The following has been archived from my abandoned blog on MySpace.com:
------------------------
June 4, 2006
------------------------
Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice
I'm pretty down on a lot of things, and primarily for the same reason. One of the credos of this very country is Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and then I'm reminded of George Carlin's note about the NIMBY principle ("Not In My Backyard"). Then I take a look at the supposedly all-inclusive exploits of Christianity in all its various forms and fashions, and see an entire religion built on elitism, too. You would think that even the innocence of youth would be immune from such things, but even that is infested with the elitist extreme; children can certainly be cruel as we all know. Is this brutality of youth really just an allegory for unbridled truth? Is it the truth that is brutal, or is it the kids? I think it's because this idea of maturity is a fallacy created to once again draw lines and create an elitist point of view.
Let's go back to the tired and hungry line. In theory, this country is supposed to be tolerant and inclusive of all types of people. But we all know this is bullshit. Inclusion is the lie on the lips of everyone selling something in the name of democracy, freedom, capitalism, and the USA. Freedom is an apparition sought only by those who aren't in the club. Democracy is the urban legend whispered to children in promises of a good future. The central government destroyed the idea of inclusion when they created parties and lobbyism. Those ideas destroy unity, and ever sever the ties between the masses. It divides people, and says aloud that "you are not like us, and therefore we are better than you." On the smaller level, we've divided our nation into fifty states each with personalities and their own sense of smaller nationalisms. This statewide unity is reinforced by the idea of Representatives and Senate, and the ever-popular sports figures and teams. Did you see the Ohio State-Purdue game? Boy those Boilermakers sure whooped those damn Buckeyes. Breaking it down further, each community (small town america) is comprised of groups of people who further constrain and restrain other groups of people for the same basic elitist reason. This can be seen up-close by a few of us with the recent law changes regarding smoking in public places. Why couldn't the owners of the public places just choose to allow smoking, not allow smoking, or provide accomadations for both? Nope, they had to say once again you are not like us, and therefore we don't want you here. We're going to take away your favorite places, and remove you so we don't have to be burdened by your existence. The health issue really isn't the central issue. It's another lie concocted by some arstocracy to draw attention from the larger issue. The elitist ideal is ingrained in almost everyone in this country. It existed in a days of slavery. It existed on the racist tongues of everyone who acted against Muslims during scare of 9/11. Elitism is the very reason why peopel came to this country in the beginning - to escape religious persecution by an elitist church in England (which brings up an interesting question: is it simply human nature, rather than the country's ideal alone, to separate ourselves from one another?).
Christianity and many other religions tout the idea of being able to enter some sort of fine afterlife if certain conditions are met. These conditions may be a predisposed set of behavioral qualifications, and in many cases they are just that. Either way, if they don't like you, you can't belong to their club (i.e. heaven, Elysium, Valhalla, etc.) Is it coincidence that they gods and supernatural forces behind such theologies are portrayed in human personas? Mary Magdelaine is portayed as a human woman. Jesus is portrayed as a human male. The Greek and Roman gods were portrayed in a very human aspect with human emotions and personalities (with the exception of Pan, but even he was partly human in appearance). Allah and Mohammed are portrayed like humans. Imagine if Jesus was portrayed a a goat, and Mary portrayed as a whale. Atleast the anti-christ is supposed to be born of a Jackal, but then again he's the enemy of the people and faith once again. Coincidence? I think not.
I love american tackle football. I love college basketball. I'd even watch the NBA and college baseball semifinals and tournaments. Maybe that makes me an elitist. I try to pay attention to all teams. Hell, I'll even be watching the World Cup soccer when it begins. The sad thing is I'd probably only watch the World Cup soccer because Team USA is involved. I love the fact that any small town team can become the winner in the NCAA Basketball tournament. This is what is missng from some of the other NCAA sports. (No, this is not a cry for a playoff scenario in college football. That would be too off-topic even for me.) The NCAA governing body is just another example of the existence of elitisim and the driving forces(s) behind the "beautiful people" ideal (by beautiful I mean rich). I don't find much fun in the Olympics anymore. This could be a loss of some sense of nationalistic pride because it's too easy to see the celebritism and hypocrisy that this country breeds. But why do I feel national pride with the World Cup and not the Olymics? I admit I haven't really given it much thought. I thought about moving to Japan or Europe because of some sort of disattachment from the nationalistic pride, but then I realized I'd miss some of the material things that are inherently characteristic of this country. I guess, if I'm going to be down on the ideals that this country creates and maintains, maybe I should blame myself, too, for liking Gin & Tonics, apple pie, and porn. I should blame myself, perhaps, for watching football and buying armor-all for my tires. I should tear out my hair for wearing an MSU hat and driving to the convenience store instead of walking the fifty yards. I should kick my own ass when that guy won't move from his pizza pie pan when we're trying to shoot a game of pool. Finally, I should be tortured for allowing the media to shape my mind and my body through marketing, forcing me to draw lines between me, and my brothers and sisters.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me, bitches.
What a piece of shit.
Enjoy.
