I always knew fear has an unnecessary effect on people….
I always knew fear has an unnecessary effect on people….
At a much simpler time I was introduced to the geographical concept of isostasy , a sort of self-check system that maintains gravitational equilibrium between the lithosphere and asthenosphere basically just the earth’s crust and mantle despite varied horizontal and vertical movements if my memory serves me right that is.
This concept explained much of the peculiar formations on the earth’s surface and as it turns may very well help at the very least enlighten us on the current world situation.
In the wake of the terrific Belgium attacks that devastated many to say the very least, today is the beginning of holi ,a most beloved hindu festival which depending on what Wikipedia origin story you rely on is either about Prahlada’s triumph over his evil aunt or a celebration of Radha and Krishna’s love which in many ways however you slice it is reminiscent of the popular concept of the eventual triumph of evil over good.
Such a beautiful festival filled with color and love falling immediately after the dreary bloody wake of one of the most horrific terror attacks, don’t forget the up and coming Easter weekend, ironically so.
However, if you were to splice these events they appear to be cancelling each other out, don’t they? A sort of isostatic adjustment so as to mitigate any superfluous happiness or tragedy.
Which from an empiricist’s standpoint evokes the question, if neutrality is the universal law because this has happened countless times before, a perfect example that I am versed with being the age of the industrial revolution all while many persons Africans notably languished in abject poverty and slavery.
Why then must we strive for the so called ‘triumph of evil over good’ if it isn’t at all possible?
For as long as the earth’s core is much closer to me in relation to other bodies why should I ever dream of falling upwards(without external manipulation of course)?
Perhaps vertigo is not fear of falling but the desire to jump?
Holding the man
Probably, definitely, right?
I actually don’t think so. And no I’m not a religious nut or a mole who hasn’t seen the way and progress of science.
I just have this demonic spirit of Thomas in me. And yes you are correct if you guessed the biblical Thomas, the eternal skeptic. Of late I have noticed that the magic words to convincing anyone of anything is saying either the words, ‘scientists have found’ or ‘a study has found’ and immediately the discussion stops. After all the scientists and studies have spoken_ because they are so infallible?
Science is great of course in fact I’d rather like to refer to myself as one of these very scientists and this is why I of all people must call science out on this. How many times have test tubes been mislabeled, statistics incorrectly estimated or equipment has gone bust, and these are just instances of accidental mistakes. What about when an agenda is attached? I have watched so many scientists fall in love with ideas and concepts that they engineer the experiments to accommodate their expectations, an area they are acutely skilled if i might I add.
When was the last time you actually heard of a new break-through in the scientific arena and read the said study and went to great lengths to demonstrate its truths yourself?
Most of the insurgents of scientific beliefs have slammed tradition and religion for its lack of cross-examination yet this is exactly what science has come to.
Scientists have become prophets and the practice has become a religion with dogmas of its own. This is just to call attention to the fact that science is nothing without us, humans, the most important ingredient for the scientific sauce and we are far from perfect to say the very least then why has science become so perfect a craft? Above all scrutiny, true scrutiny.
In fact there isn’t at all anything wrong with traditions or religion if not the humanistic aspect, we are the ones who misconstrue truth and fantasy and imprison ourselves in the pride of our misconception. So why aren’t we ready to confront science and all its proclamations with the same hostility that we accord tradition and religions? And I know at that the rate at which people are writing publications and papers that simply isn’t practical but I think it is something we’d rather die trying to do than resign to.
I recently watched a talk by the National Science Foundation and why they have devoted a considerable number of resources to encourage science literacy so that we stop relying on these ‘experts’ who at an instant can manipulate the entirety of certain fields of scientific thought. Let us have some ownership for the truths we choose to perpetuate an ownership that can only ever be achieved by constant skepticism of them. Someone wise once said truth welcomes doubt if at all it is true and I am inclined to believe this, hesitation must not factor when it comes to clarification.
I have watched too many videos, lost too many arguments to people deriving their subject matter from studies, experimental trials and scientists with this ‘untouchable’ authority then go ahead to make these absurd correlations that may or may not even truly exist. And I think that is the true tragedy here loss of curiosity which is actually perpendicular to the true scientific spirit that encourages check-points and further research even on research itself.
Take up the challenge and own your scientific truths.
Recently I watched a documentary on Edwardian times, the manners and opinions of that era and even its profound impact of this particular part of British history on modern-day Britain and the rest of the world really.
What stuck out to me obviously was the meaning of the term ‘woman’ what she was, what was expected of her and how she was to go about her affairs be it decorum, marriage, family you name it.
The interesting thing about it was that the kind of woman that was generally referred to was the aristocrat. And yet the chains clanked just as loud as for any other woman.
She was to marry well which threw out most hopes of choosing a partner out of love, her reputation was her gilded shield and would forever protect her from shame but of course human nature was very present even then and so you would see women rushing up and down to cover up their dirty linen.
Raising children as their siblings, vacationing in distant lands for 9 months, rendezvousing carefully and in the dingiest parts of town risking life and limb if only to not be cited and be branded she who lost control of her passions and forgot inhibitions. But also the times were changing ushering in new customs, new money and new traditions.
