Hope for 2009

If you can, go check out the edited "Pandora's Box 2" because it's filled with all the blunt eloquence that can be salvaged after taking a long car ride home with insane non-English-speaking people.

So here's your hope for 2009.  Remember that the Bible states that God created man in His own image.

Really?

Yes.  I'll prove it with a pop culture selection.

From Heroes (yes, I watch TV):

It starts with light, and ends with light.  And in between there is darkness.  Nothing there is beyond hope, nothing that can be sworn impossible, nothing left unimagined since Zeus, father of the Olympians, made night from midday.  Hiding the light of the shining sun, and raining dark fear down upon men.

There is some Neonominalism in this monologue, since the speaker considers nonexistence to be the potential of existence.  But more importantly, there's two parts to this.  One part in the beginning states that the [unnamed subject] begins with light and ends with light and darkness is all there is between.  The second part says that from the brightest light of noon, darkness can be created.  Therefore, nonexistence is all the potential for existence and existence is all the potential for nonexistence.  The only thing that separates the two is that existence takes a tangible form in the known universe.

Something can be made of nothing.  It's not an object or energy that's really made of nothing.  It's hope.  The monologue says, "nothing beyond hope".  Hope can be created out of nothing.  Hope, as described by the Architect (The Matrix Trilogy), is humankind's greatest weakness as well as its greatest strength.

Conclusion: Humans can create their own strengths and weaknesses.

Pandora's Box 2

Hi.  I'm moving this to Sunday because I never really have time on Saturdays.  This probably means you will see this a lot on Monday, but at least it will be here.

After watching a bunch of films, I've begun to question why all the dramas set in present day are either based mostly on wars or preexisting relationships.  Why in even the recent dramas that deal with relationships, the whole plot must take place in some time before the 90's?  It appears unrealistic for humans today to have the same relationships as those from decades ago.  It appears as though humans are becoming "emotionally sterile".

The loss of emotion is usually the result of a recent overload of emotion or a feeling of great pain from emotion.  For example, the SS troops of Nazi Germany were taught to be the coldwarriors as the vikings were.  It was part of their morality and was beaten into them with their training.  But there's hardly any Nazi training available to the public today.  But there are emotional beatings.

There's an emotional overload occurring every single day.  Art, which I adore and admire, of all forms has exposed today's generations to raw emotions.  It's all the "taboo" things that children can know of.  Sure, it's correct for them to find out since it's human life, but the fact that the generations before us have made such big deals out of things like sex or death have blown these topics out of proportion.  In psychology, the simple thought of the size of something affects how heavily we weigh it.  By making these things so great, we overload the human mind.  If we made them simpler, the human mind could take all these things at once, allowing us to have emotions.

Emotions are normal.  The "taboo" stuff is normal.  A normal brain can take them.  But as soon as we explode them, they push out all the natural emotions of a human being.

Edit: December 31

There's a British theory that suggests that the movies themselves are destroying emotion by creating unrealistic expectations for love.  It's because women are all looking for the special someone who happens to be a rich, loyal, and/or vampiric stud with an Australian accent and men are all looking for a bioengineered beauty willing to go anywhere, for free, and only for that man.  And we're all looking to be in some situation where we meet under awkward circumstances in our adolescent years, but are pulled apart by war/family, only to be gracefully reunited by a long string of coincidences/death/war.

But no.

Happy Nondenominational Holidays

Christmas wish lists.

We all love them.  They make life simple.

But they're rather sacrilegious.

If the purpose of giving people gifts for Christmas is to make them happy, the typical human being is expected to find something that will really bring a smile out of that person's face.  It shows that we care.  But these "wish lists" reflect our very material-oriented society.  Instead of allowing people to show that they care, "wish lists" make it easy to give.  First of all, no one is obligated to give any sort of gift.  Second of all, the only way to show that one cares is by actually going through the process of finding a special gift to fulfill some wish.  In the end, "wish lists" promote a sterile society that values material items and time over the "holiday spirit".

But don't get me wrong.

I like wish lists.

They make things easy.

They make things human.

A Ridiculous B- Theory

To begin with, the answer is "no".  As I am writing this, I do not own one of those books filled with ridiculous B- essays on philosophy in The Matrix so don't bother me about plagiarism.  And since I'll probably forget about the series in a matter of days, I might as well share with you something I thought of.  And if you haven't seen the movies yet, I can't really explain it very easily.  Anyways, I felt that the path of "Smith" is similar to that of the path of religion versus state.

Smith, representing religion, begins as an agent of the state, as it began as something used by early governments to control thought and maintain stability and power.  In ancient Rome, while it served mainly to explain various issues that the science of the time could not, the myths and lore also made Rome into an empire by glorifying the image of the warrior.

