Pick up a book and, with out opening it, describe for what is on page 200.
There are certain tools you can use. In all likelyhood, there are words in type print, a page number, all on paper. it is likely to be black and white. maybe you can use the title or the description to guess at the content. but even if you have read the book before you would very unlikely be able to describe in terms better than general ones.
this is how we can see god. we have certain tools in our world which we can use to make general observations and descriptions about god, but they are general at best. we can assume that something started the universe. we can guess that there are forces outside of our understanding. we know that there is some relationship between god and matter, but have no idea what it is. perhaps a prophet or psychic has read the book before, but even they are using vague remembrances. and like the book, we cannot even say for certain if there is a page 200.
weight: 12st, 13lb
cigarettes: 1
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Thursday, 11 March 2010
consciousness
consciousness is the illusion that our senses exist objectively. for example, we assume our sight represents how things actually look. and that the sounds we hear are sounds as they exist in nature. this is not the case. the actuality, not unlike how google sorts and presents the vast data from the internet, our senses are methods for distilling the overwhelming quantities of information in the world and presenting it to our brains in understandable ways. we mistake this for reality, but it's actually just our internal organizational method for interacting with the world. how we interact with the world is consciousness. the conscious mind is the only entity that thinks they are real.
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: one drag
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: one drag
Monday, 8 March 2010
how to watch
Srikumar Rao has an ovservation and some advice.
He says that the standard model (and wrong) for happiness is the "if/then" model. If we take some action, then that action will create happiness. If we achieve some result, then that result will create happiness. If we become CEO, then we thing we will be fulfilled. But as soon as we're CEO, we want something else.
Another way to describe this model, is to call it a fulfilment myth. We have a tendency to be motivated by the belief that we can succeed. But when we get there, all we can see is the next achievement on the horizon because we have programmed ourselves to live our lives searching. Ironically, the whole process often leads to the opposite of happiness.
Srikumar's advice is to focus on the process. As a demonstration, he uses a sports metaphor. If you invest yourself in doing the best you can, the score doesn't matter. But, if you invest yourself in doing the best you can, you will probably be content in the score no matter what it is.
He points out that when we look at a beautiful vista, we are rarely disappointed. We rarely try to move a mountain to the left. We rarely try to stretch the rainbow over more ground. We accept the vista as it is, and therefore feel happy about it, and therefore see it as beautiful.
We don't treat our lives this way. We pick at them and complain at them and rarely stop to enjoy them as they are.
This problem also applies to viewership of art.
Looking at a painting (most likely painted by a person), we choose have a choice. We can accept it as it is and it as beautiful, which on some level all paintings are. This will lead to happy feelings about it. Or we can see it for what can be improved. The question then becomes, how can we learn to accept art as it is presented and not how we would have preferred it?
The first method is to accept we are powerless to change it. With the vista, we are powerless. We can't imagine saying to god "move that mountain." At the theatre, we are also powerless but we can imagine having a say in the creative process. We can imagine saying to a director "cut that dance number." For example, we rarely blame Shakespeare for failure in one if his plays, it's usually theatre company. When we trust the art maker is a genius, we accept the piece as it is.
Second, we can stop trying to guess the ending. This reduces story telling to a game of cat and mouse. The story teller has to play with the audience to keep them interested and the audience has to think quicker than the story teller or else they walk out. Instead of making artists compete with the shirking attention spans of an increasingly cynical audience member, artists will be able to be honest. Novelty will become less and less of a virture in art, replaced with the pieces copacity to engage with the truth in a variety of forms.
Third, we shouldn't get off on failure. The purpose of the being in the audience isn't to help us feel superior, it's to listen to the artist. No matter what they are saying, give them a chance to finish speaking before we butt in with our ideas of how to make it better.
Fourth, we can see our role as audience members as a creative one. Our job is to do what we can on our side of the 4th wall to enjoy the production. No piece of art is made to be bad. All art has an access point; a Rosetta stone. As audience members, we are tasked with finding it and accessing the piece, even if it takes a great deal of effort on our part.
As audience members, we easily get obsessed with the idea that the artist is the problem. Like in life, there is a general deficit of taking responsibility for our enjoyment. Artistic failure is as much a fault of the presenter as the viewer. The opposite of art is not boredom. Only the lazy audience expects the artists to do all the work. We must never expect the artist to come to us. We must meet the artist the middle.
Quality in art should be measured and balanced rightness to each individual viewer rather than general greatness measured by the simplicity of appeal. The latter is usually measured with box office results and critical acclaim. The former is measured in laughter and tears.
