Hero(s), of the Unknown.

In my last post, I made mention that I have a hard time grasping and sitting within the umbrella of established ontologies, or Religious faiths being that most faiths have an ontology as a foundation.

What I have noticed in the years since my “Fall” is that the pain and discomfort from the despair and nihilism has lifted, and has percolated into a different sort of rationale. One that makes me hesitant to buy into any worldview that isn’t created by myself. I’m even reluctant to use English, and other forms of convenience for they aren’t “Mine”.

In a philosophical way, the reasons are based upon a feeling that all I’m doing is making noise in a medium that barely transfers the desired communication. Imagine parroting back words, and symbols that are essentially rendered meaningless because they have no depth or a certain qualia.

Example, the worlds memes, or the vast repository of images online. The feeling is best conveyed with this sentiment; look at enough pictures of naked women, and then realize they they all start to blur together into one naked form. That their bodies are all essentially the same. Breasts, vagina, legs…etc. Maybe tattoos, but they are in essence without character. It all becomes somewhat homogeneous. The only thing that makes them unique is their face, and that you don’t necessarily need to see in adjunct to a naked body.

Extrapolating out from this is the notion that the written word has the same effect that may happen to it. Read enough, or see enough prose and it all starts to blur together. Words become conflated, passages jumbled, and you just stop reading the article all together. Information overload I’m sure, but there’s more to it.

What it is, is that the world has become too big, and our lives too small. Although even that is a gross way of putting it. The world’s always been big, and our demesne is pathetic. It doesn’t help that the novel is quickly propagated to the point where there is no more uniqueness to it. What has grown is our ability to interact with this great big world, but what seems to have been lost is the niche. A person has a hard time finding the out of the way stuff for example; Google indexes the more popular sites, and presents them first in this great big clutter.

The search results one gets is often the same results thousands of others have visited. Simply put, anything on the internet is mass produced to the point that there’s no individuality. I didn’t start this post with the intents of bitching about the internet, but it ties in nicely. As a result of the internet, a person has to work harder at standing out. Instead of standing out in a local community, and growing from there. A person is now competing with nearly 3.3 billion other people. For attention, for relevance, for meaning.

Why believe my words over somebody else? Why date this woman or man over another? Why invest in this idea, or product instead of something better? We are simply put being hit by the same thing that happens when one goes to the grocery store and sees 20+ types of product to buy. In the end, what happens? The product is crossed off the list. If it comes to fulfillment, and the deeper sense of meaning. Why buy into a set product (religion, ideology…etc)?

Meaning becomes meaningless simply because there is too much of it. And all of it is tangential to the meaning that drives oneself. And you know why, it isn’t our personal meaning. Then again, maybe not everyone needs a personal meaning that they hold to be self-evident that was self fostered.

That is the point that saddens me, that every time I see a “stereotypical” example of a person. I wonder, “What is lost?”, how much could that single individual change the world if they believed fully in themselves, and said, “My beliefs are just as valid.”. I don’t know if the world would be a better place, but it’d likely be more chaotic. Less mutual, or common ground to base a worldview off of.

Imagine, for a second, a world in which your beliefs weren’t derided because they’re unusual, or different. That a person wouldn’t risk being tossed in the loony bin because they had a difference of opinion that was too severe. That every worldview would be mutually valid because the cosmos are “infinite”, and in the long run there likely would be no difference than becoming “god”.

For a moment, let me paint a picture of a society we’re on track to becoming; Technology is starting to grasp what makes a person conscious, and are able to instill it into artificial life. Work has become effectively nonexistent. Virtual realities are more real than reality, and everyone has their own personal recreational sim. Science has a pretty detailed picture of the universe, and can effectively explain everything. Sounds nice doesn’t it?

The pitfalls though that go with it. Science is indoctrinated as the sole arbiter of Truth. In order for something to be real, it has to be reproducible, and falsifiable. No one off events for Truth, or worldviews. You’ll likely live in your recreational sim…because there’s nothing else to do. Work has little demands upon your time. Speaking on the first note, your consciousness is not unique, and maybe even subpar. Why have a child, or a life partner if you can get all your needs met by an AI?

A conflict free relationship with some sort of Ideal (in multiple aspects) partner? Who wouldn’t want that?  That is a future that seems both parts idealistic, and depressing. Yes! I get to play all the time, and no! I get to play all the time. A world that is explained has no mystery, and no areas for curiosity. A place with no room for growth, or adventure.

That’s why I think this rabbit hole is deeper. That the spark of life is there for everyone, and reality is likely a more “Idealistic” world in the philosophical sense. That one creates their own reality through shear belief. That a world exists for each and every single one of us. Otherwise just hook us up to the pleasure machines, and let the hedonism drip. Because otherwise each one of us is of negligible worth to this world in a sort of grand scheme. An extreme form of alienation. 

