Abstract Thought

abstractthought @ 2008-07-21T12:52:00

2008-07-21T19:01:30Z

Nietzsche : We are mistaken as to the degree to which we believe ourselves hated or feared: we ourselves may know very well the degree to which we differ from a person, tendency, party, but others know us only very superficially and therefore hate us only superficially. We often encounter goodwill that we find inexplicable; when we understand it, however, it offends us, because it shows we are not being taken with sufficient seriousness.
Suprdialect: LULZ, good 1 NeeChee, U R a Major WIN!!!!1111111 I offer my soul to NeeChee

husband, father, dialectician on the command to know thyself

2008-07-16T02:29:01Z

Know thyself

I am given a commandment: Know thyself. But who am I? If I am ordered to know this rock in front of me. I have it as an object in my hands. I touch it, I feel it, I know its boundaries. In coming to know the rock, I already in fact know it.

Well, I have my body, I have my mind. I can throw my torso against a wall. Does it make a noise? Is it more of a Bam or a Thud? Perhaps I try a different wall. Yes it is a thud.

I try counting to 100. Yes I can do this. I am a counting machine. I count to a thousand. I count to 32,234. Alas, I can go no further. But, this should not cause sorrow. Though I can perhaps not count to 32,235, I have achieved something much greater, I have come to know something about myself.

I am a citizen, am I not? I walk into the IRS, and ask them for some records. They tell me that I have declared 35K in income last year. Well, that makes me lower-middle class or a liar.

I can now come to some conclusions for myself. When I reach the pearly gates and approach the Lord and he asks me to double check all of his notes about my life, to see if he got them straight, I’ll have a few things to say. First, I must assume that I did not count last year’s income, unless I lied about that income, I can’t remember, but if I did lie about my income and I could have counted my income then surely I lied about it to make it less than what it actually is, unless perhaps I was a better counter back then, or maybe I counted the first 32,235 dollars and then sent the rest to be analyzed by some sort of genius or whatever. But if the Lord tells me that I counted my income and that I didn’t lie about my income, and I did all the counting myself, and that my counting aptitude did not decrease then I could point the Lord out for the huckster he is. For truly, I strove in life to know myself, and I will not be falsely judged.

Why else would one wish to know themselves, except under the assumption that we will be judged, and it is better to tell our defense attorney all of the facts. But then again such an approach is felicitous only if these facts are not incriminating or one has the ability to weasel one’s way away from the most atrocious of indictments and filibuster one’s time on a few traffic violations.

Another concern: will God judge me falsely? Is it not a possibility? He has so many heads to watch over. I think when he looks over my more disgusting of sins, he must have the modesty to cover his eyes a little, and as such mistaken wrestling for something I dare not say. After all, it was only wrestling.

I should know myself. What’s the harm? I don’t have to make much effort. I simply must record my movements, my situations, the sounds of my stomach, and play them back to myself at night. And once I get up there and I am to be judge I can be judge jury and executioner. Wouldn’t that piss God off? Oh, he wouldn’t see that one coming. It would embarrass him, making him superfluous as such. Perhaps he would offer me a plea bargain to spare him the shame. Before he begins I have already thrown myself into the depths, content that justice has been performed. And what if everyone did this, what a farce.

Maybe there is more to knowing thyself. Maybe I can gain new control over these limbs. If I am a machine, maybe I could practice a little mechanics. Now, how far can I twist my head. On its own it makes it quite far. But have you seen owls? Is it possible that I myself, will prove that that is no such marvelous thing. That when I see owls I can laugh at them for trying to lord that talent over me all these years. So I push my head further around, just a little bit at a time, I am not a dolt. I check a year later and see I too can turn a full circle, no more doubting it. I know.

So knowing is testing also. But testing can be augmenting. Well why settle for testing myself against those owl vermin, or some pathetic low-life who for some reason or other can beat me in checkers. This pursuit to know myself, I must ask myself a much bigger question: am I master of the world? Am I emperor of the universe?

I am not going to command the president to bark like a dog, or even threaten Bill Gates with a hefty wind-fall profits, hell, for a while, I will even let my wife have her side of the bed. But I am testing myself, I am breaking out of shell after shell, like a little Russian doll inside of other dolls who think they are so special. Well how does one think that one became a big Russian doll. I doubt that they manufacture them in different sizes. If Adam Smith is correct, and I think America has proved that he is, the benefits of economy of scale dictates that all dolls would come out the same. Let’s assume the same about our God. Why not. If he is so wise, how could he miss the general observation that scale creates economy, is he a Frenchman (communist idiot)? I could go on with the French… but that should wait for later on in the discourse. After all, I am pursuing a very narrow dialectic, and the intellect is always in danger of tangents, of becoming stuck, as Kierkegaard would say, in parenthesis.

So where do I start, finding out whether or not I am master of the universe? Remember this is a big question, and if I am to truly know myself it should be answered, because it will answer a whole host of other questions. When/if I gain control over Washington, who will be the vice-president, well who ever I want. If I am in a round of Jeopardy, oh they will fear me. Not only that, I will control the question, e.g. “Who is to be the new host of Jeopardy next season?”

Moreover, I can control the possible questions, so I need not worry myself about the answers. Asking myself if I am stronger or faster than a unicorn sounds absurd, where are these unicorns? I can make a similar question about bears absurd, or weightlifters, or my brother, that is if I am master of the universe.

As master of the universe, I will undoubtedly answer every question. I will know myself in every non-trivial way. I will know myself as Lord of All.

Oh, back to the question. I sometimes get carried away. Where do I start getting to know whether or not I am truly master of the universe? I will perhaps assert myself at the City Hall, for my neighbors dog defecates on my lawn and I do not care for it. I will step up to the microphone and aver “I am the master of my lawn and I will not let it suffer this Greyhound.” And soon I will not let it suffer squirrels. And soon not Mormons, or Jehovah Witnesses either. Soon I’ll be complaining about my neighbors yard and the satellites crossing over my airspace. I’ll be master of a good space by then. I will slowly but surely extend father’s day past midnight until I have made it into a three day weekend. I will tell my wife that the day is meant for the father of her children and not to be squandered on the phone with her Daddy.

I’ll make myself an empire, and know myself as emperor, which I had been all along. And when other men look at me, they will say that I know my powers and that they wished they had known their own potential earlier. For the only difference between them and I is that I strove to know myself and in that striving I made myself. Wow, now that’s existentialism!!!

But what if I don’t become emperor of the universe, what if my striving reaches no end. What if it is a bad infinity, not the good kind. Perhaps I’ll sink the other way, or I will atleast make some strategic retreats. If I cannot settle once and for all how many pull ups I can do, maybe I will simply lop off my hands. Why not? If I truly wish to know myself my hands and my pull-up bar will merely bring me to despair. Unless I come up with a clever answer, pointing to an old man I could say “More than that guy.”

Well, I’ll figure it out. How to become a handicap emperor. When on trial with God, I will not only know what I did do, but also what I could have done, oh there is no room for judgment then.

Wait, I had an epiphany. Or perhaps it came slowly and I didn’t see it coming. Or maybe I read it somewhere. To know thyself is to become honest with thyself. When I prattle off certitudes, perhaps I should examine them closer, see whether or not I am truly what I claim to be.

Let me try it. Ok, I love my son.

Socrates: What is love.

Me: it is something ineffable.

Socrates: That is very deep, you are wise.

Me: Thank you, I also respect your wisdom.

Socrates: Is God love.

Me: Certainly

Socrates: Is your relationship to your son God?

Me: No.

Socrates: Then it is not love.

Me: Oh, your funny Socrates, you got me there. I must hate my son.

Socrates: Live your life in this wisdom.

