Science

Opening statement: people that discard science as magic and/or erroneous for contradicting evidence and/or incapability of knowing the "almighty truth" are purely, simply, idiots.

Supportive: people have the weirdest belief that a scientific theory is a hunch, a guess or downright fantasy of the mind. These people are not capable of higher reasoning. A theory is a sound, predictive and logical formalized expression of surrounding phenomena. It is supported by rigorous observations and/or experimental data. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, theories are explanations based on facts that are either observed or experienced and not guesses about how things might or should be.

Argumentative: people think that science is inconsistent with itself. This is where the religious dogma of the "almighty truth" comes into effect. Being fed the truth with spoons and being told not to think outside this truth, for nothing exists beyond it, it is only natural that people are skeptical and even reject progress as a form of not knowing anything. However much I hate to use sayings, this one fits in perfectly: "live and learn". Religion teaches you all you need to learn and all you have to do is live by these teachings, not learning anything new. However, science never admitted to knowing "the truth" (for even such a thing is preposterous, absolute would mean deifying oneself), but only statements that explain by testing and observation the world around us.

Some even believe that science evolved from philosophy and thus is unreliable. Such people are incapable of abstract and synthetic reasoning. Yes, science had its humbly beginnings in philosophy, but not by guessing about the world around, but in its metaphysical sense: people asked questions about themselves and the world around them (philosophy) and proceeded to seeking out the truth (with by and large scientific methods, which were available at any given historical moment).

Some argue that since Newton's gravity was contradicted by Einstein's gravity and finally by quantum physics, science is inconsistent. This would classify in the "live and learn" section. Since I already argued that science is emitting statements upon observations, it is only natural that Newton had no way of observing the colossal gravitation effects of space and even to understand the nature of the photon. Relativity theory and quantum theory, as far as gravity goes, contradict but they still explain the events from which they are derived (the vastness of space and sub-atomic particles). And for mostly all our purposes of everyday life, Newtonian physics still apply, so it is still sound reasoning and observation of natural phenomena (you can contradict him when we'll be inventing space travel or quantum transportation). As a matter of fact, unlike what most believe, relativity theory is proven by experimental means. Not just a hunch by looking through a telescope.

Finally, the issue to address is that of unstable elements. Of course scientists disagree on many facets. Sometimes their disagreement is constructive, sometimes not. Because some pieces of the equation are missing, it leads to conflicting results. But bickering is common among everything. Even in religion about the nature of the soul and god, for instance. And it is a common sight that, as psychological effects weather down a man, so some scientists are just driven by insanity or megalomania, and such individuals have little in common with physics, but rather could be considered as subjects for psychological study. They do not follow scientific methods, they do not reason, they involve emotions and that...well, that just isn't science anymore. As for the "revolutionary" ideas (I'll name perpetuum mobiles and zero point energy, for example's sake) supported by what naturally people would attribute to science, such as faith, belief, hunch, imagination, that is pseudoscience and it is as remote from the real thing as da Vinci's flying machine was from a truly flying object (since he believed wrongly that levitation is created by the flap of the wings, and not by pressure differential, as it is).

Conclusion: if people are still not convinced about the merits of science by looking around them and observing technology (which, by the way, is contrived using ONLY scientific means, not personal charisma and revelation). You cannot have a revelation about how to make a television to work without the centuries' worth of study on electricity and particles done before you. So, if you still believe science to be a hoax, then you aren't idiots anymore. You are simply, purely, stupid simpletons unable to understand logic and method.

The State

Officially this post was supposed to be about something different that ebbed out of me with time. And time is what I've taken away from this blog, unfortunately.

So without further ado I plunge into total amazement as to how the state came to be understood in our day and age as a 'player' and an 'agent', an intervening force without which we'd all be doomed.

Now, since before there actually existed any state in the modern sense, literature strove to define what exactly is the nature of the state and how should its mechanisms work. Hence, in contractualist terms, the state arose as a tacit agreement between individuals for a common organization that would fend for them and be careful if anyone stepped out of bounds within another's sphere of individual freedom. Ergo, basically, the state was created in the name of liberty, to safeguard against the harming of individuals amongst each other because in a stateless society (anarchy) everybody would do just about anything that would cross their minds, inferring into the sphere's of freedom of another guy just for the fun of, molesting him, killing him, showcasing him as a slave or a token of war. Pretty but unacceptable.