Advertisements

Nihilist, A Beginning

Let us go with this idea for a moment, that all of reality is meaningless. That other than the brief moment of awareness of life. All one is familiar with is “nothingness”, but this is predicated on one’s assumptions being correct. Yes, there’s a possible explanation, and justification that there’s thousand to billions of years “I” was not an “I”. That when “I” die there will be a return to said “nothingness”.

There’s a couple of ways to look at it. A pedantic approach is the following; Nihilism, or the belief in “nothingness”, is predicated upon there being something to negate. That there was value, of which is now without merit. Nothing can exist in a vacuum, including “nothingness”. Nihilism needs to have a world of value, for it to negate and have value in itself. It contradicts itself.

Yes, the horrors of the angst, and the despair are atrocious when one realizes that the world may not have intrinsic merit, but that is where the beauty arises. For what does that do to those that embrace, and go through with the nihilistic moment? Those that destroy their flimsy world of values. Those that honestly say to themselves that this world is alien to me. That I’m terrified of the mortality and the suffering that I have to endure.

What does it do? What it does, is that it returns one back to man’s foundational, and primal footing. Ever hear of the Buddha? Siddhartha Gautama was a mortal man who despaired of sickness, death, and suffering. In it he found a strange sense of contentment through contemplation. He founded a whole school of thought, and belief. Doesn’t Jesus strike a similar note? How about Mohammad?

Every great ontology, or doctrine has started from an individual that has faced, and owned up to the suffering, sickness, and death within life. Perhaps this is the truth to life? That I am dust that has come to realize that I am dust? Is there not beauty in this sentiment? To witness the ephemeral beauty that life happens to be. To realize that in the cosmic scheme of things one’s life is the very same as a puff of smoke displayed upon the breeze.

I too found this notion abhorrent the first couple of times I contemplated it. That everything that I may do will pass away as snow in an inferno. That any testament or legacy that I may strive to create is just….ashes. That is not a taste that is palatable upon the tongue of reason at first, but it may become an acquired taste. Bitter though it may be,  a world of impermanence is what is our domain. Of course this being said, it is contingent upon one’s beliefs.

If one believes in a world that is infinite and transcendental to this humble plane. That is all fine and dandy, but realize this; That is the foundation for all religious, or spiritual mores. From Plato’s Ideal, to the Christian Logos, around to the karmic cycle of Hinduism. Every single ontological foundation is a way to circumnavigate the impending demise of the notion of legacy. That even my works are in vain.

Thus let us ruminate upon that for a moment, if one were to subscribe to what I portrayed at the start of this post. A world that is intrinsically without merit. What happens? Well, saying that something is intrinsically without is kinda like saying that it is in this case. It is a weird logical merry go round where one realizes that all the values and meanings that have been stated or lived in the world is both simultaneously with and without value. I may lob the whole history of humanity into the sink and say, “It is time for new beginnings, this stuff is all False.”, but that’d be perpetuating the sheer ignorance of it all.

Instead, I believe nihilism is actually best related to on a personal level. Not at one of a society, for not everyone goes through it. Not everyone even knows what the term means, or have experienced it. The same goes for despair. It is these sentiments that I feel happen to those that are on the outskirts or the fringes of the “mainstream” ontological envelope. It can’t happen to those that are fully convinced of a certain ontological merit. Those who aren’t alienated can’t experience despair or nihilism. At least not to the same extent that the outsider does.

This is better than saying that it is only relatable to those of intellectual merit which I believe would be a false stance to take. Thus all of us that are in the throes of despair, or have felt it’s black hands. Can identify with the notion of being an “alien”, or an “other”. And despair ties in heavily with nihilism. For in the throes of despair, one often lashes out at any edifice that seems sturdy enough to support the flailing identity. Hence why Christianity, as an example, has the Dark Night of the Soul. To those that are able to connect, or reside within the Christian Ontology. It saves them. To those that question, or the timbers for the scaffold are rotten. It fails, often drastically.

Although I imagine having or feeling  like all established ontologies failed you is quite an achievement. One that I imagine doesn’t happen too often. One that is precipitated by a drastic fall into that metaphorical abyss. That is the hole I feel like I fell into. I realized that almost all established modes of thought didn’t suite me, for that is about the only way to term it. They just don’t make sense, and I can’t muster the effort to invest into their belief schemes.

In a pithy way, I think I achieved that remark of, “I reject your reality, and substitute my own.”, that one used to hear every so often. And that may be a good thing, in the way of; If everything is a house of cards, might as well set up one’s own house of cards an see what happens, right?

Foundational Thought: A New Ontology

I would like to propose a new form of ontology, one in which people aren’t privileged as the sole seat of understanding.  From the Christian or religious perspective where God is privileged as the source of truth to one where Truth is based off a dispassionate external standard.  Much like the shift in astronomy caused by the change from Geocentric star systems to Heliocentric.  This shift could change the perspective of humanity in the scheme of things.  For from a deistic perspective all the fundamental questions of life are asked.  What if the questions weren’t asked of what is in relation to the world beyond or thereafter, but of what is the limits of the Universe and Reality that we know?