-----------------------------
Invino Veritas
EOF
Friday, January 13, 2012
Imports From The MySpace Archives Vol. 1.0
The following has been archived from my abandoned blog on MySpace.com:
------------------------
November 24, 2006
------------------------
Generalizations Painted With The Color Dissonance
The past few months have been infused with change. To begin, I've got a new job. My boss referred to it as a promotion, so I'll take that same approach. I now train people to do what I used to do before I was a dispatcher. I now have a salary and make considerably better money than I once made. For these things, I'm happy. I don't have to squeak by to find pennies at the end of the month like I used to do. On the other hand, I haven't really signed-up for a lot of things that I probably should have as result of having deeper resources. But I didn't really start this expression to talk about that sort of thing.
I find myself working longer hours which is something I kind of expected from the beginning. But I find that when I can't be around to talk to my friends and acquaintances, they begin to fill in the gaps with assumptions. I suppose it's natural to want to know the details of any one thing or set of ideas. This didn't used to happen when I had time to spend with my friends. I would imagine that's because I was there to fill in the gaps between informations of all types. I don't mind missing the events as most of them are things with which I already have expreince. I had a conversation with someone the other day explaining how most people just like to hear themselves talk about themselves. After I said it, that idea stuck in my mind. The following part of this post is a generalization, and nobody should take it personally as it is not designed to be directed at any one person.
People are innately selfish. In fact, they really do like to hear themselves talk much like parakeets must have someone at which to chirp. I try to avoid minor selfishenesses in myself, but I still catch myself every once in a while. My mentors used to tell me that every once in a while you got to be selfish because nobody will think about you and your needs, generally speaking. I tend to believe that this is true so far as it relates to the vicious cycle of innate human selfishness. People who spend their time observing and listening to other people talk are often ridiculed. By listening rather than talking, I've learned to try to imagine other people's perspectives and empathize. Maybe this blog is my way to bring attention to myself. Hell, I don't know. I can tell all of you one thing that is absolutely true: people really aren't as interesting as they would like to believe. I used to think that they would be interesting before I knew the truth. (I could be mistaking the idea of interest with entertainment at this point, but we'll take them to be synonymous at this juncture.) I guess the revelation I get from all of this is selfishness makes you boring. People don't really relate to people, but rather they relate to experiences, ideas, and even objects. Since people aren't either of those three things, people don't honestly relate to other people. Perhaps that's why they are so damned selfish and prefer to talk about themselves. At this point, you are probably ready to shout to the world that this idea isn't true. But think about it. Use the intellect that was instilled in a grape and THINK about it.
I may change my mind tomorrow, but for the time being I will reassert. People are selfish. People don't relate to people. People aren't interesting. Again, these ideas are a generalization and are taken on the whole. These statements aren't directed towards any single person. In a nutshell, I'm just thinking aloud (so to speak).
Peace & Enjoy.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
---------------------------------
Invino Veritas
EOF
------------------------
November 24, 2006
------------------------
Generalizations Painted With The Color Dissonance
The past few months have been infused with change. To begin, I've got a new job. My boss referred to it as a promotion, so I'll take that same approach. I now train people to do what I used to do before I was a dispatcher. I now have a salary and make considerably better money than I once made. For these things, I'm happy. I don't have to squeak by to find pennies at the end of the month like I used to do. On the other hand, I haven't really signed-up for a lot of things that I probably should have as result of having deeper resources. But I didn't really start this expression to talk about that sort of thing.
I find myself working longer hours which is something I kind of expected from the beginning. But I find that when I can't be around to talk to my friends and acquaintances, they begin to fill in the gaps with assumptions. I suppose it's natural to want to know the details of any one thing or set of ideas. This didn't used to happen when I had time to spend with my friends. I would imagine that's because I was there to fill in the gaps between informations of all types. I don't mind missing the events as most of them are things with which I already have expreince. I had a conversation with someone the other day explaining how most people just like to hear themselves talk about themselves. After I said it, that idea stuck in my mind. The following part of this post is a generalization, and nobody should take it personally as it is not designed to be directed at any one person.
People are innately selfish. In fact, they really do like to hear themselves talk much like parakeets must have someone at which to chirp. I try to avoid minor selfishenesses in myself, but I still catch myself every once in a while. My mentors used to tell me that every once in a while you got to be selfish because nobody will think about you and your needs, generally speaking. I tend to believe that this is true so far as it relates to the vicious cycle of innate human selfishness. People who spend their time observing and listening to other people talk are often ridiculed. By listening rather than talking, I've learned to try to imagine other people's perspectives and empathize. Maybe this blog is my way to bring attention to myself. Hell, I don't know. I can tell all of you one thing that is absolutely true: people really aren't as interesting as they would like to believe. I used to think that they would be interesting before I knew the truth. (I could be mistaking the idea of interest with entertainment at this point, but we'll take them to be synonymous at this juncture.) I guess the revelation I get from all of this is selfishness makes you boring. People don't really relate to people, but rather they relate to experiences, ideas, and even objects. Since people aren't either of those three things, people don't honestly relate to other people. Perhaps that's why they are so damned selfish and prefer to talk about themselves. At this point, you are probably ready to shout to the world that this idea isn't true. But think about it. Use the intellect that was instilled in a grape and THINK about it.
I may change my mind tomorrow, but for the time being I will reassert. People are selfish. People don't relate to people. People aren't interesting. Again, these ideas are a generalization and are taken on the whole. These statements aren't directed towards any single person. In a nutshell, I'm just thinking aloud (so to speak).
Peace & Enjoy.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
---------------------------------
Invino Veritas
EOF
Thursday, December 29, 2011
He Said She Said
Just a little something of which I had to purge my head.
