Adonis Diaries

Archive for January 2010

636.  Twenty years later, and I am still hurting; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

637.  “I am mediocre; what’s in to you?” (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

638.  How can I win the war on “Terrorism”? Part two; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

639.  Obama-metrics: First year performance; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

640.  Obama-metrics: How to rebound; (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

641.  Obama-metrics: What to expect? (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

642.  It is a virus: You scratch one spot and it spreads; (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

643.  Part one: Twilight of “Love of Knowledge”; (Jan. 30, 2010)

 

644.  Romancing anti-matter; (Jan. 30, 2010)

 

645.  Twilight of “Knowledge lovers”: Part two; (Jan. 31, 2010)

 

646.  Dawn of Philo-Ethics; (Jan. 31, 2010)

 

647. “How do you feel?” (Feb. 1, 2010)

“How do you feel?” (Jan. 30, 2010)

            A friend asked me one of his frequently mindless questions: “How do you feel?”  I said “I am feeling my shit sexy.” Usually, I say what I mean.  After my glamorous bowel movement, I had lunch and then had a long walk, and then I read and wrote and I still felt the effects of my bowel movement.  Three hours later, I am feeling this lovely pain in my guts; a sensation that I had emptied a huge load with the accompanying pressures on my mind. I had siesta and felt this sexy pain. Satisfying bowel movement is the greatest achievement among my daily tasks.

            My friend was appalled by my incomprehensible reply and said: “I was under the impression that you are totally broke to indulge in luxury.”  I like to invent new expressions and terminologies in English: I was not born and raised in an authentic English speaking country.  I was saved from memorizing and regurgitating boring idioms; I am not up-to-date on the latest slangs.  I have got to do with the classics; more so that I was never in linguistics, anthropology, or ethnology fields of study.

            It was during one of these sensational feelings that Barak Obama was elected President.  You might heave a sigh of dejection but it is not just a coincidence. I don’t like certified crazy Bush Junior, that President who never set foot on “foreign soils” before he was elected also “President”, though he enjoyed the same moments of sensation. If you do the probability math you might realize that the odds are actually pretty high for coincidence of shitting sensations and catastrophic events.  I can confirm that the odds were a certainty that Martin Luther King and Malcom X would be assassinated.

            What is this?  When I am ecstatic I cannot think; when I am morose I cannot think. I have to induce that I think when I am in a lukewarm temperament. Thus, “Not Thinking” and extreme mood zones are highly correlated; thinking and tasteless moods are thus pretty much independent: it is a firm deductive result; you might think, you might not think (same different), what you are thinking do not make sense, or your thinking can be revolutionary verging to lunacy.

            Just to tell you that physical exigency is a fundamental factor to your mental output. I sometimes wonder at critics psychoanalyzing authors by their books.  If critics are honest then they should comprehend a book was mostly “excreted” during lukewarm mood periods; thus, psychoanalysis is not valid in these cases: the author should be observed in “a not thinking” instances. Critics believe that authors basically lie down on comfortable coach, talk to themselves and record their babbling; critics get in the skin of relaxed a author who is figuring out that audiences have sworn the oath of confidentiality as his mental shrink.  I don’t usually go off on tangents but it feels good.

Dawn of Philo-Ethics; (Jan. 28, 2010)

In the previous post “Twilight for love of knowledge or philosophy”, I explored the theme that philosophy is reaching an end.

Before the 16th century, sciences in Europe were towed by philosophy until Galileo enforced the notion of empirical experimentation and measuring what was not measured. By the time of Descartes, philosophy started to limp and relied on religion as crutch to survive.

Sciences have taken over: they can extend answers to what can be answered.

Sciences are far more efficient than philosophy: faulty answers go unnoticed very effectively.  There are very few practiced scientists, and every man is a philosopher: man can feel what’s wrong with a philosophical system but he refrains to claim knowledge in sciences.

Knowledge is acquired by reasoning on the alternative options formed by perception of man and universe.  When we investigate our opinions and feelings we ultimately want to open up alternatives for the mind to discovering the immutable elements in the relationships. The brain is the field where perceived senses and reasoning procedures or processes interacts: without these interactions there are no perceptions, no actions, and no survival of any species.