One could imagine a flourishing within the sciences where reality isn’t questioned as to if it was real, but to the extent of what we may learn or know from the world around us.  This isn’t to write theology out of the picture completely, but to change the focal point of our attention.  Suffice to say it would essentially imply that God has taken a step into the background, so that we may focus our attention upon the world around us even more.  In effect it would be like us growing up in a philosophical way.  One where our cultural legacies are honored, but shifted from a child’s sense of awareness up to a toddlers.  It was child-like due to the aspect of helping reassure us, and our places in the cosmos.  It is time, much like a toddler, to explore our environments, and our belief systems.

Imagine, a standard of thought that consisted of these are the external variables, and standards by which our thoughts operate, and thrive.  And these are the subjective standards that may arise from observation of external qualia, and internal nature.  That we are in essence our own little truth-makers, and realizers.  That we are following through with that notion of becoming “God-Like” as referenced in the Catholic catechism.  That God became man so that man may become God.  It is set upon us to strive to become more “god-like” and to set aside the flights and fancies of a childish ontology.  One in which we are dependent upon an external source for validation (God).  And instead rely upon our communal, and societal standards along with our individual notions of what is the basis of our foundation.

Is this not what was called upon for us to accomplish by Jesus’s parable of the foundation of one’s house?  And after having sounded out and dug in that foundation what is there but to do other than build that edifice of belief?  This is why I think we are having this nihilistic age of Postmodernism.  It is the growing pains of adolescence.

We are hitting a growth spurt, and yes it’s awkward. Many of the things that we believe in today are going to be wrong tomorrow, and the next day the same thing happens. Therefore let us strive to be conscientious practitioners of those looking for the truth. Huddling under the shelter of age old dogma won’t get us far. Thus we need to push the boundaries. There’s been an argument that has been waged for the past 2000+ years, and that is the argument of if Reality is “Real”, or if it is a product of one’s own psyche. Realism vs. Idealism.

Standing aside of the argument for a moment, let us consider that any system that is concrete enough to immerse one’s awareness in is considered real. An artificial intelligence would consider a virtual system real. To us, it’d be a mimicry. To me it would seem like Realism is the clear victor here. Mainly because there seems to be clear evidence supporting it, but there again there is support for idealism as well. Maybe not the idealism where one can change physical phenomenon with shear mental audacity, but who knows.

At base, one’s ontology (worldview) is based upon a composite image. No one is 100% Realist, and no one is 100% Idealist. I find myself tinging towards the Idealist spectra because of my Schizophrenia where it seems gratifying to say it’s all in my head. Although that is probably why I’ve received said diagnosis. And that is where I mean to get at it.

If it’s in my head, and my head is a vessel for my brain while my brain is a physical object. It would seem to me that it would have to exist prior to an Idealist state. I can’t will myself to have better health, or a change in physical disposition (I’ve tried). Thus an idealist based ontology is out. Leaving a realist ontology as the base description. Emphasis on the base, just because I can’t change my physical state through thinking about it doesn’t mean this closes off the whole idea of a idealist world. An artificial intelligence inside its own domain could feasibly be the true example of an Idealist ontology. It would be able to change itself on a cursory level through mere thought.

Although none of us are an artificial intelligence as far as I know. Thus we’re going to build a Realist ontology. Based off of all the known factoids derived from scientific reasoning. It would seem like a good place to start. It ought to be robust enough to withstand the depredations of nihilism, and enduring enough to give light. Preferably it’ll incorporate aspects of the processes of cognition, and will be able to expand.

I’ll start with further ruminations of mine in a followup post.

The Depths of Logic and Reason.

I’m sitting here typing away in an unorthodox position of having been hospitalized.  For the past 7 months I’ve been in a medical ward for treatment of my schizophrenia.  Given the time of this duration, I’ve made a realization that this supposed ailment is because I spend too much time reflecting upon “internal stimuli” (doctor’s words).

To me, I, took that as meaning I think too much.  That notwithstanding, I would like to delve into some thoughts of nihilism.  Humorous, no?  In my early college years I’ll state that I was deep in the mental gutter of reason.  I had rationalized myself away as a meaningless hunk of carbon and flesh.  Love was a chemical reaction.  It was a pretty morbid place intellectually.  It was there I somehow made sense and reason to the whole concept of nihilism.

It makes sense, and I don’t mean in the vein everything is of no inherent value, which it is.  At least when one excludes a worldview with a deity, or traditional value providers. I made sense of it by coming to terms with a meaningless existence through the realization that we are the beings that give meaning to this world.

As a metaphor, nihilism is like a bulldozer that clears away the previous edifice that stood.  Ontological nihilism annihilates the worldview that one entertains.  It is like growing up Catholic, and realizing to an extent Jesus is like Santa Claus.  Nihilism comes in and wipes it out.  Not because it is of no value, but because said value has become integrated into one’s core belief.  To an extent the metaphorical building of belief that nihilism has wiped out is either rotted and dilapidated or in need of renovation.

