The season that's in it, a Christmas literary quiz. From which well-known play have I excavated the following quote:
Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Merchant of Truth- Rupert Murdoch
The mainstream media on the grand scale can be summed up by the fact that perhaps its most powerful individual, Rupert Murdoch, is also the world's most powerful ever pornographer, through, at least this side of the Atlantic, his Sky television network, proudly flooding the ordinary home with his many adult channels. Which contains more truth- Mr Murdoch's 'news' or pornography disseminations is a difficult question, but the answer by default probably the porn; it not making much in the way of claims to being anything more than itself, whereas the truth versions of his news distributions alleging to reflect reality in quite a real manner.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony anointed the great fascist pornographer Murdoch and his wife as members of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great in January, 1998. This knighthood, bestowed on behalf of the pope, is given to persons of "unblemished character" who have "promoted the interests of society, the [Catholic] Church and the Holy See [Vatican]."
We understand it wasn't so much his services to fascism or pornography that earned Murdoch the great honour, but his religious faith and subservience to that faith in both thought and action. One also assumes his sex-shows mustn't do anything in the way of encouraging the use of contraceptives.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony anointed the great fascist pornographer Murdoch and his wife as members of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great in January, 1998. This knighthood, bestowed on behalf of the pope, is given to persons of "unblemished character" who have "promoted the interests of society, the [Catholic] Church and the Holy See [Vatican]."
We understand it wasn't so much his services to fascism or pornography that earned Murdoch the great honour, but his religious faith and subservience to that faith in both thought and action. One also assumes his sex-shows mustn't do anything in the way of encouraging the use of contraceptives.
In the Act
You are reading this sentence. You are now reading this one. And now this is exactly where your mind is located, inseparable from the mental activity in which it is engaged.
"Ah but what if I am not reading any of the above, or for argument sake lets say I am reading the third sentence. This makes a lie of the first two claims. They can't all be true simultaneously."
But they don't exist simultaneously. They exist as intellectual phenomena in the act of being read. For a baby, for example, whose attention is fixed on the writing, the words only exist as visual phenomena, and that is their full existence if only witnessed by that baby in that period. As intellectual phenomena, rather than simply visual, they require a compatible intellect to inhabit so as to exist as the intellectual phenomena that they are. Try to think of a sentence that is not being thought of. Tautologically impossible- it only exists when it is being thought of, and is real in the moment of thinking it.
The existential nature of a closed book is enough to drive a mind, sufficiently dogged in the pursuit of its elusive reality, mad.
So each of the three sentences are perfectly true statements - more of a mental achievement than might be imagined though there might be an argument for replacing you with I: ie "I am reading this sentence", etc. They are mind substances and cannot have a reality independent of the human mind, though of course the mind can have a reality independent of these effluences.
That, come to think of it, is what I have a feeling much supposed psycho-analytical theories simply amount to: rather than standing at the summit of a hierarchy of thought uniting all the other thoughts, simply the, more than likely delusional, thoughts produced at that moment, then falsely treated as anchors upon which to found a notion of self, and to bind the full self, falsely convinced these are its parameters, within those imprisoning parameters.
"Ah but what if I am not reading any of the above, or for argument sake lets say I am reading the third sentence. This makes a lie of the first two claims. They can't all be true simultaneously."
But they don't exist simultaneously. They exist as intellectual phenomena in the act of being read. For a baby, for example, whose attention is fixed on the writing, the words only exist as visual phenomena, and that is their full existence if only witnessed by that baby in that period. As intellectual phenomena, rather than simply visual, they require a compatible intellect to inhabit so as to exist as the intellectual phenomena that they are. Try to think of a sentence that is not being thought of. Tautologically impossible- it only exists when it is being thought of, and is real in the moment of thinking it.
The existential nature of a closed book is enough to drive a mind, sufficiently dogged in the pursuit of its elusive reality, mad.
So each of the three sentences are perfectly true statements - more of a mental achievement than might be imagined though there might be an argument for replacing you with I: ie "I am reading this sentence", etc. They are mind substances and cannot have a reality independent of the human mind, though of course the mind can have a reality independent of these effluences.
Perhaps the individual intellect can be seen in a very similar light to all of this, in the sense anyway of kind of static reality, to which experiences happen or converge. And unlike intellectual phenomena, one can't even point at an individual intellect as an object. So is the "individual intellect" simply an intellectual phenomenon?
