Darkness really cannot be measured. No seriously, it cannot.

BEFORE YOU READ ON IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THIS IN MIND: If you’re going to use the ‘Bortle Dark Sky Scale’ as a source to prove me wrong, why don’t you ask yourself if it really makes sense? Does your mind resonate to it’s theory?

I mean, we should honor our minds. “A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages.”

which translates to

“Why don’t you f*** what that scientist said and think for yourself. He can defend his theory because it is his mind. Can you defend his theory with your mind? Or will you shadow him?”

Let’s take the bottom of the deepest ocean, where darkness is absolute (possibly, just a theory). How does absolute darkness get any darker? Does it get darker if you dig deeper? Is it absolute darkness then, if darkness can be darker? Does it not (logically) mean that there is light present, which makes the absolute darkness, not-very-absolute darkness?

 

P/S I love the ocean.

Advertisements

Science vs Faith (1/4): Science is not proportionate to faith

Disclaimer (as suggested): I am not writing on sides – I am not writing for faith or for religion, but simply to highlight its difference.

I do not intend to re-define this conventional topic in my own way, nor am I trying to solve it and write something genius that would outshine the works of professionals in the field. No, what I intend to do, is to express how we have all been taking this subject in a completely flawed perspective. So perhaps a better title for my post would be ‘Science and Faith’, and not ‘Science vs Faith’, because I am not pitting two different things against each other, but I am simply suggesting that we need not differentiate them.

It would be good if you had a general idea of the development of this topic in the world before reading this, because I am not about to highlight every single significant development in this area of studies in my post; it would be unreadable. I’m sure most of us would be familiar with the theories of Darwin, and the works of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer – atheists who have unyielding-ly attempted to expose the flaws of religion, the non-existence of god, and the senselessness of faith.

A recent article that I have read states how the more scientifically inclined people tend to be less faithful and less responsive to religion. And while this is a sad truth, I think that this is also a fault in the ways people are going in pursuing something so.. broad.

1. Science is not proportionate to faith

Throughout the century, the constant usage of ‘Science vs Faith’ by individuals to address their pressingly ‘critical’ opinions on the subject has somewhat created a distinctive difference between them. It is as if every aspect of these core subjects are identical opposites of each other, but it is not.

What is the opposite of old? Young.

What is the opposite of white? Black.

What is the opposite of male? Female.

What then, is the opposite of light? Darkness.

And what is the opposite of hot? Cold?

We have grown to believe that things come in pair, and they do. For every positive, there is a negative, and for every give, there is a take. But the opposite of light is not darkness. There is no such thing as darkness. Similarly, there is no such thing as cold. “We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it.”

And similarly, light is measurable. We can have dim, slightly bright, bright, and glaringly bright, but can we have dark, very dark, extremely dark? Some of you would begin to think about pitch darkness, or normal darkness in the night, but in the presence of these normal darkness we are accustom to, light is still present. So if light is completely absent, and we have nothing – we call it darkness, don’t we? In reality, darkness isn’t even valid. Because how can we make darkness any darker? How can we further deprive the absence of light?

What then is the opposite of life? Death? Even in all states of life: coma, brain dead, barely alive, unconscious, possessed, whatever, you can put a scale as to how alive a person is – you can describe life. It is once again, definitive. But can you put a condition to death? Death is simply the absence of life. To think that death is the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist substantively.

In most of our studies, our minds work on the premises of duality – opposites. There have been plenty of publications on Science vs Faith, and many more publications on why the analytically minded tend to have their faith ‘eroded’ or ‘diminished’. But in most of these articles, the intelligent writers ALWAYS relate faith to religion, that faith is to have trust in divine intuition. And this is our intellectual impasse. In this situation, most people relate to faith as ‘believing in a divine power’.

According to one theory of human thinking, the brain processes information using two systems. The first relies on mental shortcuts by using intuitive responses — a gut instinct, if you will — to quickly arrive at a conclusion. The other employs deliberative analysis, which uses reason to arrive at a conclusion.

Both systems are useful, and they can run in parallel, the theory goes. But when called upon, analytic thinking can override intuition.