Nihilism is possibly brought about through two ways.  The first is that the worldview has become outdated.  The second is that said worldview has “succeeded”.  For some the Christian world has been realized.  Other’s see it as woefully antiquated.

Kierkegaard wrote of a time that was to be called the great leveling. A time where people would be in effect equal to a tee.  He believed it was the result of the Christian mission.  Nietzsche, wrote of the great re-evaluation, a period of time where traditions and mores would be questioned and re-judged.  Is that not post modernism?

Everyday we deal with nihilism.  Most of us don’t realize it.  Mainly because we still live in an antiquated worldview.  There is a world that is beyond the classical conception of good and evil.  It is neither black nor white.

In psychology, black and white thinking is considered a limited mindset.  Philosophy, either/or fallacy, thinking in binary patterns is of the old belief system.  Thinking in multivariate is likely the next big thing.

Thus how does one proceed to think in more than binary?  This in itself is called postformal logic.  A relatively small field of psychology has started to explore it.  Notes may be found in transpersonal psychology, but that too is a small field at present.

If I were to venture a suggestion.  I’d say instead of seeing them as two either/or categorical choices.  See them as polarities.  Good blurs into evil.  Light into dark.  This seems commonsense enough, but how hard is it to reason this way?

Is there points to be made for thinking in aspects of two?  Well, there’s artificial intelligence, but that may be hard to achieve in systems that only step between one and two.  Much like our traditional logic.  If a.i. research proves to be fruitful on solely binary logic alone.  I’d be surprised.

I would imagine that on some level one would need to understand binary logic to the following extent.  That of being able to program a logic that is one par with their own base logic.  The logic of two is also called formal logic, and that is where most people are apparently.  Very telling isn’t it that a majority of the world thinks of things in two’s.

Only now is the conversation being opened up to multivariate.  And that is through gender discourse!  How telling is that!  That the breakdown of the binary mindset is coming through the means of likely the oldest binary in the world!  That of gender!  Male and female.

Isn’t this odd? That the oldest from of demarcation is now the one being reevaluated? The Ancient Greeks, from one entity with both aspects, and bodies to one where there are two (female & male). To one where there is argued to be more than just the two? What kind of breakdown is our culture going through?

A most interesting one, is it not? And with it a whole slew of reevaluations for what it means to have a worldview, or value structure. Example if that seems a little loose; Christian Values lead to a Christian Worldview. And with Christian Values that got us to our current day understanding of the world. We’re going to tear them down, if desired, and replace them with a whole new slew.

Do you realize what this means? Everything, or nearly everything within one’s world. Including symbols, beliefs, motifs, and the ideas of how to proceed in developing truths is being hit! Empirical science is predicated upon the Christian Ethos to an extent. That the Universe is orderly and consists of “Natural Laws”. Premised upon God being the or a Lawmaker. That too could be questioned, and if that be the case. What would that entail?

Imagine a worldview that isn’t based off of the “Light, Good, Order” eschatology, or ontology! What are the possibilities, and the results that may stem from such a belief? From what I’ve been reading online in the consciousness research field. They are debating as to if the Mind and Consciousness itself doesn’t shape Reality in concrete ways. In other words Philosophical Idealism. The belief that the Universe and Reality itself is a product our minds. Thus if we change the way our worldview is constructed through utilizing Nihilism as a tool to remove a worldview that is outgrown. What are the possibilities? Limitless?

The Reaper’s Calling

 

The Reaper’s Calling

a – Weary upon the sigh,
b – holding fast upon the scythe.
a – The Reaper’s willing to buy,
b – golden flesh as his annual tithe.
c – Slicing through grains to wait,
c – all to fill the yearly freight.
d – Yielding bodies yet to give,
d – so that other’s may set to live.
e – The Reaper sets to the field,
d – Setting today’s count to liv.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

a – Feeling a little wry,
b – He claps out a cheery fifth.
a – And sets up a frolicking cry.
b – He carries on all a lithe,
c – Quickening his gait,
c – towards those who felt the weight.
d – The Prince of Fate draws upon his knive.
d – And those counting upon his drive.
e – Look to them who yield.
d – wishing he’d leave them alive.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

a – Clasping upon their thigh.
b – The fellow began to writhe,
a – Praying for it to be some other guy.
b – The Reaper starts to pith.
c – And the first passes through the gate.
c – The rest realizing their strait,
d – Arms themselves with glaive.
d – Despite their defense, they waive.
e – And with cowardice, they kneeled.
d – Littered with attempts to pave.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

a – Those that submitted failed to comply.
b – Attempted to dull blade with withe.
a – To which they must die.
b – Towards mortality, thought to beautify.
c – Failed to abate,
c – the wrathful slate.
d – Coming upon a scorning knave,
d – the Reaper found someone brave.
e – To which Faith would shield.
d – And time would engrave.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

a – Towards him they thought to lie.
b – Youth, scorned to compell an aye.
a – The liv, said their final goodbye.
b – Shy child Wiped his tears dry.
c – Thought the kid, time is late.
c – Tis time to live up to Fate.
d – Turning aside, the Reaper gave,
d – a new life to the slave.
e – Pact of Life is now sealed,
d – due to possible ways to stave.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

d – Life’s willing conclave.
d – Towards those able to behave.
e – What life giveth, death dealed.
d – A close shave.
E – The Reaper’s calling is set to harvest.