That, come to think of it, is what I have a feeling much supposed psycho-analytical theories simply amount to: rather than standing at the summit of a hierarchy of thought uniting all the other thoughts, simply the, more than likely delusional, thoughts produced at that moment, then falsely treated as anchors upon which to found a notion of self, and to bind the full self, falsely convinced these are its parameters, within those imprisoning parameters.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Observation
There is a certain type of person for whom life affords no greater pleasure than to watch other people working. For some unknown reasons, the most devoted instances of this species within a species are to be found in and around gaelic football and hurling pitches in rural Ireland when said pitches are host to fairly large and new-fangled machines engaged in drainage work.
Balancing this, there is also a type of person for whom life affords few greater irritations than to be watched while working by the first type.
Balancing this, there is also a type of person for whom life affords few greater irritations than to be watched while working by the first type.
Monday, 15 December 2008
Night & Water
An occasional, unfortunate and awkward by-product of a liking for night-time walks along and gazing into the many waterways of Cork city, particularly along the main docklands area, is to be accosted by a well-meaning type of soul who seems absolutely convinced that gazing into a city river by night must denote a suicidal desire to jump into said river. And maybe I shouldn't complain as just such interventions by strangers have surely salvaged quite a few momentarily broken human soldiers from such desperate actions. On the once or twice occasions when just such events have happened nothing I can say seems to convince the good Samaritan that suicide is not on my mind, and a somewhat comical passage of interaction occurs- one trying to convince the other not to kill himself, the other vainly trying to explain that there is an aesthetic pleasure to gazing into moving water, which is the full dynamic of the events the other mistakenly construes as verging on the imminently tragic. Perhaps it all comes from at source a certain type of person brought up in the heart of the country transplanted to the strange urban landscape, and its more unnatural and neurotic relationship with the natural world.
Anyway, no such event quite occurs on the following evening when, smoking a cigarette in a particularly remote spot, looking across at a ship in time-slowing manner ponderously turn and face out towards sea, I was thinking- and I think I really was- how much of a Tarkovskian scene it was, and if I were a filmmaker...when I belatedly noticed rapidly approaching footsteps. A haggard and feverish looking man grabbed me by the arm, fixed his highly charged, at least half-mad eyes on me, and demanded, "What is your wisdom?"
I quickly understood the nature of the scene and, perhaps out of an intermingling mixture of sympathy and self-preservation, imparted the following: "Life is the incarnated space between appearance and disappearance; that is to say, birth and death. Appearance in this realm coincides with disappearance from another, whilst disappearance from this realm is instantly followed by appearance in another."
This, as I must have intuitively divined, proved to be especially helpful to the distressed man, whose taut features softened and gaze became becalmed. He thanked me, gaze me a cigarette and walked off, heading away from the city, while I turned back towards it.
Anyway, no such event quite occurs on the following evening when, smoking a cigarette in a particularly remote spot, looking across at a ship in time-slowing manner ponderously turn and face out towards sea, I was thinking- and I think I really was- how much of a Tarkovskian scene it was, and if I were a filmmaker...when I belatedly noticed rapidly approaching footsteps. A haggard and feverish looking man grabbed me by the arm, fixed his highly charged, at least half-mad eyes on me, and demanded, "What is your wisdom?"
I quickly understood the nature of the scene and, perhaps out of an intermingling mixture of sympathy and self-preservation, imparted the following: "Life is the incarnated space between appearance and disappearance; that is to say, birth and death. Appearance in this realm coincides with disappearance from another, whilst disappearance from this realm is instantly followed by appearance in another."
This, as I must have intuitively divined, proved to be especially helpful to the distressed man, whose taut features softened and gaze became becalmed. He thanked me, gaze me a cigarette and walked off, heading away from the city, while I turned back towards it.
Friday, 12 December 2008
Another Dialogue
"There are many wonderful books that have never been written, some, naturally, greater than others."
"Show me these wonderful books."
"I can't. They've never been written."
"Then how do you know they exist?"
"They don't."
"Then how do you know they don't exist?"
"By their absence."
"But if you only know they don't exist by their absence, why are you talking of them as if they do exist?"
"I'll put it this way. If in 1850 someone had said that Crime and Punishment is a great book, would be have been lying?"
"But it wasn't written yet."
"So would he have been lying?"
"But it is a great book."
"So prior to its existence did it exist?"
"No, of course not."
"And did it not exist."
"Well I suppose for 'it' to not exist, it would have to be an it in the first place, in which case it would exist."
