Center of the Cyclone

History and Myth - Contraries or Contradictories?

History is considered by many to be an exact science of objectively
recording present events for future reference. unfortunately, as
with most popular considerations, this is not the case. History
involves the interpretation and bias of the historian, and is open
to both the interpretations and biases of the readers - a perfect
example of catch-22.

History and myth both contain propositions or claims which could be
verified as either historically true or historically false. the
problem to face now is whether the historical references we use to
verify these claims are indeed accurate depictions of events which
had transpired long ago.

enter mythology. if philosophy is the mother of all sciences, myth
must have been her drunkard husband. quoting myself from another
forum, "mythology is one of the earliest ways by which people can
explain, within the context of their culture, events which happen
beyond their control and understanding." the only essential
difference between philosophy and myth would be that the former is
restricted by the use of reason (whether sound or not), while the
latter simply boils down to subjective inferential speculation and
is not subject to rational inquiry.

Just as children mature and become independent, the sciences have
metamorphopsized from natural philosophy, whose only requirement is
that a claim be rational, into empirical verificationism and
objectivism.

genetics. irony.

those who think that science is objective are mistaken. Science
carries with it a taint of mythology - the gene of subjectivism.
Theories are not based on what is the case, but on what we simply
perceive as the case. scientific theories are simply inductive
hypotheses supported by observed facts, and could be falsified at
any time by a counterexample. falsifiability is what essentially
separates science from philosophy. it is useful in weeding out
excessive speculation, but it is not an absolute safeguard against
error.

Is the bible historically accurate? perhaps a better question would
be whether history itself is accurate, in the sense that its claims
are true. assuming a positive answer to both questions, does this
automatically qualify the entire bible as truth?, not necessarily.
it would have been the case had the bible’s propositions been
factual and its claims literary. the bible contains prophecies
(propositions) based on future contingency, to which truth values
cannot be assigned. moreover, it contains figurative language, which
is essentially subject to hermeneutics before it can be logically
scrutinized. the best that we could say is that some parts of the
bible are historically accurate.

Is the DVC historically accurate? same question as above. given that
the plot of the work is fictional, albeit some factual claims are
assumed as historically accurate, it could be said that some parts
of the DVS are historically accurate.

Logically speaking a contradictory relation is expressed by two
propositions whose truth-values are diametrically opposed to each
other at any given instance, such as "the sun is yellow" and "the
sun is not yellow." In a contradiction, the truth value of the
second proposition is always the opposite of the first. on the other
hand, a contrary relation simply states that two propositions cannot
be both true at any given instance, such as "the sun is yellow"
and "the sun is red," where yellow is not red (no shades of yellow
are shades of red).

some parts of the DVC are historically accurate and some parts of
the bible are historically accurate. does the DVC contradict the
bible? based on the above definition of a contradiction, it does
not. however, some parts of it may have contrary relation to some
parts of the bible, and vice versa. this means to say that the two
are compatible in some parts, but in points of conflict, only one
could be true - or both could be false.

in the end it all boils down to our premises. in points of conflict
between the bible and the DVC, do we believe that the bible is true?
if we do, then the DVC is false; if not, then either the DVC is
true, or both could be false.  do we believe that the DVC is true?
if we do, then the bible is false; if we do not, then the bible
could be true, or both could be false. if we believe that both are
true, we should be prepared to face a contradiction. credo quia
absurdion, as they say. if we do not believe that either is true,
then the discussion does become moot. all this is just much ado
about nothing.

Entropy: A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value as it reaches equilibrium.

Reality has its own ways of catching up on us. Most people grow old, some get sick, but in the end, everyone will die. Death: nature’s way of telling us to slow down. Perhaps Heraclitus was right - that everything is in a state of constant flux, and that change is the only constant in life. Perhaps.

It’s fascinating how things which had seemed so rigid, permanent and immutable at first, end up being the most fragile, unstable and volatile. What’s more fascinating is that things always change from better to worse. Of course, we might object that there are some things which tend to get better occasionally, but to borrow my favorite paranoid android’s words, these "will all end up in tears."