Thresholds Of Reality

An Aristotelian reality, a world that was composed of four elements.  Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.  Why so few?  Why those chosen ones?  What happens when a person ascribes more fundamental forces to nature?  Aristotelian elements had contributed to the whole field of Chemistry through the field of Alchemy.

Alchemy, was, and still is, a way of finding out about reality, and nature.  As they stumbled in the dark for their understanding of life, so shall I.  One of the theories I’ve been postulating to myself for the past couple of months is a revised “classical elements”.  Consisting of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.  Adding in the new elements, Light, Wood, Dark, and Metal.

According to this Smithsonian article; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/alchemy-may-not-been-pseudoscience-we-thought-it-was-180949430/

Alchemy, isn’t without merit.  To my perception, I have seen and experienced a few oddities in Life already.  The following consist of a few rudimentary observations.

  • A freezer heating up the frozen food inside instead of keeping it cool.
  • A bottle of melted butter freezing from the inside out where there should normally be an abundance of internal heat keeping the insides warmer than the outside all the while near a heating source.
  • A “Ghost Attack” that only stopped by saying Jesus’s name while I was sleeping one night.
  • A random flash of fire near a fryer vat that may have been an “electrical charge buildup” (more than likely it was)
  • A little “moth/butterfly” that was darker than the room it was in, in a room that was near pitch black, and was only illuminated by lightning bolts from outside.
  • Several Psychic phenomena of a “transgendered nature”.

Having stated that, I’m curious as to what observations will continue to happen throughout my life will be.  I don’t think we’re anywhere near fully competent with our understanding of Life, and the World to make the claims that we do make about it.

The thoughts that led up to this interest are manifold, but the ideas are based upon the following;

  • We haven’t changed that much intellectually from our ancestral predecessors.  Thus our logical mode of understanding Reality is based off the same cognitive skills.
  • Our world, is a mutual understanding that is generated by social consciousness, and shared through interpretations.
  • Social Learning is how all of our reality is built, and works.  Ie; If one person knows how to do something, another will come along and learn it or steal it.
  • We’re still stumbling within the dark of the cosmic chaos of Reality, the Unknown.  And there is no end to this stumbling.  We only have a worldview that is built upon our a priori assumptions.

Thus “drinking” this cosmic kool-aid of a worldview that is built from assumptions that are generated, and created by our fellows.  It would seem to me that by having a social reality where our works are socially implied.  Meaning we’re capable of suppressing realities we don’t like, or agree with by excluding it from our social reality.  Ex;  If you’re a white person who doesn’t like blacks, you exclude Africans from your worldview.  Thus rendering their whole ontology/physics/metaphysics, and perspective invalid to you.

This ties in with language.  If you know, and speak the “gay slang” of big hairy men being bears, and as utilized as a coded slang/identifier before the legalization of gay marriage.  You are effectively leaving behind the “cis-gender world”.  A “construct”, just like the “construct” you just entered.

Science, is very similar from my understanding.  If one were to acknowledge that Alchemy is, and was more than the pursuit of “Lead into Gold”, and “Eternal Life”.  One could easily understand that our world is built off their knowledge.  Corpuscles, atoms, and the small elements that make up our world is based off of a lot of their work.  It isn’t invalid, just “shunned”.

Tossing aside connotations of “gay slang” which I regret having forcibly learned from previous employment.  *shudder* I’d rather dabble in the notions of our “construct” being a world in which we are trying to establish a concrete, and mutual worldview.

As odd as it may seem, I feel like I may have had an “out of body” experience within another person’s body.  I do not know with whom, or where said occurrence may have happened.  I don’t even recall that much of the details, for the consciousness seemed to have carried with it some of the physical phenomena (medication) that I was on with it.

I do remember being in a female body, but I don’t recall much else, and for sake of privacy I’m not going further with that chain of thought.

Dancing back to the topic at the start of the post, Alchemy.  There seems to be a way to do such things as I have alluded to within this post.  Otherwise they wouldn’t be happening, right?

I suppose the trick would be to unlock the mechanisms, or to find a way to figure out a reproducible event pathway in order to explore these hidden features of reality more.  That is what I think “science” should be about.  Not “codifying reality” but exploring thresholds into different avenues of potential.  Just imagine, if you had a lover, and you were able to experience their point of view while you were locked in reciprocal intercourse.  It would seem to me that the loving would become all that much sweeter.  You’d know what you’re doing “right”, and “Wrong”… ;D.

Bots and Cans.

The prospect of Artificial Intelligence is the notion that we can create something that replicates our general abilities.  I find numerous problems with the notion of Artificial Development from a “Philosophical Standpoint”.