"Not bad. You're a far higher class of conversationalist than those that Plato employed."
"Yes men?"
"The worst."
"Anyway, have we come to some kind of philosophical conclusion, or is this all some Gogolian nonsense?
"I've no idea."
"Show me these wonderful books."
"I can't. They've never been written."
"Then how do you know they exist?"
"They don't."
"Then how do you know they don't exist?"
"By their absence."
"But if you only know they don't exist by their absence, why are you talking of them as if they do exist?"
"I'll put it this way. If in 1850 someone had said that Crime and Punishment is a great book, would be have been lying?"
"But it wasn't written yet."
"So would he have been lying?"
"But it is a great book."
"So prior to its existence did it exist?"
"No, of course not."
"And did it not exist."
"Well I suppose for 'it' to not exist, it would have to be an it in the first place, in which case it would exist."
"Not bad. You're a far higher class of conversationalist than those that Plato employed."
"Yes men?"
"The worst."
"Anyway, have we come to some kind of philosophical conclusion, or is this all some Gogolian nonsense?
"I've no idea."
Monday, 8 December 2008
Wordy Endeavour
"You're writing a book? What kind of book?"
"Well, it's got real people in it."
"Real people? But they're made of language, aren't they?"
"Well, yes of course."
"And real people aren't made of language."
"Well, that's debatable. Some people think they are."
"They think they're creations of the words in their own heads? Lunatics. Anyway, tell me about these 'real people'."
"There's one I'm very happy with, who I think is very relevant. He's a great critical thinker of the modern age and the times we live in now."
"He sounds like a right asshole. Anyway, what of him? What are his conclusions, how does he reach them, et cetera, et cetera?"
"Well, he reaches them like everyone else of course. He reads the newspapers and watches the television."
"So he's handed a very crude jigsaw puzzle, assembles it, and then calls the resulting structure his own creation. I congratulate you on your realism. He sounds exactly like the kind of thinker who thrives in 'the times we live in now.'"
"Well, it's got real people in it."
"Real people? But they're made of language, aren't they?"
"Well, yes of course."
"And real people aren't made of language."
"Well, that's debatable. Some people think they are."
"They think they're creations of the words in their own heads? Lunatics. Anyway, tell me about these 'real people'."
"There's one I'm very happy with, who I think is very relevant. He's a great critical thinker of the modern age and the times we live in now."
"He sounds like a right asshole. Anyway, what of him? What are his conclusions, how does he reach them, et cetera, et cetera?"
"Well, he reaches them like everyone else of course. He reads the newspapers and watches the television."
"So he's handed a very crude jigsaw puzzle, assembles it, and then calls the resulting structure his own creation. I congratulate you on your realism. He sounds exactly like the kind of thinker who thrives in 'the times we live in now.'"
Friday, 5 December 2008
Free-Will & the External Seer
Consider a video recording of a football match. As the game was actually played the players have absolute freedom to act of their own volition. However, watching this later their actions obviously will not change, which is not to say that they were deprived of free will as they acted. Similarly we could talk of God as an observer of life existing free of our notion of time, knowing exactly what happens within our time, but this not contradicting the freedom of movement of people within time and earthly life.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Overheard in a Petrol Station
"Modern Western film amounts to mediocre literature with a camera added."
"Modern Western literature amounts to mediocre literature without a camera added."
"Modern Western literature amounts to mediocre literature without a camera added."
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Logic of Monarchy
Within a monarchy the general populace are 'subjects' to a monarch, who, generally by virtue of bloodline, is intrinsically superior to the people. And so the British national anthem is God Save the Queen, not God Save the People. The people find their validation before God in the person of the monarch.
And since no human can be more than human, and the monarch is human, the necessary logic here is that Britons are, within the framework of the State, subhuman; intrinsically lesser than, 'subject' to, another who contrarily is human.
Knighthoods and the like can be seen as conferred blessings from above where the subhuman subjects ascend towards the highest ideal of human existence, though since this state is unique to the monarch, in the absence of becoming monarch oneself, becoming human cannot be attained. Servility is one's natural and rightful state of being.
A different starting-point takes us a similar route, and that is the notion that the royalty are indeed more than human, which seems to have been often the ancient use of kingship. The same dynamic of ascendancy reigns, with the people as centres of consciousness less real than the monarch, but here the people are granted the status of human, but to be human is itself as a biological condition to be a slave species and there is no route upwards to the throne of existential creation.
Which of the two variations is more traumatic to the subjects is debatable.