Enjoy.
-Invino
***********************************
He Said She Said
She said, "What are you? Crazy?"
I said, "What's the alternative?"
She said, "Sanity. What'd you think?"
I said, "I dunno. Maybe something more open-minded."
I said, "Why? Which one has better drugs?"
She said, "Insanity."
I said, "Well, in that case, I'm crazy., yes."
I paused and looked her in her eyes and smiled.
She did not smile.
She stood there trying to find something in my eyes.
Trying to determine my intention,
My next move,
Forgetting the moment at hand.
I broke the ice, "By the way,
Have you seen my spare...
[Pause for dramatic effect.]
...rootabaga?"
There we went.
She smiled.
I said, "I'm not half as crazy,
As you think I should think you think I am."
She said, "Kiss me, you crazy shit."
I said, "Gladly, nutty woman."
And I kissed her.
She said, "As long as you are crazy,
I can't be mad at you for long."
I said, "I know.
It's part of my master plan."
I said, "It's no fun being crazy alone,
When you only have one voice in your head,
Even if it does sound like Bozo on Helium."
She smiled again.
I smiled, too.
***********************************
Invino Veritas
12/29/11
EOF
Enjoy.
-Invino
***********************************
He Said She Said
She said, "What are you? Crazy?"
I said, "What's the alternative?"
She said, "Sanity. What'd you think?"
I said, "I dunno. Maybe something more open-minded."
I said, "Why? Which one has better drugs?"
She said, "Insanity."
I said, "Well, in that case, I'm crazy., yes."
I paused and looked her in her eyes and smiled.
She did not smile.
She stood there trying to find something in my eyes.
Trying to determine my intention,
My next move,
Forgetting the moment at hand.
I broke the ice, "By the way,
Have you seen my spare...
[Pause for dramatic effect.]
...rootabaga?"
There we went.
She smiled.
I said, "I'm not half as crazy,
As you think I should think you think I am."
She said, "Kiss me, you crazy shit."
I said, "Gladly, nutty woman."
And I kissed her.
She said, "As long as you are crazy,
I can't be mad at you for long."
I said, "I know.
It's part of my master plan."
I said, "It's no fun being crazy alone,
When you only have one voice in your head,
Even if it does sound like Bozo on Helium."
She smiled again.
I smiled, too.
***********************************
Invino Veritas
12/29/11
EOF
Monday, December 12, 2011
Solace
Solace
The mornings were tintinnabulous,
Not at all fantabulous,
It began with his toes forced apart,
By dehydration that struck to the heart,
And it traveled to his calves,
Tearing his stance into two halves,
The cold bit his spine near his hips,
Thoroughly reminded he was ill-equipped,
To deal with the day unmedicated,
To prolong his abstinence from being sedated,
So he could forget and arrest,
The three-legged race in his chest,
So he could sit and enjoy a day out of bed,
Sip tea and and look into the countryside instead,
Forget the pounding allergy in his brain,
And concentrate on the pitter-patter of rain,
It was there within those drops,
The turning leaves as, in the air, they flopped,
He found his solace, his cloak,
There, inside, his coals he did stoke,
Produced embers of gold rising higher,
Elevated spirits to admire,
To spread some momentary warmth, some fire,
For those who wish to forget all things dire,
To find time for himself instead,
To sip tea in view of the countryside,
Where all things good were at once spied.
Invino Veritas
12/12/11
EOF
The mornings were tintinnabulous,
Not at all fantabulous,
It began with his toes forced apart,
By dehydration that struck to the heart,
And it traveled to his calves,
Tearing his stance into two halves,
The cold bit his spine near his hips,
Thoroughly reminded he was ill-equipped,
To deal with the day unmedicated,
To prolong his abstinence from being sedated,
So he could forget and arrest,
The three-legged race in his chest,
So he could sit and enjoy a day out of bed,
Sip tea and and look into the countryside instead,
Forget the pounding allergy in his brain,
And concentrate on the pitter-patter of rain,
It was there within those drops,
The turning leaves as, in the air, they flopped,
He found his solace, his cloak,
There, inside, his coals he did stoke,
Produced embers of gold rising higher,
Elevated spirits to admire,
To spread some momentary warmth, some fire,
For those who wish to forget all things dire,
To find time for himself instead,
To sip tea in view of the countryside,
Where all things good were at once spied.
Invino Veritas
12/12/11
EOF
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Random Verses With Little Purpose
Said the paper to the printer,
"Your shaft is slick and glistening,
But your belly makes an awful noise,
Yetsofar as we've been listening."
And tempting fate, the printer said,
"My dears, listen as I entreat you,
As you lay upon my tray,
I promise not to eat you.
So close your eyes and relax right there,
Let me adorn you with my toner,
Nevermind the rumbles heard,
I assure you it's not a boner,
But rather a sweeping printer's head,
Dabbing lightly with its jet,
Making but precision marks,
Where expectations are surely met."
Invino Veritas
11/9/11
Intention was never a part,
Of what tore them apart,
For her, he was never enough gay,
For him, she'd never commit to play,
She, born with pride and institution,
One that gave her mind absolution,
And He, born of intimate resolve,
A chaotic, eternal quandry he could never solve,
The more he tried,
The more she denied,
What she saw in him to be remiss,
Was what she would so quickly dismiss,
And finally he left it to fate and mere chance,
Continued to note her sideways glance,
In his element, they engaged in denial,
In her's, they summoned Belial,
A substitution that meant to beguile,
The meaning behind each other's smile.