The result will be more vibrant and personal art. We will achieve is a more human creative procession. Giving due reverence to all artists, is to become a true consoeur of art.
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 13
He says that the standard model (and wrong) for happiness is the "if/then" model. If we take some action, then that action will create happiness. If we achieve some result, then that result will create happiness. If we become CEO, then we thing we will be fulfilled. But as soon as we're CEO, we want something else.
Another way to describe this model, is to call it a fulfilment myth. We have a tendency to be motivated by the belief that we can succeed. But when we get there, all we can see is the next achievement on the horizon because we have programmed ourselves to live our lives searching. Ironically, the whole process often leads to the opposite of happiness.
Srikumar's advice is to focus on the process. As a demonstration, he uses a sports metaphor. If you invest yourself in doing the best you can, the score doesn't matter. But, if you invest yourself in doing the best you can, you will probably be content in the score no matter what it is.
He points out that when we look at a beautiful vista, we are rarely disappointed. We rarely try to move a mountain to the left. We rarely try to stretch the rainbow over more ground. We accept the vista as it is, and therefore feel happy about it, and therefore see it as beautiful.
We don't treat our lives this way. We pick at them and complain at them and rarely stop to enjoy them as they are.
This problem also applies to viewership of art.
Looking at a painting (most likely painted by a person), we choose have a choice. We can accept it as it is and it as beautiful, which on some level all paintings are. This will lead to happy feelings about it. Or we can see it for what can be improved. The question then becomes, how can we learn to accept art as it is presented and not how we would have preferred it?
The first method is to accept we are powerless to change it. With the vista, we are powerless. We can't imagine saying to god "move that mountain." At the theatre, we are also powerless but we can imagine having a say in the creative process. We can imagine saying to a director "cut that dance number." For example, we rarely blame Shakespeare for failure in one if his plays, it's usually theatre company. When we trust the art maker is a genius, we accept the piece as it is.
Second, we can stop trying to guess the ending. This reduces story telling to a game of cat and mouse. The story teller has to play with the audience to keep them interested and the audience has to think quicker than the story teller or else they walk out. Instead of making artists compete with the shirking attention spans of an increasingly cynical audience member, artists will be able to be honest. Novelty will become less and less of a virture in art, replaced with the pieces copacity to engage with the truth in a variety of forms.
Third, we shouldn't get off on failure. The purpose of the being in the audience isn't to help us feel superior, it's to listen to the artist. No matter what they are saying, give them a chance to finish speaking before we butt in with our ideas of how to make it better.
Fourth, we can see our role as audience members as a creative one. Our job is to do what we can on our side of the 4th wall to enjoy the production. No piece of art is made to be bad. All art has an access point; a Rosetta stone. As audience members, we are tasked with finding it and accessing the piece, even if it takes a great deal of effort on our part.
As audience members, we easily get obsessed with the idea that the artist is the problem. Like in life, there is a general deficit of taking responsibility for our enjoyment. Artistic failure is as much a fault of the presenter as the viewer. The opposite of art is not boredom. Only the lazy audience expects the artists to do all the work. We must never expect the artist to come to us. We must meet the artist the middle.
Quality in art should be measured and balanced rightness to each individual viewer rather than general greatness measured by the simplicity of appeal. The latter is usually measured with box office results and critical acclaim. The former is measured in laughter and tears.
The result will be more vibrant and personal art. We will achieve is a more human creative procession. Giving due reverence to all artists, is to become a true consoeur of art.
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 13
Thursday, 4 March 2010
culture
i was born and raised in america.
i hold an irish passport.
my ancestors are irish and norweigen.
i live in england.
i pay taxes to the government of the united kingdom.
what is my culture? is it endowed by nationality, residence, ethnicity? am i allowed access to more than one full culture? or am i limited to partial understandings which all up to no more than one identity?
which monuments do i get to call mine? which human achievements am i allowed to celebrate? which ones can i be envious of? what happens if i'm proud of the great wall of china even though i have no connection with the chinese?
what if i celebrate human achievement simply because i am a human? what if celebrate natural achievement simply because i am part of nature?
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 0
i hold an irish passport.
my ancestors are irish and norweigen.
i live in england.
i pay taxes to the government of the united kingdom.
what is my culture? is it endowed by nationality, residence, ethnicity? am i allowed access to more than one full culture? or am i limited to partial understandings which all up to no more than one identity?
which monuments do i get to call mine? which human achievements am i allowed to celebrate? which ones can i be envious of? what happens if i'm proud of the great wall of china even though i have no connection with the chinese?
what if i celebrate human achievement simply because i am a human? what if celebrate natural achievement simply because i am part of nature?