Thus it was made all the more necessary for the aristocrats to hold fast and steady to the olden traditions practicing them with even more fervor than before, which suffocated women especially.
Definitely the history lesson in all that was quite an education for me but I also observed a common denominator in it and my African culture, some Arabic culture and even some Asian cultures. Notice that I am quite literally now talking about totally distant societies that developed to some degree autonomously and yet they all had the common denominator of the mistreatment of women some of which continues on even up till now.
The issue of feminism is definitely not an original one or even a particularly new one, the suffragettes have had their go, so have black women, so have the Arabic women and the struggle continues.
My qualm is why did this kind of unfair system though clearly prescribed differently manage to develop almost everywhere?Its origin is unsettling.
A woman was to be a slave, to cater but not be catered to.it was at times a miracle act if a woman was loved at all in any part of her life whether it be as a daughter, as a wife or even as a mother. Where and why does this resentment for women stem?
Even in religion let me speak of the Bible for that is what I am familiar with, mention of women is few and far apart. I am sure that women too were just as chosen, as brave, eloquent as the men then why weren’t they referred to as much? Even a female prostitute would attract more rebuke as compared to her probably respectable married male consort.
While standing in front of the facts that have burdened some of us for oh so long its astonishing to discover that this kind of inhumanity is naturally occurring in the mean of man.
I have always been devoted to following observations and the correlations they proclaim to wherever they may lead me but it is times like these that the lands they lead me to are stranger and more shocking than anything i had envisioned.
I had always hoped for the world’s sake maybe even humanity’s sake to attribute women’s suffering to a singular demonic person who lived and managed to sway each everyone’s will to bend to his. But to discover that the demoniac quality of desecrating another’s dignity for this long was always a quality we possessed a rite that must be passed that is truly discouraging for the hope of our species and whatever other dark qualities lurk within all of us, not as a matter of choice but simply as a matter of fact.
In all my various professions those past and present and in all those that I have observed others partake I have come to conclude that there are but two ways to profess your profession. Either artistically or practically and these terms I use to refer to all manner of professions, by artistically I mean that you practice the profession only so as to bask in its elegance or beauty of it if you will, like doctors who are floored by the engineering of the body and just want to learn it and understand its intricate workings and hopefully discover understandings that are yet to be uncovered or a poet who writes just so as to parlay the language and diction into greater heights and dance along at the accomplished wordplay.
By practicality I mean practicing your profession solely to draw the utility from it for example a mathematician who is not just enthralled by the technique or the solution but who is interested in its application and what it can do for the world or the physicist who wants to understand the laws of nature and try to adapt their implications to inventions that can simplify the way in which we live. Of course each approach has its own underlying advantages and cons as well but which is the optimal choice or which combination of the two yields the optimal professionalism.
Personally I have mostly been a professional student and I have always been artistic in that profession because I revel in the sheer beauty of knowledge and my mastery of it but many at times that is all there is while in fact I could be implementing the suppositions from that very knowledge into bigger and better ideas. Though as a poet and philosopher I have been quite practical always being careful to read only that which has relevance and implementation for the current world. Same goes for my poetry it is always packed with a message a moral to the story not just a beautifully spun tale without a purpose.
But in all this I have had the lingering ‘what if’ pummel me relentlessly ,the opportunity cost of not choosing the other way has me at my wit’s end trying hard to uncover what is the optimal choice of approach?
In philosophy you are taught the rather distinct difference between human acts and acts of man, that human acts require the consent and decision from man while acts of man do not like say breathing.
So let’s say we call all works of man art like the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and then we assume that man cannot create per se not by himself of course because he requires materials that are never ultimately his creation. Then let us also say that art can never be as a product of an act of man it must be as a result of a human act for example making art by respiring is not possible.
And we obviously know that human art has gradation levels because technique produces more refined art for example a carpenter’s chair is better than what I’ll produce with some wood and a saw. Then we should also assume that art can also be as a result of natural acts such as the Niagara falls, the fourteen falls and all that and also its perfection is always of the utmost technique therefore natural art as a result of pure natural acts is always at the topmost level of art . And lastly let us also assume that natural art can also be a result of the combination of a human act and a natural actsuch as the Aswan dam and Panama canal but since natural art by natural acts entirely is quite literally always the work of the Higher being or God (whichever you prefer) and thus never in vain then its perfection is always higher than that of natural art as a form of human acts combined with natural acts.
Then comes the question isn’t conception natural art as a result of human acts as much as natural acts because humans must copulate but the literal process of conception is a natural act because it just doesn’t take intercourse alone to conceive, nature must be a signatory, a sad truth.
And isn’t a plant a form of natural art of either fully fromnatural acts(growing naturally) or the combination of natural and human acts(humans planting seeds) and because more often than not even probabilistically the plants are more products of natural acts solely rather than the combo. And due to the elevated level of art by natural acts solely as opposed to the combined natural and human acts’ art there are more plants than humans because there is a vast portion of planting that is natural and thus highly successful (as I said nature is never in vain).
So why is planting a seed not regarded equal to conception or even more severe and sublime a process because a part of its Venn diagram consists of pure natural actions that are more perfect than a natural act combined with a human act philosophically?
feel free to critique and add commentary this is really a gray area for me