Invino Veritas
11/14/11
'Twas in the sky above the bay,
Betwixt two clouds above the hills,
Three warring kings did one day meet,
The tired men with beards of gray,
with tired voices time made shrill,
Neither king declaring defeat
Invino Veritas
11/29/11
Whether furthest planets or distant stars,
Our future holds for us to one day reach,
It shall never be the shores of Neptune,
But, rather, a familiar, well known beach,
Where tired minds bask and hearts again croon,
Of distant shores dreamt, and believed too far.
Invino Veritas
11/29/11
"Your shaft is slick and glistening,
But your belly makes an awful noise,
Yetsofar as we've been listening."
And tempting fate, the printer said,
"My dears, listen as I entreat you,
As you lay upon my tray,
I promise not to eat you.
So close your eyes and relax right there,
Let me adorn you with my toner,
Nevermind the rumbles heard,
I assure you it's not a boner,
But rather a sweeping printer's head,
Dabbing lightly with its jet,
Making but precision marks,
Where expectations are surely met."
Invino Veritas
11/9/11
Intention was never a part,
Of what tore them apart,
For her, he was never enough gay,
For him, she'd never commit to play,
She, born with pride and institution,
One that gave her mind absolution,
And He, born of intimate resolve,
A chaotic, eternal quandry he could never solve,
The more he tried,
The more she denied,
What she saw in him to be remiss,
Was what she would so quickly dismiss,
And finally he left it to fate and mere chance,
Continued to note her sideways glance,
In his element, they engaged in denial,
In her's, they summoned Belial,
A substitution that meant to beguile,
The meaning behind each other's smile.
Invino Veritas
11/14/11
'Twas in the sky above the bay,
Betwixt two clouds above the hills,
Three warring kings did one day meet,
The tired men with beards of gray,
with tired voices time made shrill,
Neither king declaring defeat
Invino Veritas
11/29/11
Whether furthest planets or distant stars,
Our future holds for us to one day reach,
It shall never be the shores of Neptune,
But, rather, a familiar, well known beach,
Where tired minds bask and hearts again croon,
Of distant shores dreamt, and believed too far.
Invino Veritas
11/29/11
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
To My Dear Knife
To my dear and self-evident blade beside which stands my ever-present unwillingness to give credit to your steadfast utility, I praise thee, sir. Your sheen, dulled by the years of cantankerous disregard, delights when upon focus glares and snares. My dear knife, I give thanks unto you for reminding me of the inrinsic qualities and personality that allws you to remain constant. It is true that in the sight of greater edges your seemingly insignificance remains unappreciated by those who would otherwise pass you by as inadequate. To those peers, knife, at them I scoff. I give them a hearty guffaw. I sneer at the very idea that a well-timed division bears little warrant for regard equally with that of one with length and depth from any other. Little makes clear evidence of this as your willingness to impart your wisodom, your purpose upon my finger. You have reminded me once again that, on occasion, a piece of ourselves must be sacrificed in order to obtain our goals. Knife, I applaud you. As the snake is always a snake, rarely garnering or begging for recognition of his intrinsic quality, so, too, are you vicious and helpful providing thin barrier between nature and nuture. It is truly my own burden to bear the weight of a restless and forgetful mind.
So, unto thee, knife, while mine eyes look over the thin slits in my hands, thank you. As I paint the thin pieces of linen pressed against the wound, drawing my fugitive mind away from the earth, you bring me back to the surface. It is your dilligence to your craft and you dedication to resultant purpose that is as surely abiding as the scars that shall litter the battleground of my flesh for years to come. As my tired and aged frame rocks upon its rickety throne before the firelight, I shall glance at each memory and rejoice in that I, too, was there, and together we stood the tests of will and endurance. My dear knife, my blade, my steely confidant, you are a certainly equally a blessing as you are a damnation. Upon glistening demon's wings you glide bearing a strange humility that can only be regarded as lordly. Your candor is a testament to your sacrament. Why, even your shape is a testament to the brimstone that litters your shank, for does it not beckon, does it not prompt, does it not suggest, even, that it is born of Satan's cephalic nodules?
May your memory, if not your body, persist, my dear sr.
Bastard.
Sincerely,
Invino Veritas
11/30/11
EOF
So, unto thee, knife, while mine eyes look over the thin slits in my hands, thank you. As I paint the thin pieces of linen pressed against the wound, drawing my fugitive mind away from the earth, you bring me back to the surface. It is your dilligence to your craft and you dedication to resultant purpose that is as surely abiding as the scars that shall litter the battleground of my flesh for years to come. As my tired and aged frame rocks upon its rickety throne before the firelight, I shall glance at each memory and rejoice in that I, too, was there, and together we stood the tests of will and endurance. My dear knife, my blade, my steely confidant, you are a certainly equally a blessing as you are a damnation. Upon glistening demon's wings you glide bearing a strange humility that can only be regarded as lordly. Your candor is a testament to your sacrament. Why, even your shape is a testament to the brimstone that litters your shank, for does it not beckon, does it not prompt, does it not suggest, even, that it is born of Satan's cephalic nodules?
May your memory, if not your body, persist, my dear sr.
Bastard.