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 0
Saturday, 27 February 2010
over acting
There is no such thing as over acting, only disconnected acting. This is advice given to me by one of my favorite acting teachers. It applies to more than acting. There is no such thing as depression, only disconnected living.
weight: 12st 13bl
cigarettes: 0
weight: 12st 13bl
cigarettes: 0
interior design
Interior design should begin as a function of desire rather than ascetics.
For example, consider the building of a private library. If the brainstorm starts with this end (a private library), the designers will consider some basics. Books.
However, if the purpose of the room is decided to be a place to read, the designers will come up with aids in the goal of the space. Books, first, are required to read.
Using function in designing a space rather than rushing to identity, creates a more serviceable set of guidelines in developing fresh ideas. Shelves to house the books. Comfortable seats to house the readers. Perhaps some nice music. Good lighting. Many of these ideas will come along in the brainstorm following the identity of the space as a library, but books will be supreme. In a library, the designers will likely consider many of the ideas which come in the latter brainstorm, but they will be constricted by the creation of an object: the library. Libraries also require card catalogues and silence, neither of which serve the function that the creators of a library actually want.
This extends to more conventional rooms in the house as well. A bedroom designed as a place to sleep is different than a bedroom designed as a place to escape. The end is the same (a bedroom), but considering the functions leads to more innovation. My bedroom is a place to sleep and a place for to be alone in a flat with three other people. Thinking this way has allowed me to create a room which is more dynamic than it would otherwise be. I have two book shelves, i have a variety of decoration, i have colorful bedspreads and chairs, i have a desk, i have a variety of lighting, i have a table where i sometimes eat dinner, as well as a bed. If i thought of end (bedroom) rather than means (a place to escape), i don't know how many ideas for interior design would be lost.
Using only ascetics in interior design is also folly. Ascetics must serve the function as well. In a library, create aesthetics that heighten the reading experience. There is not beautiful or ugly, there is only connected and disconnected. The room will find itself effortlessly beautiful if it serves the function of the room. When the ascetic quality of the room clashes with it's function, the room is neither beautiful nor can it serve it's function.
This concept also applies to all plans in life. We should consider what we want to do, rather than who we want to be. Children dream of being things like astronauts and firefighters, and often those dreams are quickly pushed aside. If we dream of actions we wish to take when we are capable (i want to build when i'm older, i want to save people), we can then find forms
When the forms of our life are functions of desirable actions, we have a better chance at happiness. When actions are the result of desirable forms, we suffer from constant disillusionment. Identity is created by what we do; the means of our lives leads to the ends. Just as the worthy end isn't worth to justify immoral means, an honorable identity is besmeared when that person is dissatisfied with the actions that identity requires.
We must learn to write our identity with verbs. When we, as people, do, like the room with ascetics that match its function, we become beautiful.
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 2
For example, consider the building of a private library. If the brainstorm starts with this end (a private library), the designers will consider some basics. Books.
However, if the purpose of the room is decided to be a place to read, the designers will come up with aids in the goal of the space. Books, first, are required to read.
Using function in designing a space rather than rushing to identity, creates a more serviceable set of guidelines in developing fresh ideas. Shelves to house the books. Comfortable seats to house the readers. Perhaps some nice music. Good lighting. Many of these ideas will come along in the brainstorm following the identity of the space as a library, but books will be supreme. In a library, the designers will likely consider many of the ideas which come in the latter brainstorm, but they will be constricted by the creation of an object: the library. Libraries also require card catalogues and silence, neither of which serve the function that the creators of a library actually want.
This extends to more conventional rooms in the house as well. A bedroom designed as a place to sleep is different than a bedroom designed as a place to escape. The end is the same (a bedroom), but considering the functions leads to more innovation. My bedroom is a place to sleep and a place for to be alone in a flat with three other people. Thinking this way has allowed me to create a room which is more dynamic than it would otherwise be. I have two book shelves, i have a variety of decoration, i have colorful bedspreads and chairs, i have a desk, i have a variety of lighting, i have a table where i sometimes eat dinner, as well as a bed. If i thought of end (bedroom) rather than means (a place to escape), i don't know how many ideas for interior design would be lost.