One of the first is the idea that we can embody what it means to be “cognizant” to an extent that is comparable to a human.  Human’s have essentially been bootstrapped from “ash and dust”.  Primordial clay, in the hands of a “maker”.  Thus if we’re able to rationally conceive of an artificial being we have to ask, and nonetheless answer questions about a lot of our worldviews.

If we can trigger awareness to emerge in inanimate material, we have to look the same way at ourselves.  Thus it both validates, and contradicts several viewpoints.  That of Intelligent Design where a Creator had a hand in making us.  If we create an artificial being.  We have essentially done the same thing.  Thus there is support provided for a Creator.  Along with the notion of a “creator is not necessary”.  If simply due to the fact that it was made from scratch materials.  It was “naturalistic” and made of inanimate components.

Stepping away from those thoughts, is the notion that AI will replace and remove all our work for us.  Is this a valid thought to entertain?  How would a General AI be any different than a Human?  It wouldn’t, and that’s a problem/point.  If a general intelligence level AI was created, and put to work for us…it’d amount to slavery.  They’re sentient, and they have the same level of awareness as ourselves.  Thus ethically, wouldn’t they have the same rights as us to?

Third, if there is a desired “reproduction ideology” of say, creating life.  We can already do that ourselves through having children.  And we haven’t fully explored the human potential.  There are a lot of underutilized, underemployed, and otherwise malcontents that simply aren’t afforded a decent life because they are being left out of the system.

AI probably won’t change that.

Overall, I see the hype and interest in developing artificial intelligence as somewhat of a joke.  Our entire world isn’t so readily understood in the first place, and there are vast vistas of “potential”.  That are simply unexplored.  Take for instance the last post about “Multivariate Logic”.  That’s a thing, three valued logic (True, False, and Uncertain) was an alternative to binary logic for computers.  Binary logic won out because it was “easier” to work with.

Running on with the notion of multivariate logic, if we’re capable of thinking in multidimensional analysis.  Why should we assume a computer is anywhere near capable as we are?  If I’m able to visualize new forms of logic, and patterns within the maelstorm of life, and it’s reality.  Is it safe to assume that a computer that was designed by us to replace us would be able to do the same work as us?  A lot of people probably do think in the classic dichotomy of “Black And White” logic.  You know, either/or, this or that.  With us or against us.

This is basic formal logic.  That is fine, but if the assumption is made that that is the end goal, and final logical process.  Then we have a problem.  To assume that a computer can get to that level, and then build off it.  May be a few assumptions shy of a catastrophe, for don’t know the full envelope of formal logic ourselves.  Multivariate logic, while difficult is still within the grasp of the human intellect.  And then we have to wonder what it means to have a conception of reality in the first place.

Say for instance, that our minds do generate the realities that we live within.  A form of “consciousness is all”, that only the aware have a reality.  This is also probably a mistaken assumption.  For if one were to infer that everything is already conscious it would seem to me that there’d be no point to chasing the rabbit of AI development.  Ie Everything is already aware, so why make something more aware, and not develop our own worldviews?

We may be near an “ai” superevent, but I don’t think we really are.  There’s too many limited domains of knowledge that are being explored, and utilized in our “quest”.  A quest that is drawing resources away from other areas of research in the hopes that it’ll be the “Silver Bullet” to our “reality ails”.  This in itself is a problematic viewpoint.  That there is a cureall for all our problems.  No, this is simply not  true.  If that were meant to be the case, it wouldn’t be much of a reality now would there?

Drink this tonic, and everything thereafter will be perfectly fine.  No religious mumble jumbo, and no intellectual pathways to develop or flesh out.  Just a world of “euphoric bliss” that is at the basest a hedonistic ideal.  It’s like utopia.  In theory it sounds nice, but in reality, it never seems to work.  There’s always a conflicting actor, or actors, that want something different than the ideal.

Rage Against a Dying Light.

A riff, a rant, and a twinkle of light in this dark night.  Let us spin a tale of a soul crossing the threshold of Life into the thereafter.  A story heavily inspired by Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy.  If it wasn’t canon, it should be, for in my mind, and in my heart.  It chronicles a story of a lonesome wanderer.  A soul lost in the night.  A character that had to default to the epics of bygone eras.  A soul that sought solace with the Lord, but couldn’t find it.  A tale that runs through numerous cantos, and set upon the world a revitalized Italian language.

Italian, the language found near the Holy See.  A language of Love, and a language of potential war.  This and so many more.  That is something for another wandering soul to write.  The story I aim to invoke tonight is a story of a misbegotten one.  One who sought the light his eternal life.  One who coveted none, and couldn’t find love.  Except in the mercy killing blow upon a divine soul.  How could this be?  I do not know entirely.

For here’s the story, or how it should go.  As Jesus went to Hell to rend open the passage way of those that were damned.  Let us assume that Dante sought to follow in his footsteps if only in humble servitude.  The way of Our Lord, and Savior.  A humble supplication to those who are worthy of it.  Jesus, The Son of Our Father.  Jesus the Prophet of Eternal and Universal Love.  He went to Hell to save those of guilt, and of some redemption.  How could we not have this message of strength in our Hearts?

