Sorry for every one that this could offense... This is purely artistic, don´t think anything else about it, there is nothing else behind it. Even if I wrote that this blog was for family and friends, it' s not true. Every thing on this blog is for random persons in the world that think what I have to say is worth reading. Its also for me to have a place to show one side of me... Im sorry, I forgpt to tell you I have an artistic side the last time I didn't want to talk to you. I can't even let the extra cafeine at 3h00 speak, people are asking me if Im depress... Sorry for this mad start to a good post, but some fuckers told me I should take this post out off my blog. How about not talking and just appreciate?
Lights on, open the door. It´s showtime, once again. Everybody is already eating, drinking, laughing, forgetting they´re just human beings. We take a few steps, slow, slow, slowly, just like in those scary movie. Because, you´re right, I´m damn scared, nobody yet has seen that part of me. Now you´re here, everybody can see. We sit down, look up, everybodies faces down, we celebrate, glass up. You might become invisible, hopefully.
Slow, slow, slowly, I start eating, drinking, forgetting that you´re laughing, because I´m just being. Without me you wouldn´t be here. Everytime I look at ourselves in the mirror, I make Satan look pretty. You´re the one they call the monster, contaminating me. Fuck! We talked too loud. Fuck! They´re looking at you, us, me now. Don´t move, they´ll forget, we´ll be part of the crowd. But they´ve never seen something that ugly. Think, Think. Slow, slow, slowly. I put my glass up, make a toast to the douche bags. A good reason to drink the whole bottle, slow, slow, quickly. Now I´m drunk, forgetting, and my monster is leaving. Now I´m like all of them, slow, slow, stupidity. Now the girls are coming. One, five, too many. Now the whole facebook is adding. Jocks, bimbos, your granny? So that´s what they wanted, simplicity? Without the monster, they can´t know me. I rather be nobody then somebody with just a body. I know, he´s killing me and my chance to be happy. But without him, I refuse to be… Sadly.
So I throw my glass in the face of happiness right in front of me. Lights off, close the door. Shows over, finally. I hope they understand that I really understand that they´ll never understand me. Can´t wait to be swimming in my dreams, where we can finally be one, unity. So I fall asleep, slow, slow, happy. Hopefully leaving the world for a bit, infinity.
jueves, 24 de febrero de 2011
martes, 22 de febrero de 2011
domingo, 20 de febrero de 2011
The opinion on... Science vs Religion
This is a subject that I've been thinking about since reading ZAMM. And if you've ever read the book, and you think the two ideas sound similars, you would be completely right, but before you call me an intellectual robber, let me call myself someone that's easily inspired.
Let's start off with an atheist argument. I am not personally an active catholic, but this is not because I don't like God, it's the traditions behind it I don't like. The biggest atheist argument is that we don't have any evidence of God. Nobody has ever seen him, touched him or heard him,therefore why should we believe in it. People don't refuse all the good morals behind religion, what they hate is having to blindfully accept something (God), for the whole ''myth'' to make sense. Some people are even going as far as saying that we don't need God in our lives.
Therefore, if we don't have an evidence that he exists and we don't need him, why was he created?
All the gods in our world were created for the same reason, giving us a blanket to wrap around ourselves to make us feel confortable in an unexplanable world, to naïvely not make us feel so stupid. When they couldn't explain the weather, they founded a god, when they couldn't explain evil, they founded a god, it was their way of making themselves not feel so lost. That's the reason why I think people are rejecting more and more religion, because they feel too naïve. When we ask a lot of questions about religion, we find out that there's a huge void in the begging of it, a lot of unanswerable questions. And in a world where everything needs to be described and exokained, having such an empty postulate to beggin the doctrine is unacceptable, it's just plain naïve. And when; on the other side, we have science where everything is so well described and explained, picking religion over science is just an uneducated decision, right?
Right?
Air seal tight explenations over an empty doctrine, right?
Right?
Not really. Science; and that's really hard to believe, also has its empty postulates that we blind-fully have to accept for science to make sense. Something like a god that we just have to accept without the proof of experience. And I know you guys are laughing in my face, but that's because scientists with their big glasses and funky hair; talking about the ''truth'' and calling their theories ''laws'' have been able to hide to the eyes of the public those unexplainable postulates.
(The next example has been stolen from the mind of the author of ZAMM, Mr.Pirsig)
Do ghosts exists? Knowing that we don't have any rock solid proofs, should we accept them? No. Clearly no. Accepting ghosts is rejecting the most basic law of physics saying that ''everything is matter or energy''. And ghosts are neither of them, therefore it's unacceptable to say that they exist....But then again... But then again; that basic law of physic is neither matter or energy, therefore it doesn't exist.What? Therefore our whole world is nothing? Well that sucks. That law of physics, that basic law of physics that has never been questioned; in part because it's called a law, is unexplainable by the proof of experience. It is impossible to prove that everything that exists is matter or energy, just like it's impossible to prove that God exists. However, after we blind-fully accept one of them, then our whole world is rationally explainable.
Catch my drift?
Let's talk about another example of an explanation of something that completely made sense, but when somebody changed the postulate that starts every thing, we discover a new truth, and that one is also right. So here we go for the concrete example that you guys are waiting for.
It's the example of the euclidean geometry. That geometry is the one we learn in school since 5th grade, and one of the postulates of euclidean geometry is this... If there's a straight line and a point, which is not on that line, the only line tht will go through that point and never touch the other line is the line prralel to the first one.
Here's a drawing for my visuals.
However, this postulate cannot be proved by mathematics, it proves mathematics. So now let's see what happens when somebody simply changes the postulate to see what will happen.
Some mathematicians decided to say that if the line going through the point is curving inward, there's an infinite amount of line that touches the first line, and if it's curving outward, it will never touch the line.
Well that doesn't make sense, you would say? Well actually, this makes complete sense. How do I know. Well that's the geometry we use now in boats and planes and space ships. It's the geometry of curved enviroment. It's the geometry that tells us that the shortest line between the philipine islands and cuba is no a straight line, the planes are actually going up to Alaska.
Doesn't this reminds you of something? Religion made conplete sense; but then somebody changed the postulate, or the starting point from ''there's a God'' to ''everything is matter or energy'' and they discovered a whole bunch of new truths.
So now the question is, what kind of geometry is the right one? Euclidean or non-euclidean? The answer is, it's a stupid question to ask. We cannot find wich one is right which one is wrong because even though they judge the same reality (geometry) they cannot be compared. Truth is, we use both geometry in their own ways. Using non-euclidean geometry on a flat surface and using euclidean on a curved one is a recipe for disaster.
Now I want you to think about everything I just said about geometry, but this time, about Religion and Science. Which one is right, which one is wrong? Neither of them. Once again, even though they judge the same reality, they are not based on the same postulate, therefore they are not inter-changeable. And once again, we should use both doctrines in there own rights, and not try to find which one is ''the good one''.
Let's talk about that now. Why do you think we've never been able to prove one right? Well there is two things lacking before finding an ultimate truth. First, proving by experience either of the postulates. Either proving that God exists or every postulates in every kind of science. The other thing we would need to do after is proving one doctrine right by the use of the other one. Prove with science that God exists or find God and ask him his opinion on science.
I don't personally think that this is ever going to happen, but for every good argument, you need an equally good counter argument.
Now I hear everyone asking a question with a timid voice of a kid asking and being scared that the teacher rejects it, saying it's a stupid question. The question you're all asking yourself is, ''why does my world makes complete sense explained by science, if it's based on empty starting points?''.
Well, let's put it like this, the earth was flat until we asked ourselves more questions. The theory that the earth was flat was invented by people that never even thought they would have to answer questions like gravity and explaining the stars in the sky. A theory only makes sense for the things that could have been imagined by the people that created it, and once we'll discover stuff that we never even imagined possible, we'll have to invent new ''laws'' that are unprovable. And the kids that will be born in a generation where that new science is ''the truth'', they'll talk about us like naive idiots that never looked further then the end of their noses. Just like what we're saying right now about religion.
And once again, you guys are asking for concrete examples. An example of ''the next truth''. Here we go.
String theory: There's one big problem right now in physics. The problem of the uniting of the forces. Even though it sounds like a star wars movie title, it's a very serious problem. Uniting gravity with electro-magnetism and strong/weak nuclear force. You don't need to understand the whole science behind it to understand the point, so forget the details and listen to what I'm saying. Uniting those forces is impossible using the ''laws'' of physics, we've been working on it for a long time, and scientists are starting to believe less andless that the solution is at the ''branches'' and more and more that it's at the ''roots'', we need a fundamental change. So what is that fundamental change? It's saying that the world is made out of little vibrating strings.
What? What the fuck? That doesn't make any sense.
Ironic no? That's what religion said about science, but look what's getting taught in schools now.
But there's a problem with that. The postulate. Even if our world make complete sense with the string theory, so said we accepted that the world is made out of little invisible vibrating strings?
Well... Why not? We can't prove it wrong.
Yeah....But we can't prove it right either
What happen is the ''laws'' of physics were not created knowing that they would have to unite all the forces in one big force. Newton never talked to Bohr, neither to Ohm, and Einstein wasn't even born when all those theories were accepted as the truth. They never imagined that anyone would be curious enouh to ask those questions. Once again, does it ring a bell?
Having a complete truth but then somebody arrives with a different idea tht is impossible to prove right or wring, however that idea can explain more of our world then the old one, so we slowly accept it until it's unquestionable that this idea is the truth and we start making more and more fun of the millions and millions of people that based their life for millions of years on that theory. All of that just because people with great power, I would call them ''dictators of the miind'', blindfully accepted that truth and put it in our schools, in our books and in our heads.
We have to understand that we're not in the ''siecle des lumieres'' anymore and the hope we have about science is not so strong anymore, just like what happened with religion a few hundred years ago. I feel like we've been through this moment of uncertainness once already, and we'll go through it as long as there's curious people asking questions and discovering stuff that has never been imagined by the people that invented those theories. It's time to understand that even though we don't like it, everything we have around us is explanations we gave to our world, a blanket to cover our eyes from the scary reality surrounding us.
Let's start off with an atheist argument. I am not personally an active catholic, but this is not because I don't like God, it's the traditions behind it I don't like. The biggest atheist argument is that we don't have any evidence of God. Nobody has ever seen him, touched him or heard him,therefore why should we believe in it. People don't refuse all the good morals behind religion, what they hate is having to blindfully accept something (God), for the whole ''myth'' to make sense. Some people are even going as far as saying that we don't need God in our lives.
Therefore, if we don't have an evidence that he exists and we don't need him, why was he created?
All the gods in our world were created for the same reason, giving us a blanket to wrap around ourselves to make us feel confortable in an unexplanable world, to naïvely not make us feel so stupid. When they couldn't explain the weather, they founded a god, when they couldn't explain evil, they founded a god, it was their way of making themselves not feel so lost. That's the reason why I think people are rejecting more and more religion, because they feel too naïve. When we ask a lot of questions about religion, we find out that there's a huge void in the begging of it, a lot of unanswerable questions. And in a world where everything needs to be described and exokained, having such an empty postulate to beggin the doctrine is unacceptable, it's just plain naïve. And when; on the other side, we have science where everything is so well described and explained, picking religion over science is just an uneducated decision, right?
Right?
Air seal tight explenations over an empty doctrine, right?
Right?
Not really. Science; and that's really hard to believe, also has its empty postulates that we blind-fully have to accept for science to make sense. Something like a god that we just have to accept without the proof of experience. And I know you guys are laughing in my face, but that's because scientists with their big glasses and funky hair; talking about the ''truth'' and calling their theories ''laws'' have been able to hide to the eyes of the public those unexplainable postulates.
(The next example has been stolen from the mind of the author of ZAMM, Mr.Pirsig)
Do ghosts exists? Knowing that we don't have any rock solid proofs, should we accept them? No. Clearly no. Accepting ghosts is rejecting the most basic law of physics saying that ''everything is matter or energy''. And ghosts are neither of them, therefore it's unacceptable to say that they exist....But then again... But then again; that basic law of physic is neither matter or energy, therefore it doesn't exist.What? Therefore our whole world is nothing? Well that sucks. That law of physics, that basic law of physics that has never been questioned; in part because it's called a law, is unexplainable by the proof of experience. It is impossible to prove that everything that exists is matter or energy, just like it's impossible to prove that God exists. However, after we blind-fully accept one of them, then our whole world is rationally explainable.
Catch my drift?
Let's talk about another example of an explanation of something that completely made sense, but when somebody changed the postulate that starts every thing, we discover a new truth, and that one is also right. So here we go for the concrete example that you guys are waiting for.
It's the example of the euclidean geometry. That geometry is the one we learn in school since 5th grade, and one of the postulates of euclidean geometry is this... If there's a straight line and a point, which is not on that line, the only line tht will go through that point and never touch the other line is the line prralel to the first one.
Here's a drawing for my visuals.
However, this postulate cannot be proved by mathematics, it proves mathematics. So now let's see what happens when somebody simply changes the postulate to see what will happen.
Some mathematicians decided to say that if the line going through the point is curving inward, there's an infinite amount of line that touches the first line, and if it's curving outward, it will never touch the line.
Well that doesn't make sense, you would say? Well actually, this makes complete sense. How do I know. Well that's the geometry we use now in boats and planes and space ships. It's the geometry of curved enviroment. It's the geometry that tells us that the shortest line between the philipine islands and cuba is no a straight line, the planes are actually going up to Alaska.
Doesn't this reminds you of something? Religion made conplete sense; but then somebody changed the postulate, or the starting point from ''there's a God'' to ''everything is matter or energy'' and they discovered a whole bunch of new truths.
So now the question is, what kind of geometry is the right one? Euclidean or non-euclidean? The answer is, it's a stupid question to ask. We cannot find wich one is right which one is wrong because even though they judge the same reality (geometry) they cannot be compared. Truth is, we use both geometry in their own ways. Using non-euclidean geometry on a flat surface and using euclidean on a curved one is a recipe for disaster.
Now I want you to think about everything I just said about geometry, but this time, about Religion and Science. Which one is right, which one is wrong? Neither of them. Once again, even though they judge the same reality, they are not based on the same postulate, therefore they are not inter-changeable. And once again, we should use both doctrines in there own rights, and not try to find which one is ''the good one''.
Let's talk about that now. Why do you think we've never been able to prove one right? Well there is two things lacking before finding an ultimate truth. First, proving by experience either of the postulates. Either proving that God exists or every postulates in every kind of science. The other thing we would need to do after is proving one doctrine right by the use of the other one. Prove with science that God exists or find God and ask him his opinion on science.
I don't personally think that this is ever going to happen, but for every good argument, you need an equally good counter argument.
Now I hear everyone asking a question with a timid voice of a kid asking and being scared that the teacher rejects it, saying it's a stupid question. The question you're all asking yourself is, ''why does my world makes complete sense explained by science, if it's based on empty starting points?''.
Well, let's put it like this, the earth was flat until we asked ourselves more questions. The theory that the earth was flat was invented by people that never even thought they would have to answer questions like gravity and explaining the stars in the sky. A theory only makes sense for the things that could have been imagined by the people that created it, and once we'll discover stuff that we never even imagined possible, we'll have to invent new ''laws'' that are unprovable. And the kids that will be born in a generation where that new science is ''the truth'', they'll talk about us like naive idiots that never looked further then the end of their noses. Just like what we're saying right now about religion.
And once again, you guys are asking for concrete examples. An example of ''the next truth''. Here we go.
String theory: There's one big problem right now in physics. The problem of the uniting of the forces. Even though it sounds like a star wars movie title, it's a very serious problem. Uniting gravity with electro-magnetism and strong/weak nuclear force. You don't need to understand the whole science behind it to understand the point, so forget the details and listen to what I'm saying. Uniting those forces is impossible using the ''laws'' of physics, we've been working on it for a long time, and scientists are starting to believe less andless that the solution is at the ''branches'' and more and more that it's at the ''roots'', we need a fundamental change. So what is that fundamental change? It's saying that the world is made out of little vibrating strings.
What? What the fuck? That doesn't make any sense.
Ironic no? That's what religion said about science, but look what's getting taught in schools now.
But there's a problem with that. The postulate. Even if our world make complete sense with the string theory, so said we accepted that the world is made out of little invisible vibrating strings?
Well... Why not? We can't prove it wrong.
Yeah....But we can't prove it right either
What happen is the ''laws'' of physics were not created knowing that they would have to unite all the forces in one big force. Newton never talked to Bohr, neither to Ohm, and Einstein wasn't even born when all those theories were accepted as the truth. They never imagined that anyone would be curious enouh to ask those questions. Once again, does it ring a bell?
Having a complete truth but then somebody arrives with a different idea tht is impossible to prove right or wring, however that idea can explain more of our world then the old one, so we slowly accept it until it's unquestionable that this idea is the truth and we start making more and more fun of the millions and millions of people that based their life for millions of years on that theory. All of that just because people with great power, I would call them ''dictators of the miind'', blindfully accepted that truth and put it in our schools, in our books and in our heads.
We have to understand that we're not in the ''siecle des lumieres'' anymore and the hope we have about science is not so strong anymore, just like what happened with religion a few hundred years ago. I feel like we've been through this moment of uncertainness once already, and we'll go through it as long as there's curious people asking questions and discovering stuff that has never been imagined by the people that invented those theories. It's time to understand that even though we don't like it, everything we have around us is explanations we gave to our world, a blanket to cover our eyes from the scary reality surrounding us.
miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2011
viernes, 11 de febrero de 2011
miércoles, 9 de febrero de 2011
martes, 8 de febrero de 2011
jueves, 3 de febrero de 2011
Tueur sans gages (killer without a point)
The story
Let's do this short and sweat. Bérenger, main character, visits a neighborhood wich is supposed to be perfect. He hears a murder, talks about it with the architect of the neighborhood. He says it's really normal, but Bérenger is convinced he can find the murderer and save the neighborhood. The next few scenes really don't make sense. When you take them scene by scene, they don't make sense, the connexions between each other don't make sense either, however, the big picture makes a bit of sense. The only other scene that makes sense is Bérenger's monologue with the murderer (yes I said monologue with someone, but the murderer's only action is laughing, and even that he doesn't do a lot of it so...). That monologue is at the end and probably the best part of the book.
Metaphor behind the book
Love/passion
The main character in the book, Bérenger, is an over-the-top passionated person. He falls in love with every thing and every one he sees. That's one big problem in our reality, and a critique from Ionesco that I really enjoyed in the book, more love you give, less precious it becomes. For those like Bérenger, love doesn't mean anything anymore, the poetry behind it, or in the words of Robert Pirsig (Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenace), the Quality behind it is gone. It's a perfect critique of our generation, a generation that doesn't get amazed anymore, because we've seen everything, and we just simply can't fall in love. I've always been a hater of love (I think it's an over-rated and superficial feeling, that we accept as the good one because it's always been ''the good one'', I prefer being comfortable with someone; but that's for an other post), but in the case of falling in love with moments, not persons or objects, Ionesco's critique is, in my opinion, an almost perfect one. Let's compare his critique with a rollercoaster. What gives us a rush in a rollercoaster is not being high in the air, it's going up and down. The rollercoaster of life would not be fun if it would be doing a straight line at a 1000m in the air, we want the rollercoaster to go up and down, left and right. Same thing with passion, if we're passionate about everything we see, then we're not passionate about everything. It's just like the economy, if everything is worth a lot, then there's a crash and nothing is worth anything any more.
The hard thing about that is that we're not programmed to tell ourselves ''let's be depressed, so I can be more happy'' (it's so weird to say, I had problem structuring my sentence :P). So the solution to that is, let's not force oursleves to be happy. When we're sad, let's be fuckin sad. Sadness is still a passionate feeling, as muh as love. Let's actually not ask ourselves why we`re not happy, or why we're happy, let's just not think about it. Maybe if we don't think about it so much, we'll go back to a childish mentality (it's a good thing in this case), we'll be impressed by rainbows, cats with funny looking eyes, and your grand father's mustache. And we'll keep on being amazed by those things because we wont ask ourselves why those ''stupid'' and ''superficial'' things are amazing to us. Maybe in this case, and in a lot of ones, thinking is something that makes us un-happy.
Irrationality vs. rationality
That's the part of the book I liked the most. The fight between rationality and irrationality. So let's describe it as a fight. 1st round. Ding-Ding. Bérenger represents rationality in the book, and everybody else; irrationality. That's the first thing I like about this fight. The 2 sides are proportinally represented. Rationality only has one; because there's only one truth, one reason. Irrationality has everything else, because everything makes sense in irrationality. That's what happen when you just accept things for what they are and you don't look for a reason, everything makes sense, everything just is. End of 1st round, 1-0 irrationality. 2nd round. In ther book, Bérenger, is the only one that is anxious. He worries... a lot. Always looking around, under tables, in napkins, looking for a truth, or even worst, the truth. The others just live, not worrying, not wondering why they're happy, why there not. They live like animals. And I say that as a compliment, because in a ''human vs. the other kind of living things'' comparasion, the second team has a way lower rate of suicide, of depression, alcoholism or drug addictions. It's and obvious fact that the simplest living beings, are the happiest ones. That's the reason why the people that really, but I mean really looked for a truth all their lives, end up being religious or addicted to something, because the end noticing that the truth, is an invention of the human race, to give us a purpose, a different role in this world. But in that sense, we're not different at all. End of round 2. 2-0 irrationality. Last round. The sex appeal of the two sides. This is an important round, because this is the difference between, this theory behing acceptable, and simply, utopicly stupid. Irrationality is not for everyone and every situation. Irrationality is for the people that spended their whole lives looking for rationality and for the situation of more fundamental questions. If ever I ask someone why is the sky blue and they respond to me, ''that's just how it is man, chill out, just live your life'', I will be the first one to punch them, because for 95 percent of the questions ask everyday, there's a rational and simple answer. Living in irrationality, is not iving at all. But I think that for the people asking themsleves bigger philosophical questions, maybe irrationality is a better way to go. Tie round, 2.5-0.5 irrationality.
Conclusion
This book, is ironicaly the subject of the book (irrationality), it's not for everyone. Actually I don't think it's for anyone. I would reccomend the actual play, but let's say that the book is like a Wii, we like it when our friends have it, but having it yourslef is not that cool.
martes, 1 de febrero de 2011
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)