About a century later, other liberals such as Mills strove to define the relationship between the state and the individual a bit more. What he came up with is that the state should only act (obviously with force) whenever the right of freedom of an individual have been broken by another. So here freedom connects with rights. There are natural rights, called negative ones, which essentially you could say they are no-brainers: to live, to speak, to have intercourse, whatnot. The idea is that these rights are inherent to human beings and any transgression should be met with force and stopped (and/or punished). Since many is more powerful than one, the state metaphysically symbolised the gathering of more against the nuisance of the idiot few that didn't understand respect for other people's freedom.

All this is fine and dandy. However, somewhere along the lines of the last century something went a bit haywire. World Wars, Depression, unwise people taking power (yea, Franklin, you were right) and positive rights. The idea with positive rights is that they are "granted" by the state. Granted by the state. So you see the abomination. The previous set of rights we were to be safeguarded against, they were natural (not to call them divine) and came from the inherrent liberty of the human individual to do whatever he wants and pleases to the maximum of his ability and/or his potential. Now the state is nature, or the state is god or maybe we've even reverting back to absolute monarchism. These rights are granted to you by the state in its magnificent benevolence so you can get a job safely, get money from the government (i.e. the rest of us), for 'equality of chances'. Now this equality nonsense originates in a problem with democracy that shall be discussed somewhat at a later date.

How can one purport that everyone is equal when in reality no one is the same? Simple, by perverting the term and calling it 'of chances'. So we all can start equally. And not to worry, if you're a fast learner and run like hell, the state will surely make sure that everyone has the same chance as you. So instead of setting the mark at your level, trying to improve the idiots, it sets the mark at their level, dumbs you down. From safeguarding liberties to welfare of the naturally unselected I don't know what happened. Maybe it was a generation full of rotten-eggs. So now, far from its original purpose, infers in OUR freedom as it pleases to provide for those that aren't naturally fit to exist on their own. And as Weber put it, a bureaucracy will reach a certain point when all its purposes come into its own sustenance (more or less).

I won't go into alternatives now, nor into economy as I originally intended. However, you can think about this: "Enforced freedom is a contradiction in terms" (Ayn Rand)

Song

Steve Mac - Paddy's Revenge (Radio Edit)

Officially the happiest song ever.

How Losers Win

Part of the series "why do I hate the world" exemplified later in a post about secrecy and why not, imbecility of modern day societies.

War of the Babies

Qualifications for a Mystery/Horror Hero(ine)

Are you feeling lost? Severely handicapped by psychological trauma and/or intrigue?
Have you no friends? No social circle?
Does nobody like you, or those that do are liked by no one in their turn? Do they die often?
Have you no social interests? Have you no life?
Does your whole life revolve around making a sense out of the ordinary? Do you like to bug and/or annoy people?
Are you reason-impaired? Do you like to make up fantasy stories in your head to get through the day without killing yourself?
Are you unable to understand the link between cause and effect?
Does your IQ fluctuate constantly under 70? Do people around you seem to mock you and you don't understand why?
Is it impossible for you to learn from mistakes? Or is it impossible for you to acknowledge past actions as empirical determinants for something that can happen again?
Do you think repetition will get you results? Especially saying "hello" often into obscure locations?
Are you an idiot?
Do you like creepy people and puzzling realities to fit your brain cells?
Do you have SM dreams? Is that why you are so calm when people are dying around you?
Do you think that what you do is important in the world? And that people really care?
Do you know that since you cannot run and fall very well, running anywhere above ground level and/or hiding in enclosed spaces is moronic?
Do you think that if you bang the bad guy on the head he's gonna be incapacitated for ever? Don't you think death is more permanent?
Are you under a vacillating belief? Do you sometimes are entirely skeptical only to change your mind the next day and believe any superstition thrown at you?
Do you listen to strangers and believe them? Have you no principles in life?
Do you suck at physics? If you're good at physics, do you suck in your urethra?
Have you no capability of analysis of a given situation other than Grimm brothers folklore settings?
Do you often like to put yourself in a dangerous position, thus enabling your brain cells to commit mass suicide?
Is it enjoyable to stare at objects and/or people hoping eventually to discover something bad about them so you can "fix" it?
Do you think the laws of nature will bend to your desperate will?
Have you been molested as a child and/or like to molest alive/dead children in your turn?
Do you have unnatural cravings, like nursing monsters? Do you live in Mediaeval Europe?
Do people never believe a word you say because they think you're crazy? Are you?

Well, look no further, we've found for you the perfect job. Congratulations, read title.