For example, students were asked this question: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, “In my life I feel the presence of the Divine,” and “I just don’t understand religion.” Students who answered the three questions correctly — and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills — were more likely to score lower on the belief.

The fault and the immense amount of disgust and hate that I have for this article and all similar articles, is how everything is once again written in the concept of duality.

If there is duality, surely a decision is required, and a choice must be made. Are you a person of faith, or are you a person of science? Are you a good person, or are you a bad person?

Now, I am not headed where you think I might be heading with this – I understand that you can be both at the same time. But even then, say you are a good person because you’ve done more good than bad – this is a concept and a view in totality. Because you have had to do evil before, but that does not make you evil. So we move further down to the act itself, the processing in the head where you weigh the consequences of both sides in your head and you come across this difference – whether you should follow your gut, or be analytic. The ‘right’ way, is the way you would eventually decide and it could be either. It could be the ‘gut’ way, or the ‘analytic’ way.

And science makes use of it – in fact it abuses it. Science is but a tool – a tool to comprehend, explore, seek, and understand. It is the means of our minds to make theories and explanations of all that is within sight. What then do we make of religious faith? Science beats on faith because it is said to be the most powerful delusion that fuels the validity of faith. And it is invalid, because it cannot be explained, observed, tested or seen.

But isn’t science itself invalid? We say this world is made from atoms, but what creates atoms? We can separate and join atoms, we can learn how it behaves, and we know it’s characteristics, but do we know how it comes to exist? Science pats itself with the delusion that they have ventured far forward, when in actual fact they haven’t moved very far. Society hasn’t, too.

And so, if evolution theorists (or evolutionists) try to prove their facts – and they have done so very well and assumes an iron grip on the minds of other analytically minded, let me ask you – has anyone lived long enough to witness evolution? Isn’t the presentation the idea then, preaching? A preaching of your own beliefs? And how then do you know you are right when you’ve never witnessed it?

Faith.

Ultimately, the fact that we constantly misunderstand is how our minds work. Our minds create truth and support for our thoughts and beliefs. It is a self-organizing and self-supporting system that only changes consciously. If you ‘feel’ it is right, your mind will work it’s way around it to support and comprehend the logic of your decision.

If you take a step back now, to look at it’s totality: how is science proportionate to faith? Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. And what makes you think that science is right? Have you witnessed it for yourself? No one has ever observed the process of evolution – it is only a theory with probably a few practical experiments here and there to prove it. But the validity of it can be challenged with what we know of our mind – that it creates what we want it to create, and it can create truth to support an idea. But whether or not that truth is true – we don’t know, because we see what we want to see.

So what makes us think that using the analytic system is more right than the gut, or vice versa? It’s just inside us, isn’t it? It just ‘feels’ right to be analytic because it is more accurate or it ‘feels’ right to follow our intuition because that’s what our mind tells us.

Can we describe what ‘feel’ is? Can science describe it? We cannot; no one can.

Isn’t that faith, then?

The exception of great ideas and movements

Edit: (Conflicted post)

 

I’m not entirely sure if I should write this about this, but I thought that if I were to begin writing Science vs Faith, I’d have a better shot at achieving that through this. Some of my fears and doubts in writing this is to actually breed awareness or to challenge and violate mindsets, and I do not want to do that – it’s like collateral damage to the people around you. But I must because I want to.

I would focus mainly on an essential core that what we do are meaningless, but we still do because we want.

If humans were not the most capable beings of change in this world, and if animals were – say apes and monkeys or turtles (<3), how then would the world turn out?

If these creatures had the same brains as us – same capabilities for achievements and change – what would they do different?

Essentially, nothing. Because every intelligent life form in this universe do what they can – because they can.

This universe is what it is. Humans control nothing. Sir Isaac Newton was the first (to consider seriously in a global scale, after Aristotle) to seriously consider the idea that Earth was not the centre of our universe; this planet isn’t specially located. Many scientists of his time went against him, and right now that idea/theory is a fact.

This video explains the connectivity of our beings to each other. The video is an important aspect of this post, because it reveals to me that: we do not mean anything to this universe.