It is not necessary to be a practicing scientist to have a scientific critical mind; otherwise, not many people would feel comfortable believing that they are endowed with sensible rational and empirical thinking. When I claim that we need to think philosophically, I mean that we need to combine the ethical component to whatever scientific thinking we undertake. The ethical mind should be the guiding rod to solutions or resolutions of any question.

For example, (it might sound a simple interrogation, but it might carry complex implicit ramifications), suppose that I stirred my Nescafe cup with a spoon.  My Nescafe includes no sugar or milk; just plain hot filtered water and Nescafe.  I got into wondering: should I rinse the spoon in tank supplied water (many germs) or just let the spoon dry when removed from the cup?  The idiosyncratic reaction is to rinse the spoon no matter what, isn’t it?

If I discover that the accumulated potent germs on a dried spoon are far less than the rinsed one then what would be your behavior?  The whole exercise is that we generally extend ready behaviors to our answers; we do not take a deep breath to wonder whether there are implicit reasons in the questions.

Philo-ethics (a new term that I invented) is to work on a set of stringent ethical reasoning that you feel are right.

The purpose is that you feel you have the right to state your ethics because you applied them.  The other advantage is that you won’t feel obligated to impose your ethics on people you like their company: you are in a position to be lenient and to compromise because relationships are more important than strict rules and regulations.

What can be the immutable norms that distinguish right from wrong?

What kinds of realities are eternal?

Cannibalism is not an immutable norm since many tribes still eat man in this century. Anyway, mankind is a carnivore and has been eating his own kind with various aspects of ceremonies such as eating the flesh, heart, liver, and brain boiled, raw, or roasted.  Thus, we need to be more attuned to ethnological studies and observations of the remaining tribes living separate from urban centers. We need to comprehend the behavior, customs, and traditions of primitive tribes since they resembled ours before we opted for urban life style, within mostly a fast developing virtual civilization.

Arne Naess disseminated the eco-philosophy which stated that western paradigm line of thinking is taking the wrong direction for a sustainable earth: Man is not in the upper chain of evolution and he has no right to destroy the other living creatures for his perceived universe. We are in a period of technological development that feed on itself and proliferates pretty much independently of any other sciences; technology feels confident that it does not need validation or control by third parties.

Fact is we need to have better understanding of the effects of our behaviors: mankind is on the same boat and everyone is asked to think that he is the captain of the boat.

Things have changed.  The world can be felt as reduced to a Town Square: instant audio-visual communications around the world is discouraging people to move out and investigate “his universe”.  Mind you that the Renaissance man had to travel on horses for long distances to educate his curiosity and talents.

The new wave of occultism, New Age, alternative lifestyle, mysticism, spiritualism, healing, astrology, clairvoyance, and telepathy are consequences of collecting mass “coincidental” happenings among the billions of people and which are relayed instantly on the Internet.  These coincidences can be explained rationally, especially if we believe in the power of the subconscious for erratic behaviors.

The worst part is that millions are still brandishing old Books or Bibles claiming every word for “truth”; as if we are in the Dark Ages.  Sciences and technologies have done serious empirical attempts to answering most of the dialectical problems in philosophy such as how the universe was started, how knowledge developed and progressed.

What is outside the realm of sciences is in the domain of faith, which should not be confounded with religious philosophical belief systems.

A few facts can now be settled that set the stage for the dawn of philo-ethics or for questions related to the dignity of man for freedom, liberty, opinion, shelter, clean water, health, safety, food, clean air, voting rights, anti-discrimination attitudes relative to color, religion, gender, and country of origin.

The hardship that you subjected yourself to is to keep sensible relationship working: a climate of genuine compassion to human frailty gives incentives to overcome shortcomings that may be surmounted.

Twilight of “Knowledge lovers”: Part 2

In part 1, I exposed the theme that philosophy was the super-structure of the dominant class in any period of what is now called “Class Ideology”, and that the economical aspect was not included in the philosophical system of reasoning.

Man has been asking questions; he has been cultivating doubts.

Every question generated many non-answered questions.  Every man is a philosopher once he starts jotting down coherent questions and then realizes that his “universe” is based on doubts.