As the trilogy progresses, Smith is first defeated by an enemy of the system.  This is rather similar to the growth of atheism in the 19th century after a series of revolutions against conventional society when the radicals in Europe began to deny the optimism of Christianity.  At this point, the first break between church and state occurs.

Then, Smith returns to destroy both the state and its enemies by consuming all of them.  This is the point when religion takes on the expansionist view.  For example, Islam was not meant to have all of its followers convert every living human.  Yet we still have religious extremists and conservative governments in the Middle East.  When religion returns to conquer the state and its enemies, it begins by spreading to and permeating the systems.

Finally, Smith is destroyed after assimilating Neo in an unexplained deus-ex-machina.  While no major religion has reached this point yet, the creators of the trilogy may be saying that this is the fate of religions that attempt to assimilate everything.

In conclusion, religion follows this cycle:

Agent of state

Destruction and independence

Expansionism

Unknown fate, possibly destruction

Pandora's Box 1

I've been inspired to create a weekly section on something.

So here's the intro.

In Classical mythology, Pandora's box was a jar that the gods gave to Pandora to keep.  They warned her never to open it or it would release emotions to the other mortals.  Feelings such as "jealousy" entered the humans and chaos broke out.  While the common "man" shall see this as adversity, the Superman should see this as an arsenal of potent mental weapons.

Here's the background.

While this really can't be considered a weapon yet, a certain revelation occurred to me in the hallway.  As I was walking in the hallway, I noticed a certain couple walking with their hands together.  It was a simple gesture of their being together (and potentially their affection for one another).  However, as they were passing by a crowd all facing inwards watching a movie or something, they raised their hands over the mass.  He didn't squeeze her hand to ensure her close proximity.  They both flexed their muscles as if there were photographers in the bushes.

Here's the body.

That's not trying to keep together.  That's a loose symbol of victory.  They weren't doing it to make sure they held together while going through the gathering.  They were holding it high for all to see.  It was a performance.  The "performance" suggests that the two wanted to publicize their "love".  But who are they proving it to?  And since everyone basically already knows via Facebook, what are they gaining?

An important aspect of emotional relationships is the denial of one's own self image for the other.  This stems from the brain understanding that whatever the person normally did appealed to the other, so therefore, they must be right.  Thus, "image" is an unnecessary part of a relationship.

Here's my conclusion.

That particular couple felt little emotional attachment.  So to you, people of Is, go and use this knowledge to understand the difference in relationships.  I'll admit there cases such as arranged marriages where there really isn't much emotion, but this is for all those "BF"s and "GF"s that pretend to be in love.

Here's a bonus.

When people "make out" in public, it's a performance, but for different reasons.  "Making out" symbolizes sexual prowess in some young human's mind, for it proves their ability to quickly get to the mouth, one of the most intimate human orifices.  The concept of sexual prowess subconsciously creates the image of dignity.  Simply put, "making out" is instinct.  It's acting.  Holding hands is a façade.  It's lying.

Your Ad Here

Today, I'll just discuss something generic for the holiday spirit instead of sharing some revelations.

Often in this holiday season, we feel compelled to buy as many gift cards as we can to give to people who are giving us a gift.  We expect that we return something to our friends for their gifts.  Even love.  We expect to return love.

This is pointless, as described by Jane English, because they are our friends.  There's no obligation to give a gift back to your friends because that's what friends do.  You don't trade, you give.

Since that was a cli-ché ending and that would be an injustice to you, myself and this blog...

In conclusion, those who understand this principle can understand that no one is obligated to do anything for your friends.  Unfortunately, this will destroy friendships, as the materialist American society depends on the constant use of commercial items to declare absolutely anything, including love.  This definition of "friend" that we now have is more similar to a bank rather than a companion.  Thus, it is often true that pets make better friends than humans.

The Internet Part II: The Über-being

As I mentioned earlier, the Internet is an attempt at the hive mind.  But it's more than just that.  It's human evolution.  There shall be a point when we will become dependent on it for life.  Proof exists everywhere.

In school, students submit their papers.  Then, in a few days, out pops a graded essay.  While in class, they stare blankly at the in-class writing papers, waiting for the paper to be "spell-checked".  Another example of our dependence is SoftBank.  SoftBank is a store where people plug up their computers, phones, iPods, etc. to buy and download software.  These are the echoes of handing in work and going to the market to fill a basket.

Human dependence on the Internet combined with the "one room" mentioned earlier will lead to the construction of an electronic monster.  Humans shall be its cells and circuitry its flesh.  It will be the the hive mind of humans.  And like humans, it will be able to think.  After each person is "enslaved", the creature will develop its own thoughts from the dependent little cells.  As dependent cells, humans would eventually develop a single mind and this would become the mind of the Internet.  This mind would think like a human: grow strong and reproduce.  While this destroys individualism, it is probably the most realistic manifestation of the Will to Power.

The Matrix is not that far away.