There is a way to temporarily avoid this, though. That would be to put in more effort. We usually exhaust ourselves and think that what we have now would last forever. We get tired, and our efforts eventually fall short of minimum requirement. When this happens, things tend to get broken.

In a universe whose motion has been preordained by deterministic laws, is there really such thing as freedom? If not, can there really be such a thing as regret, given that we cannot help but do what we are naturally predisposed to do? Are we really going to blame ourselves for things which we have no control over? How about others?

ODE TO BROKEN THINGS

Things get broken 
at home 
like they were pushed 
by an invisible, deliberate smasher. 
It’s not my hands 
or yours 
It wasn’t the girls 
with their hard fingernails 
or the motion of the planet. 
It wasn’t anything or anybody 
It wasn’t the wind 
It wasn’t the orange-colored noontime 
Or night over the earth 
It wasn’t even the nose or the elbow 
Or the hips getting bigger 
or the ankle 
or the air. 
The plate broke, the lamp fell 
All the flower pots tumbled over 
one by one. That pot 
which overflowed with scarlet 
in the middle of October, 
it got tired from all the violets 
and another empty one 
rolled round and round and round 
all through winter 
until it was only the powder 
of a flowerpot, 
a broken memory, shining dust. 
And that clock 
whose sound 
was 
the voice of our lives, 
the secret 
thread of our weeks, 
which released 
one by one, so many hours 
for honey and silence 
for so many births and jobs, 
that clock also 
fell 
and its delicate blue guts 
vibrated 
among the broken glass 
its wide heart 
unsprung. 

Life goes on grinding up 
glass, wearing out clothes 
making fragments 
breaking down 
forms 
and what lasts through time 
is like an island on a ship in the sea, 
perishable 
surrounded by dangerous fragility 
by merciless waters and threats. 

Let’s put all our treasures together 
– the clocks, plates, cups cracked by the cold – 
into a sack and carry them 
to the sea 
and let our possessions sink 
into one alarming breaker 
that sounds like a river. 
May whatever breaks 
be reconstructed by the sea 
with the long labor of its tides. 
So many useless things 
which nobody broke 
but which got broken anyway.

-Pablo Neruda

Holding Islam directly responsible for the wrongs of several extermist groups or individuals shows how ill informed majority of the people are regarding the nature of responsibility and how their understanding of this principle is fundamentally flawed.

An entity could only be held directly responsible if it had a legitimate choice to do or not to do an action, and those who do not have such a choice may be held indirectly responsible for conspiring, funding, condoning, and/or encouraging - but should not be regarded with same moral status due to the individuals who had acted. it makes no sense to persecute Islam solely for the sins of some members, just as it is absurd to accuse religion itself as condoning such atrocities just because Islam is part of it. if we were to accept the former proposition, then we might as well include all humans in the picture, since the individuals who perform such acts of terrorism and human rights violations are also humans.

furthermore, it is useless to argue that the Islamic religion had caused individuals to perform the undesirable terrorist acts, since if that were the case, then all muslims should have done the same or at least would have agreed with what happened. since this is not the case, then the argument of islam being the cause of terorism fails. and consequently, the act of persecuting either muslims in general or Islam itself is uncalled for.

in my opinion, the misunderstanding of the principle of responsibility rests upon a category-mistake and a flaw in the understaiding of logical subalternation. Islam cannot be identified by simply observing its members’ behavior. it is characterized by the ideology which its members adhere to. how they base their acts upon this ideology does not necessarily correspond to what Islam reaslly is. in addition, logic dictates the necessity of the proposition that "if indeed islam promotes terrorism, then some of its members would be terrorists;" however, logic also tells us that it is incorrect to say that "because some of Islam’s members are terrorists then Islam promotes terrorism."

I often feel compelled to believe that most people use religion is simply an excuse to hate other groups. I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

"Long ago, in another galaxy, there lived a gloomy robot. His name was Marvin. He was getting old and a bit rusty, and nobody liked him. One day, being very bored, he thought it would be a good idea to tidy up all his old programs in his dusty old databank. There were tapes in there that he hadn’t played for years. Checking them through, he accidentally pressed a wrong button and suddenly he heard:

‘Marvin, I love you..
Marvin, I love you..’