See if Socrates says know thyself, and he was doing that, and he thinks that I can do that, and we all can do that, well that’s pretty neat. I can be my own Socrates, for I do know that I know nothing, that is unless I know something. But if I do know something, then I do not know that I do know nothing, because it is false that I know nothing. Thus, if I hold onto the principle that I know nothing unless I know something, I will always be correct. And I will know myself, for that is the task, right?

But its hard being Socrates sometimes. He devoted his whole life to this quest. I have a job, and not many friends who are of like minds. I will perhaps have to make imaginary dialectical situations very fast. I will have to be a Stephen King of sorts, pumping out epiphanies about twice a week. On Saturdays, I will devote a good eight hours to thinking about myself and getting to know thyself. No problem.

Introspection is thrown around a lot these days. They have dog psychiatrists. For dogs!!! A dog is supposed to probe into there deep subconscious and recollect a traumatic experience. If a dog can do it, Socrates can. I believe this whole-heartedly. If a dog can get to know thyself, so can I. For we all are little Socrates. I think the powers of dialectic are even more intense than though of psychoanalysis. Sigmund Fraud can keep his loony theories. I am content with strict, cold contemplation. Let’s see a dog do that.

Let me expound upon a basic truth. Opposites define one another. If I am to understand what it means to be a human I must compare it to being something else. I know that psychoanalysis is wrong for myself because it is used for doggy-truths. Thus, human truths, completely incommensurable with doggy truths must be reached through something besides psychoanalysis, i.e. its opposite, i.e. Socratic dialogues.

Conclusion:

FACT: KNOW THYSELF

FACT: THREE POSSIBLE WAYS TO KNOW THYSELF.

1. Recording of life.

2. Testing your infinite powers

3. Socratic dialogues

FACT: ALL SEEM QUITE POSSIBLE WITH PROPER TIME MANAGEMENT.

CONCLUSION: TO INSURE THAT ONE KNOWS THYSELF, ONE SHOULD CARRY OUT ALL THREE.

Myth is Alive and Well.

2008-07-12T21:19:23Z

This is a white paper I just wrote up for Mythos Media, to start explaining the context of our intent... Thought it may be of some interest.

Myth is Alive and Well.
By James Curcio.

A quick look at the marketing for films, books and music shows the profound value that mythology has within the modern marketplace. This role is made more pervasive – and potentially beneficial or dangerous – as a result of the proliferation of instantaneous and virtually limitless communication mediums. Myth is so entrenched in the nature of business that it is often overlooked within the advertising rhetoric, however, the building of a mythology, is the centerpiece of all effective branding.

Demonstration of this fact clearly requires an understanding both of the function of myth and the function of a brand. Prevalent misconceptions in both of these cases has clouded what should otherwise be a self-evident thesis, so the purpose of this brief white paper is to identify these misconceptions and clarify the position.

Myth is difficult to explain in a top down manner: it is not merely a story, for some stories are myths while others are not; it is not merely the beliefs of a people retold in stories or other media, because here again retold beliefs can be devoid of mythic resonance. Because of this complexity, for the time being let us define a few of these basic qualities through a quick backward glance at the function of myths past, before turning to ways that these qualities may or may not be applied within the modern business world.

The myths of the past, it is commonly held, were erroneous explanations for the way that the world is; fanciful stories, which, though colorful and interesting curiosities, surely bear no particular use to our “modern” lives. This interpretation mistakes the thing (fanciful stories and the accompanying art, etc.) for their function. As was later re-discovered by an expansive list of preeminent scholars and authors, including Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and the like, these myths do not explain the world, rather, they explain our place within it. Thus, it is not a universal static truth that myths represent, but instead a personal, cultural one. It is commonly accepted that mythology served a central role in the lives of humans up until a time when science and industry somehow stole away our myths. Though patently untrue, this belief itself serves as a myth which allows us to establish a place within history for ourselves. It is an internal narrative that defines us in Enlightenment terms. This is another role which myth serves: it defines who we are, and defines where we are in time; what role we serve, and what the nature of that role is. To the actor, the central question is often “what is my motivation?” The myth is our motive, or at least, it gives it voice. It may be encoded in any medium, but its defining characteristic is its psychological function.

When looking at stories, movies, or any other form of media, we may then ask- what qualifies as a myth? Perhaps first we should look at how we define anything. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein explained the nature of meaning in language as a case of “family resemblance.” For example, sisters and brothers, mothers and daughters, and so on, can all share certain traits, not others, and yet be considered part of the same family. This, he proposed, was the nature of linguistic definition. Without this concept, we cannot properly define a game, for by any static qualifier certain activities which all of us consider games would be ruled out. This concept of definition contradicts the Aristotelean concepts of categories which most of us are still used to, where a thing is either A or B, and cannot exist as an amalgam of many different potentially contradictory components, often occupying a space somewhere between these various “pure” concepts. However, without a recognition of this fact, it is impossible to properly identify the various elements of myth at work within the diverse industries of the world today. We then lose site of how these elements can function in a piecemeal configuration, for example with elements of mythological thinking occurring within a seemingly unrelated milieu.

Granting these complexities, we may be led to wonder how myth functions in the world of business and industry. The function of a brand is to bring the story of a company to its market. When you look at a logo, read the copy on the back of a label, or watch an advertisement on television, it is commonly believed that the intent is to sell the product to you. Of course, in a sense, this is true. But what is actually being sold is the myth of the company- what that product or brand represents. The myth of Lexus doesn't sell you cars, it sells you luxury. Thus, it is of utmost importance for advertisers to understand the function of myth every bit as much as script writers. Like all other forms of myth, when accomplished successfully, the myth of a brand also brings with it a form of community. For example, witness the success of Apple's branding: those who identify as “Mac users” do so with an odd sense of pride, as if they are bucking the system by sharing in the aura of coolness that radiates from their stylish gear. Every element of this is mythological, including the system that they are bucking, represented by the doltish PC anthropomorphisized by John Hodgman in their recent advertising campaigns. (This general concept is explored at length in James B. Twitchell's book Ad Cult, containing many worthwhile thoughts on the mythological machinery of corporate advertising.)

As the business guru Peter Drucker demonstrates in his book Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, the marketing of a product is not a function of selling it, it is instead the means of fulfilling a need. In other words, the function of business itself is the fulfillment of human needs; the more ubiquitous the need, the more easy the marketing of that product will be if handled properly. The reason Lexus sells you luxury, rather than a car, is that, within the social apparatus of most industrialized nations, everyone needs a car. Lexus is identifying the niche of people with that need who they wish to call their own, and they are doing it through people who self identify with, or idolize, the myth of their brand.

As we have already explored, myths also fulfill a human need, experienced around the globe and throughout the history of our species: the need for meaning. The cultish following associated with certain properties is the result of this “mythic demand,” provided through characters and often fictional worlds which represent aspects of our inner psychology. To the fans, these worlds are often every bit as real as the phenomenal world of the everyday. Series such as Vertigo’s Sandman comics, or Serenity, which appeared first as a Fox television series, then a graphic novel and movie when the series was canceled, are examples of how the development of a general world and context in the mind of an audience can provide endless storytelling possibilities. They also demonstrate that the success of these stories are not based on the medium. This is of course quite apparent to anyone who considers the recent success of various comics franchises' almost overwhelming storming of Hollywood. Without which, surely Marvel wouldn't be able to afford to have their own film production studio, nor would San Diego's massively popular Comic Con be showing such a wholesale recognition of the mythic power of their media franchises, regardless of the medium that it is presented in.