Most of his questions have no satisfactory resolutions to constitute a perceived “structured comprehensive world” in his brain.

A philosopher sets out to devise a set of structural questions that he thinks are “logically deductive” in nature (it means that it would not be feasible to answer a previous question before resolving several basic questions).  Thus, philosophers have been driven to accepting a few fundamental “given” solutions, or “elemental facts,” or principles just to get going in their projects of building structured understanding of man and the universe.

Since Antiquity, philosophy (love of knowledge) was a catch-all term to represent all aspects of knowledge, including metaphysical concepts.  Since sciences were barely founded on facts or empirical experiments (not appreciated within the dominant classes), except during the Islamic Golden Age (9th to 12th century) and after Galileo in the 16th century “what is not measured should be measured”, philosophers fundamentally based their structure on abstract premises and deductive logic.

This makes sense: Once knowledge is firmly grounded on empirical facts (assuming the design of the experiment is valid) then philosophy should take secondary place in rational societies.

Sure, the name and meaning of philosophy was lost in the absurd long gestation toward the advance of knowledge.  The mathematician Descartes was the first who tried to delimit boundaries between sciences and philosophy: Descartes differentiated between invariant primal impressions and secondary perceived variables. It was the period when sciences got ascendance over abstract philosophical structures.

Before the 16th century, Europe’s philosophical systems were towing sciences (principally natural sciences).

Descartes influence stems from differentiating between forms of realities or “substances”.  The first kind of  substance is the mind which cannot be subdivided; examples of such substances are the notions of time, space, and mass with which quantitative properties of an object can be measured.  The second kind of substance or “extensions to the matter” represents the qualitative properties of an object such as color, smell, taste, and the like.  Descartes division in forms of reality is being validated in equations: the right hand side and left hand side in any equation must be compatible with the same dimensions of time, space, and mass (what is known as compatibility in units of measurement). By the way, Descartes was a lousy philosopher but first-rate mathematician.

There are attempts at “refreshing” interest in philosophy by giving new names and labels to ancient philosophical schools and beginning with the prefix “neo-something”.  For example, we hear about neo-empiricism, neo-Marxism, neo-Darwinism, neo-materialism, neo-existentialism, analytical philosophy and so forth.

All these new lines of current philosophical structures have historical roots that reach to antiquity and pre-Socratic philosophers. The new “refreshed” lines of thinking apply current scientific fields (such as anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, or sociology) to ancient philosophical systems to validate their contentions.

For example, current nuclear physicists are fundamentally pre-Socratic in their quest for the elemental matters; they want to be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of “what is matter?” This problem is thus a vital part of their “life’s philosophy”, the “essence” or an answer to the question “what is my nature”?

I conjecture that most universities have branches called “philosophy” or something related to logical processes: students need topics to write thesis and dissertations.

Sciences have taken over: they can extend answers to “what can be answered”.  Sciences are far more efficient than philosophy: faulty answers go unnoticed very effectively.

There are very few practiced scientists, but every man think he is a philosopher: man can feel what’s wrong with a philosophical system, but he refrains to claim knowledge in sciences.

635.  Bono-metrics (Rock Star); (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

636.  Twenty years later, and I am still hurting; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

637.  “I am mediocre; what’s in to you?” (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

638.  How can I win the war on “Terrorism”? Part two; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

639.  Obama-metrics: First year performance; (Jan. 28, 2010)

 

640.  Obama-metrics: How to rebound; (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

641.  Obama-metrics: What to expect? (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

642.  It is a virus: You scratch one spot and it spreads; (Jan. 29, 2010)

 

643.  Part one: Twilight of “Love of Knowledge”; (Jan. 30, 2010)

 

644.  Romancing anti-matter; (Jan. 30, 2010)

Romancing anti-matter; (Jan. 30, 2010)

Earth was created without mankind.

Earth will vanish, way after mankind does.

Mankind is dead certain that Earth will disintegrate.

Why!  This makes much sense:

Superman of Krypton did die.

Most people would prefer this rarest of phenomenon to strike,

After they are gone and buried deep, the deepest.