Our world; our mother earth, is dying. It is deteriorating so quickly. We begin to become more aware of the extreme situations that we face – the nuclear meltdown, earthquakes, damaged humanity, cruelty to nature. For every breath we take.. every breath, a mother dies trying to fight for her child, an animal dies for it’s resources and sport, a child dies from hunger, and nature dies because it can.

We begin to be aware of all the activities around us and we think that we are the cause. I feel that this is our ignorance, our curse. Because most of us feel that the pain of others is ours to bear. We feel that we know what is right, and what should be done because we have a mind and a soul, and that for as long as we can do something, we must.

A colony of ants live it’s life within itself. A human comes and destroy it’s nests. But what can they do? Nothing. This action by the human has it’s moral value – it is right/wrong – but it does not matter if it’s right or wrong because it does not matter if we are destroying our worlds or are building it – the most essential fact is that we can do it because we exist. We are able to destroy that ant colony’s life like earthquakes are able to destroy what we build. We do not exist beyond our existence and we mean nothing to anything else in this universe.

So, what exactly can we do for this universe? Nothing.

We are gifted with earth. This is our gift; what we take from the universe. And I think, while we may feel that we may not deserve it; that we need to preserve it – it does not matter if we don’t. There is an equilibrium that runs this entire universe, way beyond what we can imagine. There is a blueprint that we are not meant to decode.

And this is not within our control. We will use this earth, as we have and we have no means of regaining our resources. The oxygen we breathe in gets replenished by the greens that beautify our worlds – they are mechanisms meant to be there to create cycle and to create life. As much as we try to conserve and to save our planet – we have to accept that we cannot save it because we do not have that mechanism. We can prolong it, and we can, and we will when we must. I still have faith in humanity.

Now, we will lose our (human) world that we have created and protected with our own ignorance. Life comes and life goes. And this planet too shall pass.

I now come to main point of this article – that we, who have decided to save our planets with all our means, not be too consumed in it. We love our world as much as the haters hate it. We try to save our planet as much as others try to destroy it. And because we are able to connect passionately and righteously, we tend to become more focused and consumed by what we do to the extent that we might lose ourselves. We bring upon ourselves the burden and pain that we think our planet feels, that our animals and every other being feel, that we lose our ability to truly see what beauty lies before us. We get defeated by our emotions because we cannot comprehend why life unfolds itself in such a destructive manner.

And the haters, they just rule. Because while they cannot advocate their cause openly, they’re pretty much capable of doing what they want simply because they can, and they love it.

So why don’t we stop being too driven. Take a step back, we do what we can and we should not expect more than what we cannot.

Our planet, our world, our life is right here. We do not have to advocate our cause because we love it. We do not need to force our ways into the world, we just need to show it. We just need to love.

We love our cause, and we should indulge in it’s fruits and appreciate it’s beauty. Let nature run it’s cause. Because we are no different from the organisms that we know exist. We are still a part of this universe.

We must court him

We must court him; he does not court you. This is quite a golden rule to anyone who wishes to make change to other people’s life. But why? A friend brought up the point that while ‘society itself places materialistic intellect over one’s heart and soul’, he prizes the heart and soul above all, above intellect even.

So why should you take a step down? It is his loss – he is blind and wrong, and you are not. But selling your idea, and sharing your thoughts cannot be achieved by simply proving to others that they are wrong.

We should court them in their own worlds because: they are all clapped into jail by their own consciousness. And if we’re beyond that, we should not wait for them to realize, nor should we wait for them to come to their senses. Fight the enemy where they aren’t. While they may be in their own worlds, they are not there.

So if you would like to make change, you bring your world to them – their way.

Favourite 10 songs because I can’t be bothered to find more than 10

Music is a major influence my life and I thought I might post the 10 songs in my current cool-phase playlist right now (no order or ranking):

1 – MIDNIGHT CITY BY M83
The heck, this should be the top song in America. It’s so brilliant.

2 – Payphone by Maroon 5 ft Wiz Khalifa

3 – Secrets by The Piano Guys
This piece of modern instrumental classical mix is a masterpiece.

4 – Heart Skipped a Beat by The XX
All time fav

5 – Radio by Lana Del Ray

6 – Fade and then Return by William Fitzsimmons

7 – Red Cape by Priscilla Ahn
I am extremely in love with her voice. Almost as sexy as Rachel McAdams.