The success of any media brand demands that it serve as an effective myth: whether Star Trek, Doctor Who, or Lost, to the true fans, these shows represent a pantheon with psychological, even ethical or cultural, significance. Further, one cannot overlook the Star Wars franchise; what began as a low-budget movie specifically steeped in mythic archetypes, has spawned a multimedia empire that today encompasses novels, comic books, television shows, video games, and a dizzying array of toys and ancillary products. In the case of the first three movies, the connection with myth was more than implicit: George Lucas was a friend of Joseph Campbell, and based the cosmology of the Star Wars world on the heroic cycle outlined in his books. These ancient traditions were simply made relevant to the concerns and aesthetic tastes of the modern age.

----------
About the author:
James Curcio has been consciously dedicated to the production and analysis of modern myths since the age of sixteen, and subconsciously arguably since birth. This exploration has taken the form of collaborative novels (Fallen Nation: Babylon Burning in 2007, Join My Cult! in 2004), essays on myth and culture (The Immanence of Myth, presently in development, "Living The Myth," Generation Hex 2004, "Hillbilly Tantra" in Magic On The Edge in 2005, and "Dying Gods" in Lemon Puppy, in 2003), Internet "round-table" musical albums and podcasts,(subQtaneous: Some Still Despair In A Prozac Nation in 2005, Babalon's Descent in 2001 and posthumous Dreams And Reflections in 2005, Bedtime Stories With The Antichrist in 2004-2005 and The G-Spot in 2005-2006), and various art and media collectives. Most recently, he is co-founder of Mythos Media (www.mythosmedia.net).

Nature Abhors the Usual

2008-07-04T05:13:54Z

"Within the shadow of the ship
I watched their rich attire:
Blue, glossy green, and velvet black,
They coiled and swam; and every track
Was a flash of golden fire...

O happy living things! no tongue
Their beauty might declare:
A spring of love gushed from my heart,
And I blessed them unaware:
Sure my kind saint took pity on me,
And I blessed them unaware."

'The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner', Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Carnivorous plants are some of the most counter-intuitive organisms in nature. A plant which uses its leaves not only for photosynthesis, but uses them for the catching and digesting of animals -- mostly insects but also small mammals and herptiles are known to be a part of their diet. When they were first discovered and studied by Western botanists, it was declared by some that they either could not exist or were "unnatural" because their function is "against the order of nature". This view was later rescinded, and carnivorous plants today are within the fold of some of the most exquisite and magnificent of plant groups. These early botanists were probably taken by surprise at the reversal of natural roles they were used to seeing: plants are eaten by animals, they don't eat animals! The unusual has a way of being regarded as "unnatural" and "against the order of nature", and at the expense of not accepting it as another way of life. The carnivorous plants are magnificent specimens; imagine the loss if botanists really did keep to the thinking that these organisms are not a part of nature.

One can see this kind of thinking in other areas as well. Homosexualtity, for instance, is often regarded as unnatural because it is counter-intuitive in just this way. "Sex is supposed to be between sexes, not within sexes!"; "Dicks are for chicks, aren't they?" In a society where homosexuality is not accepted because it is apparently "unnatural", we can see something of the botanists' early rejection, can't we? But Nature has a lot to tell us if we are willing to shake off our most entrusted preconceptions.

(This board has been seeing a lot of posts regarding the philosophy of sex. I welcome this, as I find the topic very interesting. The philsophy of sex has some of its roots in the philosophy of biology. To balance the posts that approach sex from the religious or moral point of view, an approach to the philosophy of the biology of sex is presented here, not only because it's generally interesting, but because many arguments made in the philosophy of sex are really about how we think about the biology of sex.)

Simplicity vs Complexity

2008-07-04T05:12:55Z

There are two main schools of thought, as I see it:

The first believes that the universe can be reduced, in the end, to something very simple. Things are only complex because we don't understand them; once we do, they'll be found to be beautifully and amazingly simple.

The second believes that the universe is full of complexity, a complexity that cannot be reduced by understanding because the more we understand, the more complexity that we find.

One minute I believe in simplicity, the next, in complexity.

What do you think?

abstractthought @ 2008-07-03T11:59:00

2008-07-03T16:44:48Z

I had a thought the other day........what exactly is an open mind?
I mean, I like to see myself as a fairly open-minded inividual - as I'm quite sure everyone on here does - but is that a lie?
The only things I'm open-minded about are the things I'm open-minded about. I don't have an open mind about paedophilia, for instance. I think it's wrong. If I was talking to someone and they suddenly came out and told me they were attracted to young boys, there would be something in me thinking that was somehow wrong.
What IS wrong with being a paedophile? It's like anything....as long as you don't act on it, then it's only a thought. Hmm. Interesting.
Hahahahah, I sound like I'm working out issues. I would like to iterate that I am not a paedophile, nor am I pro-paedophilia. Children should not be used to assist orgasms. It was just an example of something. I'm not quite sure what.
But still, it's an odd thought. Are we only opened minded because we've appointed ourselves as such, or is there such a thing as genuine liberalism? I'm of two minds on this.
I don't really know what I'm on about though. My mind far too wide to grasp onto little concepts like that.

Lott's Daughters

2008-07-03T07:29:55Z

Not long ago, someone made a post regarding the biblical account of Lott and his 2 daughters. I know that many atheistic leaning websites regard this story as being 100%, absolute, immoral. And, I wasn't satisfied with my answer to that post. It made perfect sense to me, but I'm certain it sounded a bit *out there* to a lot of people.

As to not sound like a complete loon, I've decided to try to justify the story being a moral one within the context of the present.

Right now, there are places in the world where the percentage of women who have been raped is at 90%(as this reference is from 2002, I think the percentage is a lot higher, now): http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art21405.html

Sources who acquire these statistics have said that any man who tries to prevent a woman from being raped is immediately put to death. CNN -- Rape is a way of life for Darfur's women Anyway, when the bible says Sodom & Gamorrah were cities rife with sin, the places referred to in both of these articles tend to be what comes to mind.

Back to the original question. If Lott lived in an area with similar practices(city rife with sin). If his daughters had been raped, and he was powerless to prevent them from being raped. Then, would he be immoral to offer his daughters to the mob? Also, since many have said rape isn't about sex, it's about "power". Motivation comes from taking something away from people and breaking their will and such. Is it possible that by offering his daughters to the mob that Lott took away all incentive for them to commit rape? .

Hilbert Space

2008-06-25T22:56:43Z

Recently I've been reminded of my interest in the fourth dimension, so I dug up these chemically-fueled topological explorations from my past.

Topology is the study of surface geometry. It classifies us as toruses (donut shaped) because a flatlander walking through our GI tract would find it similar to traversing the donut-hole.

Now let's take the brain for a stretch. The donut is now an inner-tube with a hole in the side. What happens when you turn it inside out? What if you first tied a pink ribbon around it, where would that end up?

Now that your mind is fluid, it's time to enter Hilbert Space. A point is located in space, but occupies none, therefore it has zero dimensions. Now drag that point a finite distance to make a line and now we have a one dimensional measurement. If we drag that line sideways the same distance we have defined a square in the second dimension. Now drag the square that same distance in a direction ninety degrees from the last move and you have defined a three-dimensional cube. Now, close your eyes, take a deep breath and with your mind drag that cube in a vector at right angles from BOTH of the last two moves and you have made a hypercube and are now sitting squarely (ahem) in the fourth-dimension.

Just like a cube can be unfolded into six squares, a hypercube can be unfolded into eight cubes.

Mrs. Hilbert

Topological Challenge

Cross-posted to babyfacemason

I hope you'll excuse this because of the cause.

2008-06-20T04:10:35Z

If you're concerned about the unsustainability of our government, and, like me, you see direct democracy as the only way forward, please vote for this, and give it to all your friends and family. (If you are in America)

It might take 15 years, but I think we will get the necessary votes. We have to. There's no other way.

http://www.nationalinitiative.us/

abstractthought @ 2008-06-18T19:52:00

2008-06-19T16:48:13Z

Here's one for everyone.