Well, he was sure he hadn’t heard that ever before, and he wasn’t even sure he’d heard it THAT time, because, being a bored and gloomy robot, he hadn’t really been listening. What was worse, he couldn’t remember what button he’d accidentally pressed. Anyway, he tried a few switches at random, and suddenly:

‘Marvin I love you..
Marvin I love you..
Remember, I’m programmed for you..
I know we’re worlds apart,
Still you could break my heart,
Loving you is all I can do..’

Well, he heard it that time alright, no doubt about it! Who was singing these strange words? Was it another robot, or some strange life form from the distant past, when he was a young robot and people still made the occassional attempt to like him? He couldn’t make it out at all. So he pushed a few buttons again:

‘Marvin I love you..
Marvin I love you..’

That was it.

‘I’ve tried to contact you Marvin
I don’t know why, but you never replied.
Perhaps one day you’ll answer,
But until then I guess I’ll keep on trying."

"That does not compute," he thought miserably. But at least he knew where to find it in his databank. From then on, he could play it whenever he wanted, think about what he’d missed, and live, miserably, ever after."

Children of the night
Only some will star the sky
Only believers in death will die
And fathers must feather the wings of women
For the unfeathered masses dangle ridiculous
Carrying crosses to phalayx filled tombs
The future sails silent through blood rivered wombs
That ripple with riddles of cows and spoons
and births Moons and earth
Sun-centered at noon

And here i stand
Court jestering infinity
Fetal fisted for revolution
But open hands birth humility
Now what is the density of an egoless planet?
Must my spine be aligned to sprout wings?
I’m slouched into sling steps and kangoled with gang reps
But my orbit rainbows saturn rings
Mystical elliptical
Presto polaris
Karmic flamed future when saturns and aries
And now i’m a fish called father
With gills type dizzy
Blowing liquid lullabies through the spine of time
I’m certain of saturns rivers and all esle is fact
So baptise me in the stars
And wrap me in nighttime
Moon blue
Pupil my sight with orange balls of light
And echo my plight
Through the corridors of metaphor
What else are we living for if not to create
Fiction and rhyme?
My purpose is to make my soul
Rhyme with my mind
Mind over matter
Minds create matter
Minds create fiction
As a matter of fact
As if matter were fact
Matter is fact
So spirit much be fiction
Science fiction
Art fiction meta fiction

The tao of now
Is here amongst the living in the voice of children is the tao of now

You are the divine reflection of this earth
She does not belong to you
No there is no need for your correction
All run in the same rivers

All rivers run in the same direction
If you’re serving the father theres no sun w/o matter
Parent bodies discover water
Bodies and drown
Wade me in the water
’til atlantis is found
On the sea floors of self
I’m starfish and unbound
Heard the way of that mound is stone mountain
Underwater volcanoes erupt water fountains of youth
Test this carnal equation cancel out wind and truth
Swirl me beyond sometimes
Drench me water proof
Let eve drop forever rain
Sunsets on my roof
As i sit on the front porch of my sanity
Deciphering hambones to van gogh this vanity
Oiled egos
Canvased and framed
To be reborn unborn unburied unnamed
A reflection through a blood stained glass window
Or souls

There is a monster living
It’s the voice of children
It is the tao of now

Gone yellow round the edges
Carbonated dreams and blurred daily lives
But let family bring focus
Out of swamps blossom lotus
The muddy water blue daughter of infinity
Gravity we water bodied bhodisativas our serenity
As we rise with the tides toward divinity

Yes we rise with the tides towards divinity
The muddy water blue daughter of infinity
Gravity we water bodied bhodisativas our serenity
As we rise with the tides toward divinity….
Yes we rise with the tides towards diviinty
Now we rise with the tides towards divinity
’cause we rise with the tides towards divinity

The tao of now
Is here amongst the living in the voice of children is the tao of now

There is a monster living it’s in the voice of children
It is the tao of now

Captain’s log: 050428

This is a test. Yes it is. Good. Terminate program.