Blog-Like Thing

The Doors — The End

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

I remember this version of the song, sung by the Kingston Trio, from The Man Who Fell to Earth. This was during a period of my life when I had to own every Bowie record and see every Bowie movie at least ten times. It’s too bad, really, because although he’s a good actor, most of his movies sucked.

Something someone said made me feel like I don’t want to write for a while, and I won’t. But I just wanted to say that September always used to be my favorite month of the year. New school books, pencils, binders — a fresh start in every way. But it’s not like that any more.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

Lullaby — The Cure. Sleep well.

I’m trapped in a box, and I cannot get out,
And silvery spiders they slither throughout,
I’m still in a quandary how this came about,
While quenching my thirst, I stumbled on drought.

I’m begging for mercy, but the box is too small,
The walls seem so close that I can’t move at all,
But the slippery spiders, they’re having a ball,
Their freedom is here in my heart, in my soul.

I wonder if I have the strength to break free,
And then I discover that I just don’t know me,
So I follow the spiders, still failing to see,
That the box is invisible, and I hold the key.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

I actually saw this show in Seattle a few years ago, and the band didn’t move from their synths during the whole performance, except for a short portion where the humans were actually replaced by robots. It’s hard to think of this as a “live” show, but it was interesting regardless. And, for some reason, Maryjane seemed to have had a very strong presence in the audience, not that I partake. Anyway, this is Kraftwerk’s Radioactivity.

If anyone cares, radioactivity is the process by which unstable atomic nuclei release energetic subatomic particles. The word radioactivity is also used to refer to the subatomic particles themselves. This phenomenon is observed in the heavy elements, like uranium, and unstable isotopes, like carbon-14. Fascinating, right? So why should we care?

In small doses, radioactivity is actually a useful process that allows humans to do things such as generate heat. Radioactivity can also be useful in medicine, where drugs may be laced with radioactive atoms to trace their movement throughout the body. And radioactive decay can be studied to improve the quality of human existence in other ways. For instance, it’s radioactivity that allows for carbon dating, which in turn allows us to determine the age or once living organic materials. Pretty cool, right?

But in large doses radioactivity is a danger to all life on this planet. Many weapons have been designed and tested that can use radioactivity to kill people in tremendous numbers. Nuclear accidents and intentional nuclear explosions have already taken and affected many lives. One can only hope that those in power will understand, use, and apply radioactivity and related processes peacefully. Ha.

Oh, and just for the record, radioactivity was discovered by in 1896 by the French scientist Henri Becquerel, while working on phosporescent materials. Marie Curie actually continued the research to discover polonium and separate a new element radium (from barium). For more information on this read a book… or if you can separate the wheat from the chaff, google. It’s fascinating, I promise.

Why am I writing about this? Becuase I can’t sleep. Also, because I took a class on nuclear war once, quite a bit of time ago. It was fun, though I’ve forgotten most of what I learned. But I remember lots of neat equations and diagrams and stuff — a bit like studying chemistry, but with more of a focus. I always liked chemistry better than physics, anyway. Maybe I’d feel differently now. I wish I had the opportunity to find out…

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

A-ha — Crying in the Rain.

A-ha is responsible for one of my favorite videos of all time, but I don’t need to post it here; you can easily find it on You Tube. Just search for “Take on Me.” The video is beautiful, original and, in my opinion, unsurpassed to date, even with far bigger budgets and many technological advances. Combined with melodic vocals and a catchy hook, it is indeed a work of art. The video above does not begin to compare, but the song is far closer to my heart.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I cry all the time. But what is it that I’m crying about? Sometimes it seems obvious, but I assure you, it is not. Unlike some people, I am not transparent, even though sometimes I claim to be. I rarely wear my heart upon my sleeve. And when it comes to my emotions, I may be able to deceive. So when I’m crying, surely I feel pain. What you may not notice, though, is that I’m just crying in the rain.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

Dear God (by XTC):

I never liked XTC much in the 80s, nor did I really listen to the lyrics of this song, though I heard it a lot. I still don’t much care for the music, but I finally realized that the lyrics are a fairly adequate description of my lifelong view of “god.” And, in a sense, the song is brave and brilliant.

Unless, of course, you catch me on a good day, when I’m squarely a pantheist. What’s a pantheist, you ask? First of all, no, it’s not someone who believes in multiple gods. (That would be a polytheist.) A pantheist is someone who equates the definition of god with nature, the universe, and the mysteries that lie within; someone who is overcome with an inexplicable sense of wonder when gazing at a jade-green lake atop a mountain after a day-long hike; or someone who is suddenly brought to tears by an extraordinary performance of Rachmaninoff’s third piano concerto. But some days nothing impresses me. The world is just a repetitive and useless exercise in futility ending in death, and I see no beauty in anything. It’s hard to be a pantheist on days like that.

Then again, perhaps I’m an agnostic or an atheist? Maybe.

An agnostic believes it impossible to know the truth in matters such as god and the afterlife. Or, if not impossible, at least it is impossible at the present time. “The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism.” [Bertrand Russell, emphasis mine]

Under the above description, I could very well be an agnostic. Of course, that depends on how you define “god.” Except for the days when I’m a pantheist. That would technically be inconsistent with agnosticism. Ironically, my fascination with the amazing natural symmetry of a snowflake or the beauty of a perfectly explainable sunset would make me a theist. Ha.