Short Films in Festival

Enough said, see them and review them for yourselves. If they're here, it means I enjoyed them thouroughly...and good they are.

La Main des Maîtres

Western Spaghetti

Post-It Love

The Obama Deception

An interesting movie, not unlike many conspiracy theories, but with fundamentals on the very basis that actually human nature is depraved (well, d'oh)

More on the idea of the movie later...

The Obama Deception

2007 Movie Awards

This is my own personal list of awards. Some comments are in order, before its exhibition.

1. Why now? Well, because I just of thought of it.
2. Why 2007? Because I've yet to see all relevant 2008 movies to decide on that list.
3. 2008 list will follow before July the latest.
4. Where my preferences are tied, the values listed will be ordered alphabetically only.
5. I will try to mirror some American Academy Awards categories, however there won't be that many.

6. The categories will try to reflect dramatic Mise-en-scène.
7. Of course the preferences are biased, I'm not a machine.

Best Make-Up

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Best Costumes

Restul e tacere

Best Sound (Editing, Mixing, whatever)

Hot Fuzz

Best Editing

Le scaphandre et le papillon
Michael Clayton

Best Visual Effects

Bridge to Terabithia
Sunshine

Best Music (includes Song, don't care if it's original or not)

La môme
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Best Documentary Feature

Sicko

Best Animated Feature

Byôsoku 5 senchimêtoru

Best Non-English Feature

Mongol
Tropa de Elite

Best Cinematography

In Search of a Midnight Kiss
Mongol
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Best Actor in Supporting Role

Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Best Actress in Supporting Role

Helena Bonham Carter for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Khulan Chuluun for Mongol

Best Actor in Lead Role

Brad Pitt for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Mathieu Amalric for Le scaphandre et le papillon

Best Actress in Lead Role

Marion Cotillard for La Môme
Wei Tang for Se, jie

Best Adapted Screenplay

Into the Wild
The Man from Earth
Tropa de Elite

Best Original Screenplay

In Search of a Midnight Kiss
Michael Clayton
Mongol

Best Directing

Andrew Dominik for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men
Ridley Scott for American Gangster

Best Picture

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
The Man from Earth

Of Life

If anything could happen, subjected such by quantum states, would it not be preferable to accept leading a happy life than an unhappy one? That is, more to the point, if we hold life experience as subjective (because if it were objective, then we would be all so uniform as nullifying the point of individuality), we can imprint our will to the life we lead, to the courses we take. Doing otherwise would simply contradict some basic facts about metaphysical freedom insinuated throughout human history as individual attributes determinant for one's existence (most notably Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Sartre, to name a few).

Now it is possible to imagine such actions and situation that go above our individual will. True. That point holds to the separation between will of the mind and will of the...well, our physical self. It is perfectly unarguable to decide that we cannot lift a piano. On the other hand, it is completely arguable to confront your boss with trivial language and resign. Don't say you don't have a choice, you can't do it. It is, simply put, the lack of will. And lacking will might as well deprive you of some human defining attributes granting you others in return. Cowardice is a natural feature that shouldn't shame you of possessing. The bad part in such an approach is that negating reality (thus, what you can and cannot do) might be evidence of some pathological issues that you need sorted out. I would recommend suicide, unless you want results deriving from the removal of your frontal lobe. Hell, inland fantasy is quite common these days, take advantage of its care-free environment.

And thus I'm brought circumstantially to another point in this discussion. Homo sapiens evolution vs. natural evolution (I'm derogating the term in order for it to apply to aforementioned species). As we see everywhere in the natural universe plainly outside artificial human mastering, nature favours the most powerful, the gifted, the most beautiful, but as seeing how less is more, only the fit survive. The human universe is by these standards, something quite odd and peculiar to a natural endeavour.

It has come to my attention that in the past few years, genetical diseases, of which most neurological, have become more numerous and have begun to affect a bigger chunk of the world's population. Apologists may argue quite effectively that this is because the increasing population. I'd agree, up to a point. Of course, I haven't exactly done my homework in the sense that I know not the exact numbers. However it is quite obvious that these afflictions are not mere random things and not because of the human population growth. Rather it is because our evolutive course has taken a devolutive path, different from that of nature. Instead of disposing of those unable to take care of themselves, that would never in their life bring any plus to the society they live in or the species as a whole. Quite oppositely, they would waste resources for no reason and live for no purpose other than the feelings of those close to them.

