Though in the process of adding new information I think I also add new questions so perhaps it is impossible to make everything clear, but I will try to at least make it better.
The ride was on Saturday, and I missed it for multiple reasons. Maybe I will be brave enough to do it next year. I think it is a good idea. Mass media has been promoting the myth that nudity, and sex are the same for too long. They have also been promoting that people need to have perfect bodies. So people seem to think that being naked in public is like having sex in public which is absurd. They also think that their bodies are something to be embarrassed about and ashamed of if they aren't perfect. I think being comfortable in one's own skin is part of self esteem.
Now this also has many other positive aspects to it. Removing cloths also removes most indications of social status so people feel much more like one another. It is exercise. It is a protest of the dependence on cars, and how their dominance of the streets almost makes it unsafe to bike except in large groups. It is a protest against dependence on oil.
I haven't been ignoring this group. I have been working on a new info page, and it has become quite large. I want to clarify things, align it to the new focus on values, and remove chaos. Though in the process of adding new information I think I also add new questions so perhaps it is impossible to make everything clear, but I will try to at least make it better.
Be careful what you believe
Marketing holds more power in the United States of America than logic. It is a sad truth, and I'm not quite sure how to fight it.
News media realized that they can get more advertising money from candidates if they only give abysmal election coverage. The result is that when it got close to the election there were more minutes of propaganda advertising than news of the candidates during any given newscast. Even the news coverage was usually a horse race bit about who is highest in the polls. Many voters even believed that US forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Totally clueless.
Another point, and this one from science. Global warming is something scientists all over the world agree is a real phenomenon. Even if we stop actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere today it will take IIRC 200 years for earths temperatures to stabilize. There is a lot of money being spent to combat this truth. The caribou have already been in decline for years as a result of rising temperatures, and now the Bush administration wants to destroy vast tracts of their very fragile ecosystem to mine for a resource whose use will lead to even more global warming. Which will of course lead to even more decline of their population.
How can you protect yourself from having your mind poisoned with false truths on a daily basis? That is a hard question to answer. First I would say try to avoid commercial media as much as possible. It will actually make your life happier. It might not be obvious why at first it will make you happier, but if you think about how many messages you get in commercials about how you aren't good enough it will start to be clearer. They tell you that you need to lose weight. That if you don't eat some wonderful food that you are missing out on life. That the stuff you have is junk, and needs to be replaced. I don't think you would keep many people as friends if they treated you like that on a regular basis, but people tune in to these kinds of messages on TV, and radio all day long. The second thing I would say to do to protect yourself is try to read multiple sources on a subject. Even with the internet this doesn't tend to be an easy task. When I tried to find out more information about the college level national championship soccer game a girl I know played in online instead of finding multiple viewpoints I found 50 copies of the same article. The associated press dominates news reporting so much that it is often hard to find another viewpoint when any AP article on the matter exists.
I think that is enough standing on my soap box for now. I'm going to try to write regularly about some of the issues I mentioned in last weeks post, and a little bit about what people can do about them.
News media realized that they can get more advertising money from candidates if they only give abysmal election coverage. The result is that when it got close to the election there were more minutes of propaganda advertising than news of the candidates during any given newscast. Even the news coverage was usually a horse race bit about who is highest in the polls. Many voters even believed that US forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Totally clueless.
Another point, and this one from science. Global warming is something scientists all over the world agree is a real phenomenon. Even if we stop actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere today it will take IIRC 200 years for earths temperatures to stabilize. There is a lot of money being spent to combat this truth. The caribou have already been in decline for years as a result of rising temperatures, and now the Bush administration wants to destroy vast tracts of their very fragile ecosystem to mine for a resource whose use will lead to even more global warming. Which will of course lead to even more decline of their population.
How can you protect yourself from having your mind poisoned with false truths on a daily basis? That is a hard question to answer. First I would say try to avoid commercial media as much as possible. It will actually make your life happier. It might not be obvious why at first it will make you happier, but if you think about how many messages you get in commercials about how you aren't good enough it will start to be clearer. They tell you that you need to lose weight. That if you don't eat some wonderful food that you are missing out on life. That the stuff you have is junk, and needs to be replaced. I don't think you would keep many people as friends if they treated you like that on a regular basis, but people tune in to these kinds of messages on TV, and radio all day long. The second thing I would say to do to protect yourself is try to read multiple sources on a subject. Even with the internet this doesn't tend to be an easy task. When I tried to find out more information about the college level national championship soccer game a girl I know played in online instead of finding multiple viewpoints I found 50 copies of the same article. The associated press dominates news reporting so much that it is often hard to find another viewpoint when any AP article on the matter exists.
I think that is enough standing on my soap box for now. I'm going to try to write regularly about some of the issues I mentioned in last weeks post, and a little bit about what people can do about them.