I am of the very few liking to witness Armageddon,

Within the full power of my consciousness:

The event is not to be repeated frequently.

For mankind there is a qualitative difference:

Would Earth goes with a shred of glory

Or ends up slowly dying, and totally devalued:

A glorious end is:

Even ants should find it hard to survive.

For greedy new mankind, the deepest wish,

After this long journey to knowledge and technological progress,

Is to leave Earth a Victor:

Earth should be a carcass, a dry shell,

Nothing is left to be exploited.

“Table rase”: The ultimate for the new species of mankind

Is to proclaim total victory over matter.

Nothing of material value must be relinquished to stupid Universe:

No chemical elements or compounds, no minerals:

Just your basic electrons, protons, neutrons…

Unadulterated victory over anthropic:

Quark (this super tiniest and indivisible of matter),

Boson (this super tiniest field that gives consistency to mass),

Quarks and bosons have to kneel and declare defeat.

Long live anti-matter.

Down to living organic creatures

After me “Eternal Void”!

Just consider this improbable odd of “being who I am”.

And you blame me for my huge vanity?

Part one: Twilight of “Love of Knowledge”

            There is this notion that philosophers are after the “Truth” based on the assumption that they have this urge to go to the tiniest details and exhaustive possibilities of a concept.  I beg to differ. Once a philosopher starts building structures for his line of thinking then it is the system that tows and guides the “Truth”. It takes an insurmountable character of honesty to shake off the inertia erected by a system for a philosopher to restart his independent reflection in search of truth.

            Philosophy from Antiquity to the last century was what is currently called “Ideology of the power to be” of the politico-economic system (the dominant classes of the period). Philosophy was the super-structure or the apologetic social structure of a culture that has been flourishing for decades: philosophy tried to make sense of the mood of the time.

            What is striking is that most philosophical systems refrained to include the economical structure aspect into the equation; at best, the economic structure was indirectly referred to.  For example, slavery was accepted as a qualitative level in human nature: since animals are difficult to communicate with then it is better to leave it as is.  It was if economy was a taboo notion because the class structure could not be altered.

            Every politico-economic dominant class needs a valid interpretation of the statue-quo coupled with a rational for the intelligentsia to take stock of the inevitable status that settled in and come along.  Thus, philosophers’ interpretations always were phased out by several decades of the “has been reality”.

            In periods of alliances between the religious institutions and the monarchy it was required for God to taking center stage: people had to get used to letting God run their destinies. Usually, the philosophical lines of thinking revolved in that guideline; these philosophical trends lasted long because the power was concentrated in the hand of the almighty alliance.  Superstition was king and empirical works led the bold experimenters to the fire to be burned alive as witches.  Knowledge was built around abstract concepts or the realm of religious dogmas. Religious institutions dictated how the universe functioned and detailed the proper mental activities.

            In periods of the rising middle classes (of traders, merchants, and lately the industrial class of entrepreneurs) philosophical systems set man in center stage of the universe. It was important that man regains his place instead of God: The church-monarchy alliance was not to regain political-economic supremacy and control.  Consequently, man was to discover and investigate his “backyard” (earth and universe).  Scientific knowledge, empirical experiments, discovery, and world adventures were the result of opening up new market for exploiting many more people for added values of merchandises.

            Hegel realized the historical interpretation process of philosophical structures as a fundamental aspect of civilization changes; Hegel failed to find the intimate connection with the politico-economic source. The historical dialectic method could make sense of the super structure of “knowledge” development in an a posteriori phase; thus historical dialectics could not forecast the synthesis for the current period since the source of the dialectics (politico-economics) was not within his range of expertise.

            It was Marx who realized the power of historical dialectics when applied to politico-economic realities. It made sense from Marx position to declare that history started when class struggle was identified as the catalyst for change and knowledge development.  It means that if a “hot” culture wants to understand or create a history for its society then it must invest in gathering artifacts and ancient manuscripts that shed light on the class structures through the phases of its history.

Democratic systems are trying hard to diminish civil administration interference with religions in its habit of demanding religious inputs and backing to political activities and programs.  This phenomena is called “separation of religion and civil rules”


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

January 2010
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 1,383,973 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 731 other followers

%d bloggers like this: