Archive for February, 2006

I’ve been interested in Semiotics lately. If you want to know more, go look it up in Wikipedia and Google (among others).

Actually, to paint with a bit broader of a brush, for some time now I’ve been assessing my current life situation, mostly with respect to my career, and wondering if there’s another level out there, or perhaps a different dimension that I need to explore.

Computer Science isn’t quite what it cracked up to be. Sure, it’s fun to program and all, and solving really subtle problems (usually in the form of software bugs which are thrust upon me by the negligence of some of my less considerate co-workers) is what I have found that I can do, and do well. I’ll be honest - I think I’m pretty good at the problem-solving angle. I can ask the right questions and pick up a good idea of what’s going on.

But lately I’ve found that the complex parts of my job have dealt less with the technical and the analytical, and more with the interpersonal, the intangible, and - for lack of a better word - the symbolic.

Semiotics is the study of symbols, roughly speaking. I’ve read some books by Umberto Eco (a prominent semiotician as well as a good author) and John Barnes (a science fiction author who gets paid to do semiotics, whatever that means) and many other authors who, for some reason, have mastered the art of expression. Whether through a studied practice of the symbols of language they command, or through just the ability to tell a really good and captivating story, I’m hooked.

I want to know more about this study. If it means I have to *gasp* go back to college, and get a new degree in *gulp* the “liberal arts” of some sort, I’ll do it.

I’ve entertained thoughts about studying Anthropology, Sociology, or Philosophy. One reason comes from some snickering prankster in the back corner of my mind, which sees this as a complete rejection of the analytical, logical, left-brain skills that I’ve honed in my studies in Computer Science.

But as I think about it more, maybe it’s exactly what I need in order to cope with an increasingly complex “real world” and what’s going on between people out here. Real life (and a real career) is vastly different from what I studied in college. I’m not just a software engineer - I’m a communicator, a problem-solver, a guide and a mentor, among other things. Very little of my Computer Science skill-set prepared me for those aspects of my job.

I certainly don’t lack the linguistic skills to survive in my society. I somehow can manage to read, write, speak and listen to my own native language, which takes more than a few brain cells and a modicum of concentration.

I want to understand more about messages and media, symbols and meaning, words and concepts.

On a similar note:

The three spheres of the development of earth, as defined by Vladimir Vernadsky:

1. Geosphere - the collection of inanimate matter which comprises Earth and its contents
2. Biosphere - the collection of biological life forms on Earth, with their ecologies and interactions
3. Noosphere - the collection of intelligent, interacting human minds on Earth

I’m adding one level of my own: Zerosphere, the lack of any ordered sphere which consists of or comprises Earth.

Each of these spheres can be clearly defined by the process which turned one sphere into the next. However, no higher-level sphere can exist without its lower spheres. Take away the Geosphere, and both Biosphere and Noosphere collapse - unless we somehow manage to export life from Earth to another colony - but then, we would implicitly need to bring some of the lower spheres with us to survive.

The transition from Zerosphere to a Geosphere was marked by the accretion of significant nebular mass, possibly from the Solar disk, after which the Earth took its spherical shape in a regular orbit around Sol. (This is a big assumption. We still don’t know exactly how Earth formed, so I’m going on the most prevalent hypothesis for the moment. For all we know, our planet could have been excreted by Jupiter, or captured from a passing dwarf star. But the results are the same: Earth orbits Sol.)

The transition from Geosphere to Biosphere was marked by the advent of raw materials and chemical processes which allowed for a single “cell” of life to survive, multiply, and evolve. (Whether this first cell evolved here or was seeded from outside is not relevant: life happened.)

The transition from Biosphere to Noosphere was marked by the advent of highly-developed primate minds, embodied in organic brains, which were capable of communicating and using instincts as well as learned behavior to survive, multiply and evolve. (Whether intelligent creatures evolved on their own or were assisted by aliens is, also, not relevant: cogito, ergo sum.)

We’re well on our way into a Noosphere. But what’s the next sphere going to be?

Can a single human mind even comprehend the full complexity of the Noosphere, let alone a transition point that will mark the beginning of a new sphere, whose composition and complexity is unknown, and possibly unknowable by our standards?

Could water molecules, amino acids and proteins ever conceive of an amoeba, or the chemical processes which would lead to the creation of a cell? Could these raw materials ever know that their patterns which led to the formation of the first living cell would be indelibly stamped upon billions of years of subsequent life?

Could grains of dust, ice crystals and nodules of metal ever conceive of a planet, or the gravitational forces and immense time frame required to gradually form a planet in the cold-hot neighborhood of Sol? Could these atoms and molecules comprehend the idea that they’d be imprisoned inside a massive gravitational well and be trapped in various layers of a massive, rocky planet?

What will be the next transition point? What will be that something that is either built of many Noospheres, or radically changes the nature of the Noosphere such that it now supports a new sphere? What new concept will mark this change, and what kind of mind, higher-level order or unknown process will it act upon?

Food for thought.

Okay, so I finally learned how to make something that I’ve always wanted to be able to make. Tonight I made my first English muffins (you know, like the toaster biscuits) - from scratch, and all that. I got a recipe from a book of breads from around the world, and it turned out pretty well. The muffins didn’t turn out quite as bubbly or as “sourdough”-like as the ones you can buy in stores here - to be quite honest, the result was closer to the “Australian Toaster Biscuits” that are on the same shelf in the stores. But it was tasty, and great with melted butter.

I rather enjoy making my own bread, for reasons that I don’t fully understand. I started several months ago, once every so often when I get spare time. (Having an electric mixer makes it much easier!) I know that I could probably cheat and get an automatic bread-maker, but somehow it just seems to take away the fun, the excitement, and the unpredictability. My parents have an automated machine that you can just toss the ingredients into, turn it on, and walk away, and - presto - fresh bread a few hours later. Easy, but not realistic. Bread should take time and at least some effort.

I made a homemade pizza two months ago, crust and everything, and it was really rewarding. Not quite as “tasty” as going to the local “take & bake” but at least the crust wasn’t unnaturally sweet - closer to a foccacia, and arguably closer to the “authentic” pizzas. I ended up cheating on the red sauce, but I usually make my own pasta sauce (or at least augmenting a bottled sauce so thoroughly that the difference is negligible) so I guess it all evens out in the end. Haven’t made my own pasta yet - maybe someday.

What’s next? I’d like to try crumpets, pikelets, or some other type of flatbread. Any other suggestions?