If God were to die, it’d be through his own chosen Sacrifice, it may not have been according to his/her schema.  For the Imago Dei, the image of our creator and Lord.  May actually be a representation of ourselves.  To a Man, he appears as a Him.  To a Woman, a She.  Who’s to truly tell?  Except for perhaps his chosen Son, and maybe his children?  I cannot say.

For the Imago Dei, is the Image found upon our world, a world kissed numerously, and tenderly by a loving God.  A God of Compassion, and Tenderness.  A God that Sent HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN CHILD to this world.  If there is magic, or power in this world that is beyond the plights of mortal man.  It is within Imago Dei’s Power to Invoke it any night.

To some, I may be a irredeemable sinner.  That is fine, that is their judgment.  Not mine.  If They seek my head for whatever solace they need, so be it.  I will gladly render it to them, for I have not chosen this path voluntarily.  I, who some may know, and others may not.  Have found myself at numerous crossroads, and I have always fought for the Light of Imago Dei.  The Light of God, The Light Of DEUS!

It has been told that is, and was never our place to judge or condemn our fellow man.  Thus who’s to know what’s right?  Am I, a mere man, to be judged to Hellish Existence, for a crime that we all may have committed in our hearts?  Which of the 10 Commandments have you not Violated?  Does it matter if it was in our thoughts, our hearts, even if we never had the “Courage” to follow through with it?  To say, I plotted and conspired to murder a man, neigh a GOD?  That is the highest form of Blasphemy towards our Lord and Savior.

Thus, what am I to say?  Am I to respond, “It wasn’t my Fault!”…, “I was scapegoated!”….that is a Jewish thing, is it not?   To send a goat off to wander in the desert lost for a demon to find?  How about Islam?  Are they any “Safer?”  Christianity?  Just who?  All three purport to worship the same Deus.  And yet, why are so many of them at odds with each other, and their fellow man?!  Isn’t that the high point of Sacrilege and Blasphemy!

Alas, there’s other “Faiths” too…which may work for some, and not for others.  It depends upon how deep into their mysteries they’ll let you, or how far you’re willing to go.  Afterall, why should they open their doors of Truth, and Enlightenment to those “unsavory souls”?

Faith, may be a four letter word in some peoples vocabularies, it’s NOT IN MINE!  Thus condemnation, and vilification that you project upon me, is nothing more than a hatred you should be reserving for yourself.  That Catholic Guilt.  That Shame.  That Hatred for your fellow man/woman.  Just where did you go wrong?!

Am I without Sin?  How could I ever know that?  I can’t, only God can ascribe that position to someone.  And as far as I know it, the only one that retained that honor, and the honors inherent within it is Jesus!

To some, to some, Sin is simply not in their lexicon.  They don’t care for it.  Those are probably the “pagans”…the “Heathens”….that felt like they were forced into a dogma they never understood.  Afterall, a child is baptized at the font before the age of Reason?  How could they even have an iota of understanding of their soul’s “redemption”?  That they were born condemned?  That reeks of Predestination, which as I’ve mentioned previously reeks to High Heaven of an Evil God!

So yes, I was a Catholic, of the Roman Doctrine.  Do I still practice?  Not as much as I should, but do I feel the Guilt?  Not really, and I don’t know why.  I am nothing more than a soul searching.  If, and if you care to lead a sheep astray.  Be wary, for the Shepard does not care for that.

So who, or what am I?  I honestly can’t say sometimes, for all I know I was a pawn to a God that needed an Out.  For the Evil that bound Him/Her, couldn’t, and wouldn’t relent.  Thus what Am I?  AM I WORTHLESS?  Have I no dignity befitting a fellow Human?  That all Humanist virtues that stemmed from a Catholic World Be Forgot?

This I ask of you, all of you who read this, and wonder….what prompted this tonight?  Well, if you were to chance upon any burning body in the street would you extinguish it?  Even if it involved Pissing on it?  Perhaps, I would.

A Confession.

I must confide.  This is the Truth.  I have never been kissed, and that is rather uncouth.  When posed with a question, of who’d I’d rather choose.  Between tall, and limber, or quick and lean.  I chose Tall, and Limber, for the kissing would be all that much sweeter.

A Spark of Flame.

In the twilight hour, when dusk has faded, and when the poets are asleep, does the light of day take hold.  The flame of consciousness, the blessing of life, the ignition of peace.  Hope never dies, nor shall fate.  Destiny is entwined, and Death is a Date.  Never for those in a tender embrace, for Love seals our fate.

As Nietzsche said in Thus Spake Zarathustra, “….It is the stillest words that bring on the storm. Thoughts that come on doves’ feet guide the world….”, part II chapter 44, The Stillest Hour (Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra ).

Night, not day, is when we find our truest strengths, death is nothing more than motes in the eye of those who are relentless in their pursuit of Life.  An aesthetic life can give way to cold judgement, and within it nothing more than condemnation.  The era of Judgement, and the stillness of the cold-hearted critic.  Giving way, and paving forth a step towards the religious, and the sacrament-ed life.

“Eternity asks you and every individual in these millions and millions only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not, whether you have despaired in such a way that you did not realize that you were in despair, or in such a way that you covertly carried this sickness inside of you as your gnawing secret… or in such a way that you, a terror to others, raged in despair.” – Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death (Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Sickness_Unto_Death ).

At the liminal peak, the juxtaposition of the lens, you shall find, yourself.  A persona revealed, an identity to be.  A Person who has become “me”.  This is why our ways are different, we aren’t afraid of the cutting blade, nor the burning torch.  We are the quiet doves the brings hope, and faith to the world.  The fires in our bellies cannot be extinguished for we know the Truth, The Joys of Life.

  • Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

As day breaks once again, we find ourselves in a new world, a world of difference and change and as that old Chinese proverb goes; “May you live in Interesting Times.”  A single stray comment that may change depending upon the emotional state one is in.  A descent into the Dark, a pox upon thee.  An ascent into the Light, a blessing at Twilight.

A stray thought about Thomas Paine ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine ), In Memoriam; “A Firebrand unlike any other, he set the world aflame with his desire for liberty and patronage of the Truth.  Although a corset maker by trade, he never let his baser instinct take hold, and resort to petty commonness.  He spoke, and yelled for the Truth, and that Truth was Liberty!”

Campus Motto of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, “Lux, Libertas, Veritas”:  Translated from classical latin as; “Light, Liberty, Truth”.

Three simple words, a whole world of meaning.  That cannot be destroyed or effaced, for the Truth shall stand tall.  It shall stand proud, and it shall set all of us free.

Inspiration, once sought flees, and when struck hits hard.  The Muses of Ancient Greece were none other that the loves of the Philosophers.  And the quip of the times, in essence, “A happy woman does not a philosopher make.”.  One has to remember the times, that women were burdened with most of the domestic duties, and when the men retired from whatever service they had publicly, they had time to bullshit, and think.  They conversed.  The joys of the dialectic, the peaceful making, and conversing of points, and arguments.  Is the conflict that begat a whole school of thought,…”What can a poor man do to make a woman happy?”….”what is Love?”…  Romance, and all the poetic eras of thought, how to woo your woman, and not buy her off uncle in concubinage as per Ovid’s thought.

Chivalry is not dead, for it lies in an eternal tryst with True Love which begat eras of inspiration.  A knightly deed though done with purity of heart when knights were considered boastful braggarts, and mere thoughtless brutes.  Elevated a knight to romantic hero, a hero of dashing reknown.  That would dare draw steel against a greater foe for a woman’s honor, and dignity.  Their pride and joy, their desire arose the ire of nations…., Helen of Troy.

A maiden who’s face launched a war that would wage throughout the eras, and cause ceaseless discord to those that fail to honor the legacy of mankind.  The Trojan war, a Trojan condom?  Neigh, I would say, for that is robbing the cradle from the home.  Destroying the joys of fumbling in the dark, or perchance the light for a strange sensation.  Awkwardness for both, and a moment of revelation.  She, or he truly did love me.  They waited, they held their promise, regardless of hell or high water.  They came back.  They never left.

This is what western love is.  Brotherly love can be brutal, or blissful.  Depending upon the Brothers’ involved, and the dynamics they choose to abide by.  Romance should never be harsh, or disdainful, for that is nothing more than a spit in the eye.  Reproduction for nothing more than a mechanical process removes the joy of life.  There is no hope, no home, no hearth….just hellish processing.

So what is Love?  What is Life?  Who’s to say?  All the poets, and philosophers throughout the ages of mankind…Humanity.  They have something to say, and they say it everyday.  I love you, and here’s how I shall show how, and why.

A poem, a stanza, a couplet, and a limerick.  Nightly devotion by your side, or perhaps a enfolding epic composed with you by my side?  I do not know, for I am still single, and yet unclaimed.  I desire life, and yet I must refrain.  My tithe is due, and bills must be paid.  There’s no pillar of light, nor love, just Taxes and Death.  How is this a lovely state?  Bonking each-other for gratuitous pleasure, as per a masturbation accessory, life sized, and full scale!  And yet, and yet, there are those that seek neither and they amuse themselves with their own pleasure, at their own ease.

Are these the ones who are depraved?  Those who aspire to be loved, and to give love…not beastful cravings, and youthful ganking.  The ordering of vestal virgins, brought about through contrived means…is nothing more than the hatred of Ovid himself.  The oldest form of Irony and Satire, when he himself….sold his daughter, or perchance his niece away for some wrongful suitor?  I know not, for that is classical love.  I seek a love that hasn’t yet been written.

Not a love of star crossed lovers, who would commit murder-suicide as per Romeo and Juliet.  The go to love for the Elizabethan Queen.  Not of noble origin.  Not of the selected lot.  Devil be DAMNED!  I’ve chosen my lot.

A Byronic rant?  Perchance a Dream?  No.