Using only ascetics in interior design is also folly. Ascetics must serve the function as well. In a library, create aesthetics that heighten the reading experience. There is not beautiful or ugly, there is only connected and disconnected. The room will find itself effortlessly beautiful if it serves the function of the room. When the ascetic quality of the room clashes with it's function, the room is neither beautiful nor can it serve it's function.
This concept also applies to all plans in life. We should consider what we want to do, rather than who we want to be. Children dream of being things like astronauts and firefighters, and often those dreams are quickly pushed aside. If we dream of actions we wish to take when we are capable (i want to build when i'm older, i want to save people), we can then find forms
When the forms of our life are functions of desirable actions, we have a better chance at happiness. When actions are the result of desirable forms, we suffer from constant disillusionment. Identity is created by what we do; the means of our lives leads to the ends. Just as the worthy end isn't worth to justify immoral means, an honorable identity is besmeared when that person is dissatisfied with the actions that identity requires.
We must learn to write our identity with verbs. When we, as people, do, like the room with ascetics that match its function, we become beautiful.
weight: 12st 13lb
cigarettes: 2
Thursday, 25 February 2010
the invisible hand of god
Adam Smith wrote that the conjunction of self-interest, competition and supply and demand were the main forces which drove a market place. Their result was capable of allocating resources in society. Their sum acts he called the invisible hand of the marketplace or the invisible hand of god.
If this is to be taken literally (which it's probably not), the implication is that God is the sum of our actions; the sum of us as a community, as a nation, as a species, as interconnected living organisms that cover the planet. Cooperation has no higher place than conflict. Love, mercy, wisdom and other virtues traditionally associated with godliness are only godly when they are successful (which they apparently have been as evidenced by the fast that they are still here). It is not that history is written by the victor, the victory is a literal act of God, perhaps it is God Himself.
This is not necessarily a cruel God. Nor is he necessarily loving. Nor is He wrathful or merciful. This is a God who has truly made man in His image.
However, this invisible hand of God moves fate for more than humans. The principles of self-interest, competition and supply and demand of resources that act as the invisible hand are the principles that guide evolution as well. They are essentially the deciding factors in natural selection. Just as the fittest companies and products survive in a marketplace, so do the fittest organisms.
Therefore, if God is the sum of these actions, God is found in the process of evolution. Evolution is literally an act of God, perhaps evolution is God Himself, but at the best least evolution is God's invisible hand.
To take is a step further, this implies that we are God. Every person was made in the image of god, but the whole of society and the whole of Earth's ecosystem also was made in the image of God. God is not only the sum of our conscious actions in a marketplace, but the result of all actions taken by every living creature to survive.
By the act of still being here, we know God exists. In the upanishads, one may be inclined to read the following words:
“I am indeed this creation for I have parted forth from myself." In that way he became this creation and verily he who knows this becomes in this creation, a creator.
Each of us is one of the many hands of God and each action we take is make on behalf of the divine.
weight: 12st 8lb
cigarettes: 0
If this is to be taken literally (which it's probably not), the implication is that God is the sum of our actions; the sum of us as a community, as a nation, as a species, as interconnected living organisms that cover the planet. Cooperation has no higher place than conflict. Love, mercy, wisdom and other virtues traditionally associated with godliness are only godly when they are successful (which they apparently have been as evidenced by the fast that they are still here). It is not that history is written by the victor, the victory is a literal act of God, perhaps it is God Himself.
This is not necessarily a cruel God. Nor is he necessarily loving. Nor is He wrathful or merciful. This is a God who has truly made man in His image.
However, this invisible hand of God moves fate for more than humans. The principles of self-interest, competition and supply and demand of resources that act as the invisible hand are the principles that guide evolution as well. They are essentially the deciding factors in natural selection. Just as the fittest companies and products survive in a marketplace, so do the fittest organisms.
Therefore, if God is the sum of these actions, God is found in the process of evolution. Evolution is literally an act of God, perhaps evolution is God Himself, but at the best least evolution is God's invisible hand.
To take is a step further, this implies that we are God. Every person was made in the image of god, but the whole of society and the whole of Earth's ecosystem also was made in the image of God. God is not only the sum of our conscious actions in a marketplace, but the result of all actions taken by every living creature to survive.
By the act of still being here, we know God exists. In the upanishads, one may be inclined to read the following words:
“I am indeed this creation for I have parted forth from myself." In that way he became this creation and verily he who knows this becomes in this creation, a creator.
Each of us is one of the many hands of God and each action we take is make on behalf of the divine.
weight: 12st 8lb
cigarettes: 0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