Then again, I could also be an atheist. Like a believer, an atheist holds that we can know for certain that there is no god. All current evidence seems to point in this direction, and that’s how I generally prefer to classify myself, mostly since no one seems to know what a pantheist is. Though in all likelihood, I’m probably a pantheist — except, of course, on the days that I’m an agnostic or an atheist, since that would be inconsistent with any type of theism. Or would it?

And finally, I’m certainly a skeptic. I’m a skeptic not in any “organized” sense, but in the sense that a person must constantly question the world and evaluate the evidence. (This is especially true when thinking about politics or reading *anything* on the internet or in the media.) Evaluating the evidence is not always an easy task — it’s not as simple as listening to an expert and agreeing with something just because it sounds right. Evaluating the evidence involves processing information, comparing studies, and examining the actual interests behind any line of thought. So yes, I’m probably a skeptic in every respect.

Can a skeptic hold beliefs based strictly on faith? No. Absolutely not. No way. A belief based on faith is entirely contradictory to skepticism. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that a person who holds beliefs based on faith can’t be skeptical about something in particular. But that person can never be a skeptic in a general sense or a true critical thinker, since that person will be holding onto beliefs based on nothing more than faith and assumption (usually ingrained from childhood or simply self-serving). Such beliefs are inherently inconsistent with both critical thinking and skepticism.

While we’re at it, what is critical thinking? In this case, I’ll cite Wiki for the definition. Sure, Wiki can change from day to day, but for my purposes, the current definition is quite apt:

Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense. [] Though the term “analytical thinking” may seem to convey the idea more accurately, critical thinking clearly involves synthesis, evaluation, and reconstruction of thinking, in addition to analysis.

Critical thinkers gather information from all senses, verbal and/or written expressions, reflection, observation, experience and reasoning. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual criteria that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance and fairness. [See the Wiki entry on critical thinking -- I am citing Wiki verbatim.]

So can a critical thinker hold beliefs based strictly on faith? Need you ask? Obviously not.

Finally, can someone be both an atheist and a skeptic? Not in the strictest sense. A skeptic, taken to the extreme, must be skeptical of everything, even skepticism itself. Nothing, not even solipsism, can be entirely ruled out. But, of course, our language is flexible and definitions of atheism can be stretched. I define myself as an atheist mainly in the sense that I believe in no god as currently hypothesized by any religion or person. I do not believe in deities or the supernatural. I do not have a personal god or a true sense of spirituality (beyond my pantheistic tendencies). This is a valid definition of atheism and doesn’t really differ substantially from agnosticism, or even pantheism.

So there you go. If I choose my definitions carefully, I can be an atheist, a theist, an agnostic, and a skeptic. Thank god for semantics.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

Oakley and Moroder

Remember this movie?

I miss the 80s. In the 80s I never owned a computer, and I could have never imagined that computers would soon become so powerful that they would be capable of occupying most of my time. When I was first introduced to computers and the Internet in 1995, I would have never believed that these machines would become what I used to work, research, write, play games, meet people, talk to friends (both old and new), learn about the world around me, create photos and movies, listen to music, make reservations, watch DVDs, and do just about anything else that I can think of. (Nor could I imagine that computers would become so tiny that they could easily fit in my pocket.)

I’ve had many relationships and friendships that either started or continued online. But in the end, as far as relationships are concerned, the computer is merely a communication device. It is not a substitute for flesh and blood interactions, with all their messy problems and complications. There are people who hide behind the computer screen and use it to mask their flaws, thinking that this will somehow fill the emptiness in their lives. It won’t. As human beings, we are generally social creatures, and we need to be with each other, not with machines. To the extent computers help us communicate and stay in touch, they are extremely useful; but, in any other sense, a purely online romantic relationship is no relationship at all. It can only be a love affair with a creature of your imagination; or worse, interactive masturbation. You may love your computer, but it won’t love you back. It has no heart; it has no soul. An online relationship that doesn’t move into the real world will never survive.

With all that said, when you can’t always be with the one you love, there is much you can still share through the computer — your hopes, your fears, your fantasies, your ideas — a strange combination of both the CNS and the CPU working together, creating and fueling electric dreams.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.

Have you ever met someone who is so similar to you in your world views that it’s scary? If so, was it a good experience? I haven’t. I’ve met someone who seemed to be, but he was dishonest. There was no real connection, no pleasure, and no consistency. But that’s not the point; the point is that we all differ to some degree. None of my friends is exactly like me, yet I love my friends nonetheless. Everyone has something unique and beautiful to offer, and many of them — perhaps some who are the least like me, have something to teach. So why is it that in political discourse today no one listens to each other? Why is everything so polarized? Selfish genes aside, some things are simply in everyone’s best interest. And it takes many minds working together to figure out exactly what those things are, and many different opinions deserve consideration.

I see this country heading down a path that’s simply frightening. The U.S. political system isn’t working. The judicial system is a mess. Separation of powers does not work when the executive branch controls the judicial branch, and financial interests control everything…

So why don’t we just stop, think, and turn a different course? Why must there be revolution or collapse before any change for the better? Why don’t we just reach out and try to understand each other? Why don’t we compromise where we can, support the weak when we can, and respect individuals for their uniqueness? Why? It’s amazing what treasures you find when you reach out your hands and meet someone halfway.

–All original content in this post is by(c)BluHarmony with all rights reserved.