My students are special needs. Now they aren't special needs enough that that won't fully grasp the following idea -

I am going to make a page to two page long questionnaire.

It will include, but not be limited to, what's your favorite food, music, television program, animal.

When you see this ____ you think of ____.

I want to, with this exercise, not only get to know my students better but also have this for ammo for quick activities that they'd love as a group to do!

With all this info I can make a sort of graph with all of their collective interests on it and deduce what would be best for the group!

I need a lot of peoples help on this - do you all mind if I keep coming back to you about this?

Give me some good ideas for some good questions!

Or any other input you can on this!

The power of theta waves...

2008-06-09T01:28:48Z

I've said for years that near-sleep is an essential part of my creative process. God only knows how many hours I've spent drifting into sleep after being able to think up what to do next with a story, or a song, only to have it revealed to me all at once while drifting down and away. At that point you're left with the option of shaking yourself awake, and jotting it down before it is gone, or slipping off, and awaking with only the faint feeling that you lost something. Does it work that way for any of you?

Last night it was this paragraph, nearly full-formed. I woke up, hammered it out in less than a minute (since I already had it all in my mind), and then spent another hour or two trying to fall back asleep. Something else drifted up during the second attempt to go down, but I let it pass.

"Cutting to that heart directly and cleanly defining what myth is and is not will not suffice. The function of myth, even possibly its identity, changes based on the granularity of inquiry. In other words, a particular myth, received by an individual, may not serve the same function as that myth's effect upon a society. Myths are also "mirrors of the soul," which can only reveal to us what we already have in ourselves: so what is a message of love and compassion to one can be a distorting call to hatred and bigotry for another. This inquiry is further obfuscated by the fact that culture itself can only be understood by the myths it produces. Concurrently, it is increasingly difficult to speak meaningfully of "myth" without recognizing the function which runs through all contexts, all "level of granularity": myth is the meaning in representation. Words, sentences, and pictures are, on their own, no more a "myth" than the notes written on a staff are music, however all of these are the embodiment, that is, the representation, of experience. Concealed within that representation is all of the meaning that can be drawn from chaos. Myth is, in the final summation, truly a mirror image of our inner beings, for better or worse. We did not create our flesh or bone, nor did we choose the circumstances we were born into. The myths we create, on the other hand, are truly and completely human. Perhaps, at the same time, they are the closest we have to divinity, demonstrating our ability to build worlds from the clay we are given, to infuse it with our own meaning, and to chose what the very nature of the universe will be in our tale."

This from the growing passages of the Immanence of Myth.

Abomination? Edited for Truth

2008-06-07T20:58:06Z

Leviticus 18:22 -- 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 11:11 -- 'They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.'

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

In the 'Bible' very little is said in regard to things like gay marriage or abortion. Therfore, I have come to the conclusion issues like gay marriage are important to people, and not necessarily important to religion. Some appear to desperately want to restrict homosexuality in their own society. An ages old book just happens to be the best source they can find to defend their personal convictions which say: "homosexuality is a step in the wrong direction for society".

I'm not sure I can blame them for thinking the way they do. I can see where they're coming from. Something seems to work relatively well for a few hundred years. Does it really demand to be changed?

In terms of religion, these issues appear no more illuminating.

All religious people have is a paragraph or two which states homosexuality is undesirable. The reasons or rationale behind the teachings remain in dispute which opens the door for ambiguity and misunderstanding.

The teaching that says it is an 'abomination' to eat shellfish has been thought to have been based on poisonous shellfish in the region. Therefore, it was an abomination in that eating it could cause you to get sick and die.

Some believe homosexuality is similar. They say it was considered an 'abomination' because survival depended upon consistent births to overcome high mortality rates. If that's the case, is homosexuality still an abomination in the present?

Why do people rarely take the time to consider issues to bother rationalizing to a comparable degree of accuracy?

Anyway, how silly would it be for people to bicker and argue as much as they do over issues like gay marriage if the above was accurate? All that simply because the stereotypes and common worldviews in which modern society shades these issues is fundamentally flawed?

Why does it always have to be like this?

(Note: This whole post was horribly written when I woke up at 2 am this morning. I was awake but whatever passes for a 'brain' these days was apparently still sleeping. I tried to salvage it with a questionable degree of success. Apologies folks.)

The Normative and the Moral

2008-06-07T20:55:34Z

Is there a distinction in kind between these two statements?

(1)"you should not bake the cake at such a low temperature"

(2) "you should not force someone to eat cake"

I say 'in kind' because of course the statements different in their content. One is about baking at certain temperatures and one is about force feeding. In kind, however, both statements are similar insofar as they are normative statements (i.e. they are statements about what ought (or ought not) to be).

However, there does seem to be a nuanced difference between them, no? One would seem to concern amoral content whereas the other would seem to concern moral content: forcing against a person's will versus cooking a meal. True, one could claim that (1) concerns morality, but then that would lead to the rather counter-intuitive notion that the act of baking is something that can be immoral or moral; that baking the correct way somehow constitutes a part of living a good and ethical life.

I am often struck by reading normative statements -- especially those presented by the religious -- that are presented as if they have moral content (e.g. 'men who present themselves as effeminate are "sinning" -- they ought not to dress that way'). I am struck with the question: how does one figure that what they are talking about concerns "Right" and "Wrong"", rather than simply what might be proper, expedient, or in line with their tastes? In other words, what makes much, say, Christian notions of sin and righteousness purportedly more in common with (2), rather than (1)?

Well, I'll pose another question: do you consider these two statements to be about morality, or only one or none? Why or why not?

Abortion and gay marriage discussion

2008-06-05T16:23:07Z

Peace

There is no real conflict between republicans and democrats.

The most pressing issues that affect us together, both sides, both republicans, independents, and democrats are deeply concerned about such as healthcare, the state of the economy, and war, we are not that far apart on really.

The issues that seem to divide us most though are simple but touchy issues that have upset people on both sides.

Lets take the right to abortion. There are pro-life groups, and pro-choice groups. And they are deep set against each other. One believes its criminal to take a possible life of a human being. The other side thinks its criminal to deny the right to have an abortion to a woman.

The abortion debate only started really because some women desired the right to have an abortion, and medical advances have provided various methods for this to happen. Before the time when abortions became legal, there was and even today still continues to be this stigma about having a pregnancy too early, or out of wedlock. I was told a story of this young woman going through highschool and she wasn’t allowed to finish because she was pregnant. It was seen as socially improper for a woman to become pregnant unless married.

Today the issue is a bit more complex. If the woman or the couple do not feel ready to bring to this world and raise a child, that child may suffer as the parents struggle with their work and their new responsibilities. Not all parents are created equal, but some people that might be great ones might need a little more time to establish themselves in their own life before helping someone else begin theirs.

I read an interesting quote, which stated something like “laws are needed to enforce issues, but they make no one happy really, you shouldn’t need a forced contract to protect something.”

How I take that quote when I read it is that, there is so much energy that people put into protesting either for or against the right to abortion. There are the few who protest and the much larger groups of people that feel strongly about the issue but don’t really do anything about it. It is amazing to me how set people are in their ways, that they don’t try to provide healthier alternatives.

To me, the obvious solution is, do not endlessly protest against something, give an alternative that both sides can live with if it is possible. If people felt that pro-life was important to them, then they should put their energy towards raising money and setting up programs that helps new mothers and new parents to raise their children or setting up programs that will help raise the children that are born but that the parents do not wish to keep because they are not ready. And they should work to promote a climate of ‘its okay to become pregnant, we’ll help, since we cherish life.

-
I find issues like the fight about gay marriage fascinating in how much energy people put partly into being bigots and partly into trying to deny others a right that they already have. I mean in the past interracial marriages were seen in the same way. And before that marriages between upper class and lower class people.

Gay people are not trying to steal anything from you. And you’re acting like bully’s in trying to deny them something that they too deserve. And maybe you haven’t realized that. There is maybe 1-2 arguments in the bible that have something against gay people.
A big one usually mentioned is the city of Sodom before it was burned to the ground by god.

The story goes like this,

20And the LORD said, "(U)The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.
21"I will (V)go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
22Then (W)the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before (X)the LORD.
23Abraham came near and said, "(Y)Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
24"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?
25"Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not (Z)the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
26So the LORD said, "(AA)If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account."
27And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but (AB)dust and ashes.
28"Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."
29He spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it on account of the forty."
30Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31And he said, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the twenty."
32Then he said, "(AC)Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten."
33As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham (AD)the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place.

Genesis 19
The Doom of Sodom
1Now the (A)two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When (B)Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."
3Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; (C)and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4Before they lay down, (D)the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5and they called to Lot and said to him, "(E)Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
7and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
8"Now behold, (F)I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."
9But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already (G)he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
10But (H)the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.
11(I)They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
12Then the two men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
13for we are about to destroy this place, because (J)their outcry has become so great before the LORD that (K)the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
14Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, (L)get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city " (M)But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
15When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city."
16But he hesitated. So the men (N)seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for (O)the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.
17When they had brought them outside, one said, "(P)Escape for your life! (Q)Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the (R)valley; escape to (S)the mountains, or you will be swept away."
18But Lot said to them, "Oh no, my lords!
19"Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die;
20now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."
21He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.
22"Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there." Therefore the name of the town was called [a](T)Zoar.
23The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24Then the LORD (U)rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
25and (V)He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
26But his wife, from behind him, (W)looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27Now Abraham arose early in the morning and went to (X)the place where he had stood before the LORD;
28and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, (Y)the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace.
29Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that (Z)God remembered Abraham, and (AA)sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.
Lot Is Debased
30Lot went up from Zoar, and (AB)stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to (AC)come in to us after the manner of the earth.
32"Come, (AD)let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father."
33So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
34On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father."
35So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
36Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
37The firstborn bore a son, and called his name (AE)Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
38As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of (AF)Ammon to this day.

A city full of wicked people
God would have spared the city had there been 10 good people there, but all he found was 1 good family and so angels were sent in to take them out of the city. Now the city was full of wicked people, doing everything bad they could, and then they had seen these strangers come into their city and they wanted to sleep with them. The man of the good family, offered up his daughters so that the wicked crowds could have sex with them instead of these angels.

Can I get a raise of hands how many people think it was wrong that the guy offered up his own daughters? If he had offered himself I can understand, but… c’mon!

So the wicked people tried to come in, the angels blinded them, the family was taken out of the city, the city was burned, and his wife looked back and was therefore turned into a pillar of salt.

The gist of the story is that, this crazy out of control group of people offended god, and they were struck from the earth because there were few good people living in that city. They were already destined for death by god because they were wicked, not because they then wanted to sleep with the angels.

Let god worry about how he will treat the people that go to heaven. I don’t care if you’re revolted by the idea of gay sex, it’s just sex, I don’t care if you’re revolted by the idea of gay love and relationships and gay marriage, it’s a contract between 2 other people that you will probably never meet. To you, you’re offended by the possibility that someone else will get married. To them, every time I hear the story of when gay people have gotten the chance to marry even if its just temporarily legal, they are overcome with joy that they finally have the chance to do everything like ‘normal straight people do’.

Jesus always preached love of your fellow man and woman. As people, we were asked to be good people, to not covet what others had, to not steal, to not lie, to not cheat, and to be good people. Being good doesn’t mean following the interpretation of the bible that one preacher chose or even a religion chose. People call themselves Christian not just because of the bible but because the bible is partly the story of Jesus Christ. And to me, Jesus raised up Mary of Magdalena, a whore before she became one of his companions. He raised her up when other religious figures were trying to stone her for being a whore. Jesus would help and make everyone a better person, and he would never shout at innocent people because they were gay, so search your heart why you’re really against gay marriage. If its because you are so deep set against it, then god bless you. But if you can change and realize that we are all gods children, whatever religion we are, whatever faith we hold, no matter who we choose to love, then god bless you too .

Good people are not really different.

I’m surprised people protest gay marriage so much, but they don’t protest nuclear weapons too. I mean, we have gay marriage, a group of people getting married that if you don’t like them you’ll never be invited to the wedding, and you’ll never meet, and on the other hand, we have weapons of mass destruction that we’ve stockpiled so much that they can wipe out all life many times over.

Gay marriage or WMD’s? What’s worth more to protest?

Abortion and gay marriage, what other major issues really set conservatives vs liberals, I’m sure I had more to talk about but I’m out of ideas for the moment?
If you read this far, bless you and I hope it gave you some food for thought.

Stillness

2008-06-02T14:49:23Z

We try and find who we are through things that have happened in the past, or things that have yet to happen. Who we are is right now. Right now is all that we have.

We are living in a world where everyone is thinking “What can I have more of? How do I find things that will make me more happy? What can I complain about now so that I can feel more of myself?” We are constantly seeking more.

So we buy things, use drugs, sex, food, relationships, whatever we can find to attach our self to so that we can feel security in this fictional self that was created by thoughts. This “self” is not who you are, but who your mind has created. We are constantly in state of a fictional self. We base our entire lives and our beings on thought forms, and other people.

So often you lose yourself in analyzing every situation and detail of our life. We don’t know who we are anymore because we are constantly seeking. If you simply watch the sunrise and do not analyze how it is rising, you can enjoy it. If we stop analyzing our own actions and the actions of others, we can become just as enlightened as we feel while watching the sunrise. We can be still, feel peace, and realize that we are beyond thoughts, beyond emotion, beyond anything tangible or explainable. We just are.

We seek our happiness within everything but ourselves and that is why we do not find it. We base our emotions, our decisions, and ultimately our life on situations that occur, people, places, and materialistic things.

People are not relating to you, they are relating to the thoughts of you in their mind. Places are not going to relate to you, they are as they are with or without you. Things cannot provide eternal happiness, but only temporarily offer a good feeling. Thoughts are not what we take with us in the afterlife, thoughts are not what make us who we are. We already are. You are already complete. To be who you are, you don’t need anything but right now.

When you give up believing that the world is to provide your happiness and you focus on being in stillness, you are then truly happy. When you see what the world cannot do for you, you can simply accept whatever is. Whatever is at this moment is as it should be.

An enormous freedom comes into your life when you drop the demand that things should be other than they are. As you bring an inner alignment to the ‘now’ you find peace. It has nothing to do with the form it takes. It arises because you allow it to be as it is. By internally embracing the form of this moment we find peace.

“I might as well say yes to this moment, because this moment is life. It is the only moment there ever is. I might as well embrace it for what it is.” This does not diminish your ability to change things that need to be change, but allows you to be aligned with your true being. It allows you to respond to ‘life situations’ naturally, the way we should respond. Which is, response of our inner stillness rather than reaction of emotion or thoughts.

Things are going to work themselves out whether we think about them or not. If you are searching for yourself within a problem, then problems are all you are going to have. You have to step out of this and realize that there is much, much more to life.

The stronger you are trapped in the sense of the fictional self the more you will emphasize problems (which you’ve created in your mind) and problems of other people. If you are always a victim, and life is always taking a dump on you, then that is who you become. But it is not this way. Living is not the equivalent of frustration but rather the meaning of life.

The world cannot make us happy. To demand that situations, people, places, or attainments are supposed to make us happy are only going to lead you into a pit of frustration.

If you are in this moment, all the things that you pursued in your thought that were so important before, you realize none of it matters at all.

We are living in a world of collective mental illness. How does God allow us to feel this way? To suffer? Why do I have to suffer? Within this world, everything has it’s place. Everything is as it should be, including the way you feel at this moment. Just because something happened to you or could possibly go wrong in the future doesn’t mean you have to be in this state of suffering forever.Your suffering, to some extent, begins to dissolve the egoic structures in your mind, which is what you need to grow.

No matter what your story is, you are here, now. That’s an amazing thing to be! To be here, now, and to see that the outcome of your life is that now you’re stepping out of it and you realize that yes, that is how my life unfolded. But yes, I am here. I am alive, and well.

All forms are temporary, all thoughts are temporary. The eternal shines through these forms. A transparency is happening in you, so that that which is beyond form (stillness) before got mixed up with the story of your fictional self. The preciousness of being is your true specialness. What the egoic self had been looking for on the level of your life story, that very thought, obscured the fact that you already could not be more special than you are right now. There is a beauty and preciousness that is within the entity of your being.

We are trapped in our conceptual thoughts, our egotistical self. When we worry about the future or still feel trapped within ourselves, we are neglecting what we need the most. We are neglecting the present moment.

If you are petting an animal, you can really enjoy yourself. You can sit with it, look at it, pet it, and just be with it. This is why a lot of people are animal lovers. You don’t have to psychologically protect yourself from the animal. Something transmits itself because the animal lives more deeply connected with the source of life than most humans. The illusion has not grown to such an extent of being a separate entity… it’s rooted in being and living. The animal does not create a world of problems, it is one with life. And humans have separated themselves with life. You become present with the animal because the animal is present. Thus, you begin feeling peace.

The sun, trees, animals, flowers, and the beautiful things that have always been a part of creation for all time are what connect us to ourselves. Because these things are present, these things are not thinking about yesterday or tomorrow, yet they are continually growing.

Be still. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy this moment. For nothing else really matters.

Cosmological Hypothesese

2008-05-31T18:50:14Z

Big Bang
Matter of Subtraction:
Instead of the first to objects of universe being " 1 + 1 "
what if the first two objects of universe were " 1/2 + 1/2 "
[or even " -(1/2) + -(1/2)] ?
So what if instead a "singularity" exploding into so-called empty timespace,
the "singularity" imploded into itself; (would all events then be the center?)

Timespace
Or what if there is no "fabric" of timespace that events are "in" but are rather "of"?
What if the events themselves simply are the fabric? What if events simply are "timespace"?
But then, for an event to have measurement, identity, property, at least two events must relate.
So then, without at least two events, two "timespaces", no event or timespace would be at all identifiable;
thus, the universe is relationship-centric, and "The One" single event is "empty" or "void".

Dark Ness
What if the "dark matter" and "dark energy" that are said to make up most of our universe are not so seperate from the the properties of event-ness; rather; they are events we simply cannot measure? What if, for example, our universe of events is in itself an event of another universe of events, and conversely, every event of our universe is in itself a universe of events? (Thus, one might, if possible, be able to travel infinitely "out" as well as infinitely "in"; an in this sense, our universe is both a fragment of another universe; all of our universe's fragments are other universes, ad infinitum.) So then, what we call "dark matter" and "dark energy" are the immeasurable influences on our universe of the universe of which ours is an single event? And conversely, the immeasurable "dark matter" and "dark energy" of universes within the single events of our universe are the measurable events of our universe.

abstractthought @ 2008-05-31T14:08:00

2008-05-31T18:47:16Z

I got into an interesting conversation last night about misery, contentment, idleness, creativity, and motivation. Misery and hardship have been one of the great motivators throughout our past. Obviously, it is when you don't like something that you work to change it. If you're content then you don't work to change something that works for you (if it ain't broke don't fix it), right? Writers, philosophers, artists, activists all came into being to express their pain and, in some cases, their subsequent dynamism to change it. They needed adaptivity/creativity/ingenuity to overcome their situations. They needed an outlet in order to survive, to evince change.

Amazing. To be revered. That the spirit is not crushed, but bubbles over instead.

But then, you have people who have seen those who have come before them. They have seen that it takes a smelting of the internal ores to shine. And they want that. Only--they aren't miserable. Where then should they find this most effective spring of motivation? They've already overcome any foreseeable hardships. So what then, idleness? That burns them. They don't want the hum-drum, they want the exceptional, they want the best. So they create misery to wallow in in the hopes that it will keep them from stagnating. They don't attempt to ward off the things that bite at them because they want the misery to be their motivator.

But it exactly is not. That is broken thought. That is handicapping your spirit. That is insanity.

Creativity can seed, germinate, root, and, blossom in joy. It does not need to be planted on a craggy hillside to grow. Yes, it is amazing when that happens, when that twisted little tree does find the nutrients and handholds on the rockface that it needs to survive. But a tree in good soil can grow amazingly in all of the bounty provided to it as well.

Content does not have to equal complacent. A sense of happiness and satisfaction does not stop creativity. It is a different route to it, like the highway (speed) vs. the scenic route (beauty). Fear and pain may provoke immediate reaction and aversion (the change), but they may not be the best ways to enact that change. There may be a more enjoyable way to learn, if only a little more time were taken to find it. And why would you deny enjoyment when it is so readily available like that? When it is offered up to you?

You shouldn't. It is crazy not to accept it.

Torrent talk

2008-05-23T20:16:16Z

"You know, we have entered a brave new world. Chilling Effect doesn’t even begin to describe it. We are in a virtual Ice Age. Trackers, search engines (well, not the big ones) are being sued, not for any money they may have (they don’t) but rather to set precedents and make examples.

I would normally write several paragraphs of flippant commentary peppered with links that punctuate my points through association. Not today. Today I have decided to utilize a method known as The Wall of Shame. Shame to the entertainment industry for being (once again) so myopic, reactionary and greedy in the short term at the expense of the long run. But also, shame upon us for laying back and letting it happen. It’s like the artificial shortages and inflation of costs for energy, food, water, et. al. We just keep paying. That’s a form of support you know. No protest equals permission.

I see the same things happening with the torrent/intellectual property communities at large. Sure, there’s the rebellious organization or person to stand up (and to sometimes take one for the “team”) but by and large, I see and experience first hand a lot passive leecher behavior and not a lot of active participant (seeder) behavior. Shouldn’t we be lined up in front of Shell Oil and Warner Brothers, throwing rotten tomatoes and declaring, “I’m not buying your shit anymore until you wise up!” Shouldn’t we support our right to information? Shouldn’t we do everything we can to set up guerrila operations, that move swiftly and silently in the night, swapping IPs, locating to new countries at a whim, and multiplying in numbers so large that the idiots finally give up through the sheer force of attrition?

Yeah, right."

(See the Wall of Shame.)

Underrated Torture Device

2008-05-15T20:22:56Z

First, I want to thank a lost hero (confliction) for reading along and encouraging me to post this here. This is my first. I hope you all enjoy it.

The advent of Jesus Christ has catapulted the act of crucifixion into the public view.

Even though the dogma states that the Christian god is trifurcated into Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the cross has endured.

Even though it is the Piscean fish which identifies the Christian Age, and is the hallmark of membership, the cross is overwhelmingly preferred as the symbol of christianity.

Bill Hicks wants to ask you a question: "Do you think, when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a fucking cross?"

Is it me, or is the adoption of the cross a mis-placement of reverence, a diversionary tactic, a fixation on cruelty, a statement that the endurance of pain and injustice is the heart of benevolence, a belief that simple torture constitutes and conveys the height of human drama?

I have heard that the Pagans and Heathens of Europe, like many and most ancient cultures, revered the cross as the symbol of the 4 winds, the Cardinal directions, and the 4 elements. Consequently, it was very easy to get them to accept the cross as a religious symbol, and hence carry out a parody of conversion that helped the Christian Empire to get a foothold in barbaric cultures. I have heard that.

But this is the modern era. Do you know what I see when I see a cross? I see crosshairs. I see a target. And I think this rather dovetails with the significance of the Christian cross. Perpendicular lines highlight intersection. That one point, where lines cross. Where world meets God. That one point where the miracle happens, where Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and you come together as one. The rapture. This is a masculine symbol, this is a war-like symbol. This is a type-A, pull the trigger, you are with us or against us symbol. It divides the universe into quarters, and makes hypocrites of innocent children, living for a judgement and a miracle moment that will never come.

Let's pause for a moment, while I wipe the foam away from my mouth, and just step back.

I've been looking around, and there are plenty of alternate theories about the shape of the cross upon which Jesus died. In a lot of old depictions, there is no "head" on the cross, and looks just like the letter T. Others claim that it was a simple stake, or even a living tree. Unfortunately, while its obvious that the adoption of a "4-points" cross had great cultural utility, there isn't a ton of evidence to really specify one way or another. The original words in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic are open to interpretation, and nowhere can anyone find a passage that just simply spells out exactly what sort of cross Jesus died on. But, in my wisdom, I am able to cull from the available evidence one or two inescapable facts. I invite you to confirm with painstaking research the following proposition:

Early Christians were not too concerned about describing the cross upon which Jesus died in great detail. It wasn't seen as an overly important subject to be specific about. Why? Because the shape of the cross was never important until it became used as a symbol of Christianity, long after those who might have known could have commented on it.

So, all I'm suggesting is that Christians continue with an existing tradition, and adopt a depiction of the cross that's going to bring more people into the fold. People are tired of crosses, its been done to death. Nobody cares about your 4 winds or the center of the universe. Let's breathe new life into this religion, revitalize it with a re-imagined cross.

I am officially endorsing the "T" symbol. Firstly, there is historical precedent for using it, so there is "retro" appeal. It retains the basic character of the cross. In mathematician's terms, it could be described as "like a cross, but with that thingy at the top gone." And besides, the cross was always been a letter "t" anyway. I just think its time for Christianity to graduate to the Upper Case. And its so much more appropriate!

T for Trinity
T for Theocracy
T for Ten Thou shalt nots
T for The, as in The Good Book, The one True religion

We don't need that annoying little headpiece anymore! Its lazy! Its useless! Did they nail Jesus's head to it? No, they didn't. Its excessive and redundant, a waste of good wood. Can we please clean this thing up? Can we do a little proofreading before we just throw it out there? Capitalize the god-damn T!

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. So once again, lets wipe, and step back.

Drum roll, please.

Every once in a great while, it is my honor and privilege to welcome here, to the bridge of death, some of the most famous international torture devices of our time. This apparatus coming up is one such device. Its a device that I admire more completely, more sincerely, perhaps even more amusingly than anyone before me. Its a device whose hinges and bolts I would gladly keep well oiled, whose beams and cross-pieces I would gladly sand, varnish, scour, and re-varnish after only a small nap or energy drink. This is an instrument, well, not just an instrument, a GOD in and of itself, that is so superb, so malicious, so callous and uncaring in its unbridled evocation of torment, that my feeble words of praise are wretched and diminutive by contrast. Dear Readers, I present to you, On the Bridge of Death, the incomparable, the stupendous, Wheel.

But, lets not re-invent it.

Its more or less a large wagon wheel, that is mounted on a pole, and revolves quite pleasingly when you apply an enthusiastic push. Its called a breaking wheel, because you break people on it, much like the Wheel of Time novels by Robert Jordan. You string someone up on the face of the wheel, and what you do is you grab your #2 iron hammer, and you give every limb a good whack just as it stretches in between the spokes of your Breaking Wheel. Thence you arrest the broken, splintered limb in question and you braid it, you see, you just weave it in there in between the spokes of the wheel. You do this to all the limbs, and mount the Messiah on this wheel. What this does is reduce your Messiah or Son of God into a pitiful wreck of ruptured meat and shards of bone, convulsing from shock as the force of gravity pulls each individual nerve ending in turn, while the circle playfully revolves amidst the laughter of Roman soldiers, hooligans and the like. Then you prop up the wheel into the air on a large axle, and let it turn in the wind while carrion crows descend, uttering cries of obscene delectation.

Saint Catherine of Alexandria was famously sentenced to breaking on the wheel for the crime of converting anyone who had any sort of contact with her. But, when she touched the wheel, it spontaneously broke. Wanna know why? Because God can't have you one-upping Christ. Because Jesus's death on the Cross would be pretty pathetic when compared to that on the Wheel. Passion of the Christ?! Pfft. That was just puppy love.

People died on this thing. And sometimes, and I'll admit this is just an educated guess here, those people were dying from a crime and a sin that they did not commit. Sometimes, these people were framed! That's right, persecuted and executed for someone else's sins. Its really not that unusual. Happens all the time. And those people did not need any help from Jesus on this one. They had that "dying for other people's sins" thing DOWN.

What sort of a world would this be, if Jesus had died on the Wheel? Would all the Christians be wearing circles around their necks? Would people be gazing up at Church, to contemplate the mystery of the circle?

And hey! The circle is a really ancient symbol, isn't it! It represents femininity, and infinity, and continuity, and renewable resources. What sort of culture would we have, if just that one thing, that one symbol were different?

And, like the cross, it's also a letter! You can't even tell what case it is, its that amazing! Its the letter "O"

O for OMG!
O for O say, can you see how painful my death is?
O for Oligarchy
O for Ophidiaphobia
O for Oracle
O for Orgasm

re-reading Nietzsche...

2008-05-14T16:35:27Z

" 'Freedom of Will' -- that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order -- who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his own will that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful "underwills" or under-souls--indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls--to his feelings of delight as commander."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

It seems to me that here, Nietzsche is saying: our sense of identity--of one, executive mind which is in control of our many mental and body processes--is an illusion, and furthermore, that this illusion comes about (we bring it about) because of our inherent "will to power" as living beings: that is, our desire to command/dominate and act as "master" of the forces that make up our body and mind.

In view of 20th century French structuralism, as well as our modern understanding of conceptual psychology, this seems like a prescient statement, even if it can be disputed.

My question is, where does that final will to command/dominate, the ultimate "Will to Power" that N. speaks of, come from? If the will is an illusion in the first place, what about this "underlying" force as well?

Thoughts?

Christianity

2008-05-12T02:15:32Z

Christianity is odd in that it is a trinitary system (father, son, and holy spirit), yet it functions in the dualistic sense of humans juxtaposed to some Stronger Other.

As far as numerology is concerned, we know that a trinity is much stronger than some mere dualism.

Where exactly do the Christians get their notions of some all-encompassing, omnipotent, omnipresent creator that's imbued so narrowly with human Laws and Characteristics? This is how far they have strayed from their savor of Jesus, because I know well he would never talk of the Avatar of Love that he spoke of as a "Father" as being what we call this "God" to be.

As Nietzsche stated well, "The last true Christian died on the cross." From hence on, mostly we have degenerated whatever this character of Jesus was into dogma. That we have him, sitting in our rooms, crucified as the martyr he was, and are so oblivious to what he did truly means--that we cannot realize he was a revolutionary of his time, likely called mad for his openness and gentle repose, and was thus killed like John Lennon or JFK--for all suits and purposes, he would come back as anything but that loveful avatar he pervaded.