Now I'm exempting from my accusations the old and crippled for they might've done something for society in their time and deserve some sort of reward, as in nature, nothing is created and destroyed, but is perpetual. Even so, clinging for the life of some disabled freak that could never live on his own, would never live up to its human potential and that anywhere else would die because of the practical inability to LIVE, I find it pathetic and a downturn for the human species as a whole, as it allows, within the confines of societal development and mores, to perpetuate genes and behaviours detracting from true evolution. You may think me to be wrong, but think this: if I were as my topic, I wouldn't be here writing, now would I? I would most probably be trying to breathe on my own and be fed as a retarded specimen that would most probably be forced to perpetuate his existence one way or another, thus creating even more problems for future generations to deal with.

As we don't have enough genetic mutations from viruses on our hands, we need more genetic mutation from bad breeding. Think about it, you wouldn't breed a diseased dog with a prize-winner pedigree one, would you? Think about that. I'll think about the future.

Ideas for Personal Motto

Expect your dreams. If that doesn't happen, it's not like nothing will at all. Depression, drugs and death are an answer too. If final, of no consequence. Nature is ever-changing, nothing ever ends, paths lead...

Fear nothing. After all a fear implies its own demise in the process, and if you can accept said demise as part of the quantum probability of events, then you can go easily through anything with the same state of consciousness.

I am free. Because I can think thoughts and express them without caring at all for social problematic of ethics and behavioural bonds. More to be discusses on an eventual topic of existentialism.

Love. Infinitely, no matter if its only yourself or some object or an ideal. Find it in awe, and if you can expand the field, all the more happy you might become.

Always look forward. As it is said, those who wishfully think about time traveling to the past have a serious if not pathological issue in dealing with the present and reality. And if you can't at least perceive reality beyond the box of movability, then you might as well have no future to content your imagination with.

Always allow yourself to be surprised. You live in a quantum universe, so take advantage of it.

Others to follow shortly thereafter (within one year)

Punishment and Compensation

We all know that in any society at any given moment, the inability or failure to act as the majority would automatically draw a punishment, for many centuries death, more recent, legal punishment, fines or imprisonment. The major issue I find with this line of reasoning is expectation, and I further divide this expectation into two categories.

Firstly, the argument derives itself from the expectation of normality and its imposition on any individual or group that would divert from a set line of guidelines by the authorities that would legitimise their action as either divine or from a legal-rational point of view, which holds close to consensual view of democracy, i.e., we all sometime agreed to do this, so it has to be done. The issue of state origins will be discussed at a further date, however, since in a modern society we can redefine the relationship with the authority mediums (at least in theory), it's fair enough to say that we can start agreeing again on whichever form of government and type of rules and regulations we may want, discarding the majority dictatorship side of democracy.

So getting back to the question at hand, the right to derive normalisation legitimacy lies not within the back minds of oligarchies that have a fictitious sense of morality through their intimate recollections of the divine or their own diamond-sparkling soul. I guess that since we say that the more virtuous between a man who has money and is boasting and another that has none and is in want, is quite really the one that does not care at all for the possession of money or derivatives, then we can fairly assume that between men who think themselves as moral and those who are thought as immoral the more righteous would be at least the ones amoral, indefinable and unbiased.

The second matter is focused on the expectation by society of individuals and groups to act in such a way as to do otherwise would recede into punishment, and is partly inferred from the first argument. It should be acted under the presupposition that everyone, since assessed as 'equal', would therefore have an either biased or relative position on any occurrence that would affect them directly or indirectly in any way, then it's quite possible to reason a practical measure and effective keep of normalisation within society: the punishment of those who are alienated from this sense and the compensation, rightly so and equated to their own contributions of those in alignment with the said regulations and norms at any rate imposed.

I should not be understood incorrectly, I do not sanction the use of any societal normalisation techniques imposed by anyone on anybody. I do however mitigate for an effective use of the social apparatus for a better cohesion among the units and sprockets of a society, since the former cannot be avoided, apparently, at all. And one more commentary, I'm obliging the legal-rational use of this approach, for all that are 'equal in front of the law' so that the mechanism of individual and groups can move smoothly towards even an ounce of progress, not the oligarhical-type system, within cliques and sects that are more extremist-based that favour a machinery based on individual control, manipulation and fear induction.

Children

Yes, the answer to your question is 'yes', I do hate children.

There are so many things I hate about them I could never think them all to fill the space below in this post of a blog. However, I shall attempt to name some, given my encounter with many such specimens, the last whom, today, took my seat in the train and had me standing for over 10 minutes. But enough about me.