8 – England by The National
Speechless really, this is brilliant.

9 – Vanderlyle Crybaby Geeks by The National

10 – I Won’t Let You Go by Airto (James Morrison cover)

And 10’s up already ._. There are actually many more – some symphonies , and Joshua Bells, etc but meh.

Goodnight.

PS: BON IVER IS SOMEWHERE HERE TOO.

Answer to your genius

There is the unwillingness to write anymore, for you could say that I’ve always lost the moment, and eventually the feel. My limited cornucopia of words essentially drains the vital energy that I use to write frequently, and this has only happened quite recently. But anyhow, I should respect my decision then to keep writing and get better and I thought I might blog about some recent glimpses of light that flashes across my mind within.

Recent events have allowed me to re-evaluate myself, and encouraged me to seek the genius that has laid idle in me for 20 years; for everyone has a genius in them, a bard or sage that seeks a voice, and yet we silence them without a doubt or guilt because they are ours.

Humans are by no means any better than the dinosaurs that have now been completely wiped off the surface of the earth. We speak of evolution and of intelligence, and we think we are the most capable beings for change and that this world is ours to live and dominate. Yet we are equally incapable of saving ourselves, much less this planet. Simply because we refuse to accept ourselves. Ne te quaesiveris extra – seek yourself within yourself, and not in the lustre of firmaments of the bards and sages of our time.

We use people like we use objects, but what makes it morally right for us to objectify people is the fact that we can twist perspectives like we twist words, and we can create illusions and delusions. We are intelligent like that. We comply to collective selfishness and we glorify what others glorify. Surely, as long as it is charged emotionally positively, and if it is mutually beneficial, there can’t be anything wrong with using anyone now, can there?

Yet, when I claim to be objectifying people, there is an alienated disgust in the response of people towards me, as if it is wrong. What are you frustrated about, really? That I not share the same perspective as you? The simple and most underlying fact is – we use people and everything else that can take a form to our advantage.

We use and we make use. That’s the cycle of life. It is a vicious cycle, and I think that the great man is he who can make use of anything he wishes to, for in this world he answers to nothing but his genius and his morality.

Has my moral compass taken a serious hit? I have made use, at an incredibly alarming amount, of people to do my bidding – this I will admit. I have taken advantage of people’s perspectives, and their ignorance, and I have done so much with it; you would hate me if you knew. The less intelligent could make use of the intelligent ones to do their bidding simply because he is more aware.

But in all this, every human seeks only to have control; he who has control of his genius and his mind controls all light. Except you don’t control your mind; it controls you.

This is me, answering to my genius. My mind tells me that everything is disposable. It tells me that life comes and life goes; you may shed a tear, but you should never shed your heart. For this life is only temporary; we are only human. There is a greater purpose in all of this, a higher calling. Why do you cry at the loss of another’s life? It is not yours. Do you cry because he now cannot live his, as you haven’t been with yours?

This is me, answering to my genius. At some point in everyone’s lives we arrive at the conviction that envy is ignorance, and that imitation is suicide. We were made to deliver our genius to the world, yet for most people, their deliverance does not deliver. For they imitate, and they live otherwise. The world is a painful place to live in, but the pain of others is not yours to bear.

This is me, answering to my genius. I have shunned mother, father, and my loved ones in response to my genius. They pain; this is not what they want of me. But this is what I want of me, and to live – it is subjective. For at the end of the road, you deliver what others cannot deliver. You deliver an invaluable you, and I believe everyone will now bow to you; how have you done it?

My concern in all these is how much pain I have caused others. My current best friend is one whom I’ve made use of, yet he stuck around me – why, I do not know. And then I learned that this is how every fibre in our body, and our atoms (which are that of the universe) get interconnected with another. It just happens; we do not seek it.

Your genius is an incredible gift; you cannot hear what I say until it is yours. And if it is yours, then you need not seek anything in this world. Everything will come to you. You will lose your genius if you keep it shut for too long, and 20 years is long. But when you answer to it, every other thought that you may need just comes to you; you need not seek any other thought.

This is me, answering to my genius. And it says, sleep. A way to make everyone answer to their own geniuses will come soon.