Sincerely,
Invino Veritas
11/30/11
EOF
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Convenience Store at the End of the World
Ok, strange name, but I must admit that the next topic or topics reminds me a little bit of Douglas Adams' Restaraunt at the End of the Universe. Have patience. I hope you read the entire thing, so grab a hamburger and put on the soundtrack for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Enjoy.
I'm going to take a moment to explain some fundamental aspects of something and a small number of related things in an attempt to better clarify the crux of it. I do this because i believe that to get to the heart of the logic behind things, you must first reduce it until it is no longer reduceable. Now, this is not meant to discount Aristotle's "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" principle. His principle is most certainly born of sound reasoning. But we're not always looking for more when we are bound in context, we just want the best way to derive truth from the qualities of that which we are presented.
So, what is this thing? Well, for millenia, human beings have been trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why are we here?". Some try to find it within religion. Others try to find it in science. Many try to develop some sort of spirtuality without religion. But a great deal of introspection must come into play at some point, frankly, because our own voice is the one voice we can't get rid of in our heads (not counting people with multiple personalities). I believe that, at this point, in order to make an informed decision we hae to try to understand each with a reasonable amount of certainty. This doesn't mean you should become a monk for a year and then go rocketing to Jupiter the next. This simply means you should educate yourself in order to make a good or right decision rather than an easy decision.
So, we'll start with religion. Religion is the belief and practice of a set of rules, morals, principles, doctrines, tenets, etc by a group of people. More often than not, this involves a deity of some sort. (There are Hindu sects that are actually atheists, believe it or not.) The difference between religion and a cult is that a cult doesn't generally have the population or 'blessing' of a significant portion of the overall population of the society. In addition to setting and adhering to social ideas, religion plays an important role for many in explaining their environment. Nearly all religions confront death and the question of an afterlife. Religion also attempts to make sense of the things we can't readily explain or that for which we might otherwise plan. It's easy to sit back and say, "I have no idea what that stinking orange ball rolling down the mountainside at us is, so it must be something God made." In this simplified example, God certainly does appea to work in mysterious ways. In the battle between Nature vs Nurture, religion takes the side of nuture more often than not. Religions, most deifnitely, try to tackle the nature side of things. However, religion is something that is nurtured. Nobody comes out of their mother holding a copy of the torah and singing hymns. Religion has to be taught to be understood much like any law code or moral doctrine. It takes time and effort to fully grasp the ideas that have been molded and developed over centuries - especially if some of them are purely conceptual ideas.
Science is the attempt to use logic to discover the order of our environment and understand it and its properties. Science is derived from millenia of thought and reasoning which in return makes up up our modern body of thought (at least in theory) and practice thereof. All true forms of science begin with the Scientific Method. The problem is that the de facto standard is often disagreed upon, and therefore revised from time to time. It is important to note though that science is dependant upon the use of such a method. If you abandon the logic, then you abandon the science. At that point, you are nothing more than a metaphysicist. But if you adhere to the principles of the current scientific standard, then you should be fine to call yourself a scientist. Thankfully there is a basic, western version that even children are able to understand, and that can be found embedded within the more complex versions. Where did we get it? Why, our good buddy and father of deductive reasoning, Aristotle. (It is important to note that there are variations that involve inductive reasoning, and are considered to be eastern versions as they were first developed in the middle east.) The basic western version can be found here:
1. Ask a question.
2. Research the problem.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test that hypothesis.
5. Evaluate your findings.
6. Conclusion.
Now, of course, there are far more steps, but remember: this is the basic version. At this point, you might ask yourself, "Then if religion is nuture then that makes science nature in the age-old argument, but why?" The answer is a resounding 'yes'. We don't need to be taught to question our environment and its properties. We don't need to be nurtured to form opinions, hypotheses, or conclsions. We don't need to be taught to evaluate our findings. We are able to put our questons to the test on our own without outside interference. We may not want to do this, but we are capable to do so if we please (mental handicaps aside).
So, where does this leave us? Let us look at some very clear facts. First, we know we live on a planet in a much larger area or region we call space. We know this because we've journeyed outside of our earth to that region. Second, we know that the universe is made of two types of things: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are the things that we can use one or all of our five senses with which to interact. The intangible things are those that we can deduce or induce through reasoning, but are those things with which we cannot interact. In the case of induction, take for example the neutrino. We can't sense it, but we have created tools to sense it for us, so in a sense (no pun intended), we are not interacting with the neutrino and the neutrino certainly does not interact with us that we can tell. But rather it is our tools that interact with them on some level, and therefore we can induce, or infer, that the neutrino exists.
Third, everything in the universe seems to be in one of two states with regards to energy: high energy states and low energy states. Those things, like for instance the sun, are in high energy states and will eventually lose that energy and become something of a low energy state. Every ounce of matter in the universe is trying to get rid of its energy in order to only possess that energy sufficient to sustain its molecular vibration. Over time, this expulsion of excess energy causes the energy to change and express itself dfferently. But adding blue light to blue light doesn't make it bluer, nor does removing blue from blue make it less blue. As energy is expelled, so it the ability of the properties of the whole to cling to its individual qualities fly off from the center. Suns turn color and lose mass as they get older and burn themselves away. Rotting flesh expunges things like Carbon-14 and Methane as it breaks down and gets closer to that low energy state.
So, what does this all have to do with the main question(s) here? We are all stardust. The material elements of the known universe (which includes us), save hydrogen and helium, were created in stars. How do we know this? Because we can observe the properties of this process of creating elements in the colors of the stars, and we can also see what happens when we combine related observances with that knowledge. These elements are the ones that exist in our bodies and make up our matter. But the energy of our bodies are also in a high energy state, and over time, it will seek out that low energy state. This describes the cycle of life as it relates to living and dying under normal situations; we are born, we live, we die. (In this sort of aspect, it's very caesarian - Veni!, Vidi! Vici!) But this is where we come back to the main question. What happens then? As the universe would dictate, it is still trying to reduce the energy of our molecules to a lower state of energy. We can't sense this because, well, at this point we are dead. But what about consciousness? What about the soul? While, I personally, don't believe in the soul, I will at the very least consider the notion that they are one in the same. In order for those to exist in the universe and function in the manner that we believe them to function, they must have energy of some kind. Therefore, their energy added to the existing energy of our bodies allows them to be released as energy after we die. Therefore, our energy is absorbed by the universe, thus completing the cycle of energy. It may be added to another system, it may be used to fuel something else, it may never be used - it doesn't matter. If you like, however, you can think of it as a part of you being in everything else with which that energy comes into contact. I, however, will be eating a sandwich and doing the crossword while you let this sink in.
So, what's the point? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? All these questions are fine to ask occasionally, but they aren't very good questions. They are too broad to succinctly answer. What context are we using here? What defition and usage are we applying to the words that make up this question? Perhaps we should rephrase the question to better find the answer. 'Meaning' is something you apply to things. In this context, it means the reason which really just brings us back the second question: Why are we here? One way you can answer "why" is in the context of what it was that created us. Another way you can take this is to question a context of answering "or what purpose are we here?" These are really two distinct, different questions entirely. In fact, to even suggest that they are the same question is, frankly, fallacious or showing a distinct lack of sound logic. It's a flawed conclusion. Now, to be fair, it doesn't mean that it's untrue, the logic is simply flawed and does not directly connect A to B. It does, however, suggest a high probability that suggestion is untrue. (I'm going to refrain from explaining this because it would take an extended amount of time, and is frankly out of scope of this essay.) But, again, why? Because it implies that something that has quantity is the same as something without quantity but rather quality alone. Again, let's let that one sink in. What does this mean? Anything tat satisfies the question 'what' can tangibly exist where there are more than one 'what'. For example, two robots can build, or create, one car. But 'purpose' is a concept and therefore intangible. While you can have more than one concept about an idea, we cannot hold each one in our hand and juggle them. In other words, we don't actually interact with our concepts; we neither feel, hear, smell, taste, or see them. Again, we induce, or infer, that they exist because we are able to see the results of their expressions.
Now that we have actually split the question of "Why are we here?" into two separate ideas, we can begin to address each one individually. From this point, everything is pure philosophy and only philosophy. First, we tackle the idea of reason. We ask, for what purpose do we exist? To answer this, I ask "Well, what is the human body designed to do as far as we can tell?" The human body is designed to convert matter into energy, and reproduce itself. It's a machine on the simplest level. Garbage in, garbage out. Energy in, energy out. Rinse and repeat until it breaks. Buy a new one along the way, and start all over. But in as much as its simplistic mechanized view, the machine that is the human body is prompted by gratification to perpetuate, so, in a nutshell, we do the things that we do to make ourselves happy. Your stomach hurts from hunger pains so you eat to feel good. The urge to pee is unpleasant so we alleviate that by getting rid of our excess water which, well, feels pretty good thus giving us relief. Finally, we have our answer to half of everything! The purpose in life is to be happy as often as you can be. Do that which is most gratifying.
We have solved one of life's msysteries already. Now we set our sights on the second half of the quandary: By what were we created? Chances are that if you are religious, you have already answered this for yourself, and that is perfectly fine if it makes you happy. You may go back to your double-stuff cookies and fuzzy flip-flops now. But if you aren't satisfed yet, why not consider that in the context of everything we've talked about in this essay that you were created by your mother and father (and possibly one or more contributors!). In context of energy states, two tangible things in high energy states were combined to create you, another one thing in a state of high energy. Going back to Aristotle, the whole is, indeed, more than the sum of its parts. Sperm will eventually lose their vigor if left to their own devices. Eggs will eventually be expelled from the body and die. But when combined, they feed on one another and grow into a being of greater quantity and greater quality. In all this, however, it doesn't really answer the question if we don't believe in a deity or deities nor we believe in the mother-father concept. What then? Well, what came first: the chicken or the egg? If you believe in a deity, then you might say chickens because deities have a way of creating animals rather than eggs. Otherwise, the universe created the first one of us millions of years ago if not billions. Remember that every element other than helium and hydrogen come from stars? The fundamental elements of our biology are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Three of four of those were created by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen and Helium and other elements in the center of stars. Mixx them up in the right proportions and 'bake at 350 for two hours, turning once when the one side is golden brown' (Ok, maybe not, but you get the right idea), and you have the first strands of amino acids which form the simplest beginnngs of life as we know it to be.
In summary, be happy and do things that make you happy. Live. Breathe. Eat chocolate pizza if that makes you happy. Stop worrying about the 'what ifs' and the 'why nots'. We're all made from stars and one day you are going to end back up in one. You're part of a universal cycle. Just be glad that you are included. Now, here. Have some toys and a banana, and go outside and play with your friends. Daddy's busy.
Buh-bye!
Invino Veritas
11/17/11
EOF
I'm going to take a moment to explain some fundamental aspects of something and a small number of related things in an attempt to better clarify the crux of it. I do this because i believe that to get to the heart of the logic behind things, you must first reduce it until it is no longer reduceable. Now, this is not meant to discount Aristotle's "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" principle. His principle is most certainly born of sound reasoning. But we're not always looking for more when we are bound in context, we just want the best way to derive truth from the qualities of that which we are presented.
So, what is this thing? Well, for millenia, human beings have been trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why are we here?". Some try to find it within religion. Others try to find it in science. Many try to develop some sort of spirtuality without religion. But a great deal of introspection must come into play at some point, frankly, because our own voice is the one voice we can't get rid of in our heads (not counting people with multiple personalities). I believe that, at this point, in order to make an informed decision we hae to try to understand each with a reasonable amount of certainty. This doesn't mean you should become a monk for a year and then go rocketing to Jupiter the next. This simply means you should educate yourself in order to make a good or right decision rather than an easy decision.
So, we'll start with religion. Religion is the belief and practice of a set of rules, morals, principles, doctrines, tenets, etc by a group of people. More often than not, this involves a deity of some sort. (There are Hindu sects that are actually atheists, believe it or not.) The difference between religion and a cult is that a cult doesn't generally have the population or 'blessing' of a significant portion of the overall population of the society. In addition to setting and adhering to social ideas, religion plays an important role for many in explaining their environment. Nearly all religions confront death and the question of an afterlife. Religion also attempts to make sense of the things we can't readily explain or that for which we might otherwise plan. It's easy to sit back and say, "I have no idea what that stinking orange ball rolling down the mountainside at us is, so it must be something God made." In this simplified example, God certainly does appea to work in mysterious ways. In the battle between Nature vs Nurture, religion takes the side of nuture more often than not. Religions, most deifnitely, try to tackle the nature side of things. However, religion is something that is nurtured. Nobody comes out of their mother holding a copy of the torah and singing hymns. Religion has to be taught to be understood much like any law code or moral doctrine. It takes time and effort to fully grasp the ideas that have been molded and developed over centuries - especially if some of them are purely conceptual ideas.
Science is the attempt to use logic to discover the order of our environment and understand it and its properties. Science is derived from millenia of thought and reasoning which in return makes up up our modern body of thought (at least in theory) and practice thereof. All true forms of science begin with the Scientific Method. The problem is that the de facto standard is often disagreed upon, and therefore revised from time to time. It is important to note though that science is dependant upon the use of such a method. If you abandon the logic, then you abandon the science. At that point, you are nothing more than a metaphysicist. But if you adhere to the principles of the current scientific standard, then you should be fine to call yourself a scientist. Thankfully there is a basic, western version that even children are able to understand, and that can be found embedded within the more complex versions. Where did we get it? Why, our good buddy and father of deductive reasoning, Aristotle. (It is important to note that there are variations that involve inductive reasoning, and are considered to be eastern versions as they were first developed in the middle east.) The basic western version can be found here:
1. Ask a question.
2. Research the problem.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test that hypothesis.
5. Evaluate your findings.
6. Conclusion.
Now, of course, there are far more steps, but remember: this is the basic version. At this point, you might ask yourself, "Then if religion is nuture then that makes science nature in the age-old argument, but why?" The answer is a resounding 'yes'. We don't need to be taught to question our environment and its properties. We don't need to be nurtured to form opinions, hypotheses, or conclsions. We don't need to be taught to evaluate our findings. We are able to put our questons to the test on our own without outside interference. We may not want to do this, but we are capable to do so if we please (mental handicaps aside).
So, where does this leave us? Let us look at some very clear facts. First, we know we live on a planet in a much larger area or region we call space. We know this because we've journeyed outside of our earth to that region. Second, we know that the universe is made of two types of things: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are the things that we can use one or all of our five senses with which to interact. The intangible things are those that we can deduce or induce through reasoning, but are those things with which we cannot interact. In the case of induction, take for example the neutrino. We can't sense it, but we have created tools to sense it for us, so in a sense (no pun intended), we are not interacting with the neutrino and the neutrino certainly does not interact with us that we can tell. But rather it is our tools that interact with them on some level, and therefore we can induce, or infer, that the neutrino exists.
Third, everything in the universe seems to be in one of two states with regards to energy: high energy states and low energy states. Those things, like for instance the sun, are in high energy states and will eventually lose that energy and become something of a low energy state. Every ounce of matter in the universe is trying to get rid of its energy in order to only possess that energy sufficient to sustain its molecular vibration. Over time, this expulsion of excess energy causes the energy to change and express itself dfferently. But adding blue light to blue light doesn't make it bluer, nor does removing blue from blue make it less blue. As energy is expelled, so it the ability of the properties of the whole to cling to its individual qualities fly off from the center. Suns turn color and lose mass as they get older and burn themselves away. Rotting flesh expunges things like Carbon-14 and Methane as it breaks down and gets closer to that low energy state.
So, what does this all have to do with the main question(s) here? We are all stardust. The material elements of the known universe (which includes us), save hydrogen and helium, were created in stars. How do we know this? Because we can observe the properties of this process of creating elements in the colors of the stars, and we can also see what happens when we combine related observances with that knowledge. These elements are the ones that exist in our bodies and make up our matter. But the energy of our bodies are also in a high energy state, and over time, it will seek out that low energy state. This describes the cycle of life as it relates to living and dying under normal situations; we are born, we live, we die. (In this sort of aspect, it's very caesarian - Veni!, Vidi! Vici!) But this is where we come back to the main question. What happens then? As the universe would dictate, it is still trying to reduce the energy of our molecules to a lower state of energy. We can't sense this because, well, at this point we are dead. But what about consciousness? What about the soul? While, I personally, don't believe in the soul, I will at the very least consider the notion that they are one in the same. In order for those to exist in the universe and function in the manner that we believe them to function, they must have energy of some kind. Therefore, their energy added to the existing energy of our bodies allows them to be released as energy after we die. Therefore, our energy is absorbed by the universe, thus completing the cycle of energy. It may be added to another system, it may be used to fuel something else, it may never be used - it doesn't matter. If you like, however, you can think of it as a part of you being in everything else with which that energy comes into contact. I, however, will be eating a sandwich and doing the crossword while you let this sink in.
So, what's the point? What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? All these questions are fine to ask occasionally, but they aren't very good questions. They are too broad to succinctly answer. What context are we using here? What defition and usage are we applying to the words that make up this question? Perhaps we should rephrase the question to better find the answer. 'Meaning' is something you apply to things. In this context, it means the reason which really just brings us back the second question: Why are we here? One way you can answer "why" is in the context of what it was that created us. Another way you can take this is to question a context of answering "or what purpose are we here?" These are really two distinct, different questions entirely. In fact, to even suggest that they are the same question is, frankly, fallacious or showing a distinct lack of sound logic. It's a flawed conclusion. Now, to be fair, it doesn't mean that it's untrue, the logic is simply flawed and does not directly connect A to B. It does, however, suggest a high probability that suggestion is untrue. (I'm going to refrain from explaining this because it would take an extended amount of time, and is frankly out of scope of this essay.) But, again, why? Because it implies that something that has quantity is the same as something without quantity but rather quality alone. Again, let's let that one sink in. What does this mean? Anything tat satisfies the question 'what' can tangibly exist where there are more than one 'what'. For example, two robots can build, or create, one car. But 'purpose' is a concept and therefore intangible. While you can have more than one concept about an idea, we cannot hold each one in our hand and juggle them. In other words, we don't actually interact with our concepts; we neither feel, hear, smell, taste, or see them. Again, we induce, or infer, that they exist because we are able to see the results of their expressions.
Now that we have actually split the question of "Why are we here?" into two separate ideas, we can begin to address each one individually. From this point, everything is pure philosophy and only philosophy. First, we tackle the idea of reason. We ask, for what purpose do we exist? To answer this, I ask "Well, what is the human body designed to do as far as we can tell?" The human body is designed to convert matter into energy, and reproduce itself. It's a machine on the simplest level. Garbage in, garbage out. Energy in, energy out. Rinse and repeat until it breaks. Buy a new one along the way, and start all over. But in as much as its simplistic mechanized view, the machine that is the human body is prompted by gratification to perpetuate, so, in a nutshell, we do the things that we do to make ourselves happy. Your stomach hurts from hunger pains so you eat to feel good. The urge to pee is unpleasant so we alleviate that by getting rid of our excess water which, well, feels pretty good thus giving us relief. Finally, we have our answer to half of everything! The purpose in life is to be happy as often as you can be. Do that which is most gratifying.
We have solved one of life's msysteries already. Now we set our sights on the second half of the quandary: By what were we created? Chances are that if you are religious, you have already answered this for yourself, and that is perfectly fine if it makes you happy. You may go back to your double-stuff cookies and fuzzy flip-flops now. But if you aren't satisfed yet, why not consider that in the context of everything we've talked about in this essay that you were created by your mother and father (and possibly one or more contributors!). In context of energy states, two tangible things in high energy states were combined to create you, another one thing in a state of high energy. Going back to Aristotle, the whole is, indeed, more than the sum of its parts. Sperm will eventually lose their vigor if left to their own devices. Eggs will eventually be expelled from the body and die. But when combined, they feed on one another and grow into a being of greater quantity and greater quality. In all this, however, it doesn't really answer the question if we don't believe in a deity or deities nor we believe in the mother-father concept. What then? Well, what came first: the chicken or the egg? If you believe in a deity, then you might say chickens because deities have a way of creating animals rather than eggs. Otherwise, the universe created the first one of us millions of years ago if not billions. Remember that every element other than helium and hydrogen come from stars? The fundamental elements of our biology are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Three of four of those were created by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen and Helium and other elements in the center of stars. Mixx them up in the right proportions and 'bake at 350 for two hours, turning once when the one side is golden brown' (Ok, maybe not, but you get the right idea), and you have the first strands of amino acids which form the simplest beginnngs of life as we know it to be.
In summary, be happy and do things that make you happy. Live. Breathe. Eat chocolate pizza if that makes you happy. Stop worrying about the 'what ifs' and the 'why nots'. We're all made from stars and one day you are going to end back up in one. You're part of a universal cycle. Just be glad that you are included. Now, here. Have some toys and a banana, and go outside and play with your friends. Daddy's busy.
Buh-bye!
Invino Veritas
11/17/11
EOF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)