Children are annoying little pests that for some obscure reason everyone thinks they're cute. Well, they're not. They're too common to be cute. And even if there are objects that exclude themselves from my observations (see flowers), at least flowers smell lovely and they don't wipe out my senses with pointless screaming, bruises and abhorring fluids that spill out of them as if it were the waste of NYC. Plants could do that if I'd be in a fantasy tropical world. I'm not.

Children are permitted anything, drawing from the fact that they're considered so cute. Of course, if their behaviourism is found in adults we would most likely call them psychotic criminals soaked in delusions of grandeur and absolute egotism. Because any child will damage animate and inanimate objects, will consider himself the center of the world and at all times, they will always consider only their needs and them being met. A bit exclusive for a societal civilization.

Everyone thinks having babies is a miracle and the most wondrous thing. Well, it's not. Moreover, it's closer to being the most common thing any two people can do either than eating, sleeping, talking and having sex. It also does not require a certain amount of intelligence to do it either. Everyone thinks they're good parents and well, they're not. A biological state is not the same as a psychological state. Being able to make babies doesn't necessarily mean you'll ever be an adequate parent. It's the same as considering that if dolphins have a biological organ named lung, they're quite well adapted to living as land mammals. Guess again. Bad parenting is common enough to ward enough sociopaths and violent criminals when they turn to adulthood.

Not forgetting babies, they're also not cute and adorable. They're organisms that mostly resemble some parasites and whose sole function is to shit, eat and sleep. Not very entertaining. Not very miraculous. Just the circle of life. Get over it.

Children also have a speech problem. When they speak, they do it poorly more often than not and they're indulged by their parents and everyone around them to continue acting stupidly. Thus, being given such a liberty without a constant correction leads to severe speech impediments (and I'm not talking physical, I'm talking dumb-ass animals). When children speak like this, it's considered cute. When grown-ups can barely talk literate and read it's sad. It should be sad from the first word for we are bringing up these nuisances into the people of tomorrow. Pardon, the illiterates of today. I'd solve the problem conditioning them like Pavlov with his dog. If the child does not pronounce my name or the object of his desire rightly then I shall ignore him till he'll condition himself to do it. It's survival 101.

One of my earliest ideas about children was that they should be state-raised or something so that at least they'll grow up, well, brainwashed. Reconsidering, it thought it rather cruel and pointless from a sociological and psychological standpoint, since children need their parents. Facing such a dilemma I could only suggest making most public places of adult interest only (and I mean office-buildings, postal offices, banks and whatnot) bar the presence of children.

Of course, I cannot forget the parents that enable their children to act in every possible manner, as an expression of their early years and time of experimentation. For this purpose, they defend his actions to death. However, it is interesting to note how they will sue about everything that the child will eventually hurt himself with. Since most children cannot read, you cannot say that they should've read the sign where it said "Caution. Closing door hurts if you put your hand in it while operating." Naturally, this is just the parents' way of avoiding any responsability they claim they inherrently have over the child while at the same time robbing him of his experimentation's results. For how should we know fire burns if we do not put our hand through it? Some people are just disturbed...

And why do they have to be dressed like fantasy idiots? Does Dostoyevsky need inspiration for miniatural figures trying to copy on their parents' ludicrous hidden needs?

Another problem with the speech and behaviour of children is that I'm expected by the community to lower myself to their standards and accept offense and brutalization, both physical and intellectual, as something normal. This can be easily avoided considering two aspects of the matter: firstly, I should not have to lower myself to speaking and trying painfully to understand what they're saying, because I'm not thinking about the prospect of joining the mentally challenged of small age society, rather they should be striving to speak correctly since they will eventually join our society that does not abide by such notions of cuteness. Seeing an adult speaking like a child and you're first thought is asylum. Secondly, children have short-term memory and my punishment of their actions would either act conditionally, as discussed above or repress subconsciously for years to come. The second probability is not entirely faulty since it will enable them to stave off sick people such as myself that would treat them wrongly and/or ignore them to a pathological stance. Eventually, it will lead to a more psychological-disease free environment for the future adults.

In conclusion, I found out that I do not hate children, just everything they represent and manage to do without being blamed. For this is our goal in life, to be egotistical and irresponsible. As for the children as ideas, I like them. We need to procreate from time to time, don't we?

Money as Debt

Sad, for such a civilization...

Money as debt