In fact, it is Hitler who presents the idea that Paul of Tarsus--that hater of the Jew and Christian alike, who so suddenly had his "revelation" and change to a Christian--in fact relegated Jesus to what is the contemporary notion of celebrity, all in the name of Greed and Power. In this sense, we can see where the degeneration of whatever Jesus was began--and we see where its current roots gained stead.

For our Jesus, what is he other than a pacifying figure which keeps us ignorant and weak, pious and docile to the avarice, hatred, and idiocy which pervade our country. What is He become other than the Big Brother of America, the face we all stare at and which comforts us in our supreme weakness and obligatory bowance to the modern day Paul of Tarsus that America has become?

Where do the Catholics get their hatred of homosexuals and blacks, other than from their own biasing of their apparent holy book?

Where did the Crusades emerge, other than out of the War-God of Yahweh inside the Christian "Father"? Where did it emerge other than from ignorance and bias, calling and pushing along these weak monkeys fighting other monkeys?

Where is the world at where it's at right now, other than at weakness, pithyness, piousness, and the falling away from what was truly Human?

What has monotheism given to the world other than an age of martyrs which has swallowed up the true antiquitized honey of the human species?

America is an estranged place, some weak carpentried homage of Rome. The Romans stole the crowning achievements of the Greeks, and took over their land, degenerating the Greeks beyond repair; and as this is true, we took what the Romans and Europeans were, and carried it idiotically with us, despite our calls away from tyranny: this dominator culture, which assimilates, and destroys that which will not assimilate, in the name of its viralic herd collective.

We have been ignorant, and unaware for too long: bred and created to bow down to lines, and to walk on these tight-ropes with the most dim-witted repose of monochroma. We are truly sick, and this is the current human condition. Our ignorance has yielded a neon-lit amusement park full to the brims of alcohole people, emptiness, and hatred. Spirituality lays dead, somewhere in America, with a police officer handcuffing it to a cross, as its third eye bellows dark black nigritudes of death. . .It rests in your hands, the future, the possibilities, the choices. It starts now, when you decide to Open Yourself and see past the lies, and stop feeding this atrocious system bred to take all your Heart and Passion and Brains and hit them futively against the dead plant cells of paper.

It starts in realizing that America does not have to be what it is, and it could in fact be anything its people decide. That is, if its people actually decided to have a say in its government any longer, if they actually decided to think past handed-to-them-lines. . .Do you see your hand now, and its cells, and the wholesome entity that is you, this synchronicity machine, fasted together by smaller organisms, with universes in universes? Do you see how well it functions as an extension of the lovely Earth, and how dastardly and idiotic we as a collective do not? Let the Peace intent in you be the example you shine upon the whole world. We must become, or perhaps it is far, far too late. . .

1=0.999(9)

2008-05-10T21:31:53Z

I was looking up new concepts on infinity and found this old blog : http://broodsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/06/26/comprehending-10999/ from 2006. I thought it was a fun read. I was wondering if there are any new ideas on this concept since 2006? Also, does this idea mean that nothing is truly one and nothing is truly infinate within itself, or/and that based on perspective anything can be defined as one and/or infinate? I know this is probably a stupid question, but it is a question that just popped in my mind and I haven't given it a great deal of thought yet.

Our thoughts, what are they? Are they us?

2008-05-09T21:53:36Z

Talked to my psychiatrist today about Mindfulness, we are not our thoughts, she said as she read me a paragraph off a sheet of paper she printed for me. I go to her to deal with my "Generalized Anxiety Disorder".
Very odd since I was just reading the same theme in the book "New Earth".

We are not our thoughts...what a strange concept. I have to say it bewilders me a bit though.
If we are not our thoughts, that means there is constant state of being that is essentially us.
What is that person though? I have always just listened to what my thoughts were telling me, nagging me, and destroying me and figured it was me...but we are not our thoughts?

Does anyone have any insight on this concept that you would like to share with me?

I am trying to come to terms with this, it truly does give me hope to realize I can change my thoughts because they are not the whole me.

I love coming to a realization like this, yet I am still a bit confused about what thoughts are if they are not the complete us...Maybe for people who have "disorders", their thoughts can be skewed which is why this is so important to understand?

What do you guys think? Oh and hi, I am new.

Attentive Gravity

2008-05-07T22:16:08Z

In Response To This Entry
What is it about subconscious connection that can be scientifically analyzed?

The statistically-known but theoretically-unexplained relationship between identical twins, mother and infant, husband and wife.

The subconscious link is a fluid relationship between bodies, existing beneath physical awareness.
But must that keep it beyond the grasp of observational science?

What devices or technologies could feasibly be used to measure and observe the subtle energies of consciousness?

Over 150 years ago, the crude measurement of neuronal activation frequencies, the first electroencephalograms, showed us that the brain regions influence one-another's frequency and that the average of this interaction, the mean brainwave frequency, relates to consciousness, suggesting levels or "depth." But the reach of science into these subtle energies which carry our awareness has extended very little past that unrefined point since then. These separate brain regions, and their frequencies, have not been individually examined. That is to say, the conscious mind exists on many levels, or creates and is subject to many "currents" in fluid consciousness, simultaneously. One primitive region of the mind, then, is frequented constantly beneath physical awareness. This portion of our mind, it could be said, is felt outside of the head, beneath the sensory organs. The "gut" feeling, the quivering emotions of the heart, and the sensation of soul, are all terms used to describe this more basic influence on us and our decisions. These sensations do travel, and are not limited to our bodies, but rather exist sensing and agitating within a greater energetic ambience we merely float within. Fluid medium to the conscious energy and perceived emotions of socialization, it is the calm or intensity of a room.

Subtle energy is expressed as radiance or ripples outward from a being. It is classically believed that the radiance of higher consciousness actually transcends the observational limits of the subconscious and is physically visible in the area surrounding the eyes and face. The perceived consciousness difference of the highly intelligent, or "bright; that which they are born to live and experience with is evidenced by the visible radiance of their eyes. It is assumed, when these bright-eyed individuals attain a theta brainwave state, that state attained and held in the highest level of transcendent meditation, that this visible indicator of a consciousness level's height, the eyes, may brighten to a magnitude traditionally expressed as a halo.

Of the multiple intelligences, self-awareness or intrapersonal intelligence exists inwardly and has been more difficult to test than Gardner's others, which are more representative of physical interaction. But Spearman's general intelligence, g, applies to all of them, and so the intelligent person will always be born with a natural talent for introspection and meditation, but may never be inclined to develop it. This inclination is decided mostly by culture, the Western culture having little purpose or reverence for traditional self-analysis techniques (Christians don't meditate anymore. Jesus, however, was a big fan!) So the root of "Ahm" in "Amen" was lost to the petty boundary fights and dogmatic bitterness. As pretty as it has come to be sung, it's original transcendent purpose is long lost.

Attaining Greater Social Alignment

Meditative resonance, and the gravity of its attentive mass, draws surrounding awareness inwards subconsciously. In group settings, this could be called social alignment or, rather, the extending outwards of one's influence over the subtle social energies of consciousness. Any experienced psychonaut will affirm that in the heightened state, coincidence occurs more often and with greater intensity. Graphically, this is the shared social present, the gravitational tug which aligns all surrounding moments inward, to coincide at a single point of attention. This linear relationship can be observed manifested most simply in groups of individuals walking from different directions. The likelihood of collision increases, and many people must suddenly change their course last minute, or stop walking, to avoid colliding with the attentive. Many of the occurring coincidences surrounding attention, however, are not as direct or immediately observable as this blatant physical occurrence. Many of the more subtle mechanical, spiritual, and physical abnormalities surrounding the heightened attentive state can only been described in terms of attentive gravity.