One might say this is archaic and fantastic; that now we have full rights and all the rest of it, but this is to view the human condition very superficially. For one thing, subconsciously the self understands the implied truth of all the above, even if it is rare that it will bubble up into conscious awareness. This intrinsic servile mental software has been part of the human condition for vast stretches of time and won't disappear overnight, or even over a century or two. Though of course it could disappear in an enlightening flash for the individual. Progress here consists not in an expansion but an unwriting or vanishing of the software.
And since no human can be more than human, and the monarch is human, the necessary logic here is that Britons are, within the framework of the State, subhuman; intrinsically lesser than, 'subject' to, another who contrarily is human.
Knighthoods and the like can be seen as conferred blessings from above where the subhuman subjects ascend towards the highest ideal of human existence, though since this state is unique to the monarch, in the absence of becoming monarch oneself, becoming human cannot be attained. Servility is one's natural and rightful state of being.
A different starting-point takes us a similar route, and that is the notion that the royalty are indeed more than human, which seems to have been often the ancient use of kingship. The same dynamic of ascendancy reigns, with the people as centres of consciousness less real than the monarch, but here the people are granted the status of human, but to be human is itself as a biological condition to be a slave species and there is no route upwards to the throne of existential creation.
Which of the two variations is more traumatic to the subjects is debatable.
One might say this is archaic and fantastic; that now we have full rights and all the rest of it, but this is to view the human condition very superficially. For one thing, subconsciously the self understands the implied truth of all the above, even if it is rare that it will bubble up into conscious awareness. This intrinsic servile mental software has been part of the human condition for vast stretches of time and won't disappear overnight, or even over a century or two. Though of course it could disappear in an enlightening flash for the individual. Progress here consists not in an expansion but an unwriting or vanishing of the software.
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Acolyte
"The system is collapsing into chaos."
"Yes, perhaps, but I still have perfect faith in it."
"You moron."
"Yes, perhaps, but I still have perfect faith in it."
"You moron."
Jim Marrs- Rise of the Fourth Reich
Part One here. Part two. Part 3. Four. Five.
"The citizen who sees his society’s democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry it out, is not a patriot, but a traitor.” Mark Twain
"The citizen who sees his society’s democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry it out, is not a patriot, but a traitor.” Mark Twain
Wisdom of The Man on the Street/ Nature Abhors a Vacuum
"Human nature abhors a vacuum. If man doesn't fill his head with one form of nonsense, he'll most likely fill it with another."
MSN
I take that previous post back- there are clearly not processes trying to turn humanity into a species of infantilised morons, as shown by the most prominent lines on the homepage of MSN, which also show how democracy has poured itself into such vibrant forms of choice:
MSN Battles: Which celebrities are in and which are out
Who is hot and who is not
You decide - On MSN Battles
Also the important selection of recent human phenomena:
Madonna watched by Rodriguez from front row
Spears 'ready to get started' with career, says mum
Carey's acting skills praised by co-star
And also the joyous news that "MSN has just made life easier." A key moment in human evolution.
MSN Battles: Which celebrities are in and which are out
Who is hot and who is not
You decide - On MSN Battles
Also the important selection of recent human phenomena:
Madonna watched by Rodriguez from front row
Spears 'ready to get started' with career, says mum
Carey's acting skills praised by co-star
And also the joyous news that "MSN has just made life easier." A key moment in human evolution.
Monday, 1 December 2008
Biblical Oath
Regarding the practice of swearing an oath on the bible in a court of law it would seem only natural to refer to the attributed words of the central human figure in that book, he being Jesus:
I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem...
Neither shall though swear by thine own head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
So it is perfectly clear that to swear on the bible is an absolute transgression of the book, and that in essence the word of anyone under oath to the bible is according to Jesus' words intrinsically worthless and a mockery of that book in its Christian essence. Given that the legalistic world is supposed to excel specifically in its use of logic this is all so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand what to make of it. The obvious implication is that all testimony in all court cases so far taken under biblical oath should be struck out as inadmissible.
I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem...
Neither shall though swear by thine own head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
So it is perfectly clear that to swear on the bible is an absolute transgression of the book, and that in essence the word of anyone under oath to the bible is according to Jesus' words intrinsically worthless and a mockery of that book in its Christian essence. Given that the legalistic world is supposed to excel specifically in its use of logic this is all so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand what to make of it. The obvious implication is that all testimony in all court cases so far taken under biblical oath should be struck out as inadmissible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
