I’ve been meaning to clean up my hard drives again, because the accumulation of stuff has slowly but surely been going out of hand. It hit me that my portable disks are crammed with more or less the same things I’ve been saving since the days of DVDs, if not CDs. Coincidentally, being from the VHS generation, the newer modern means of storing data definitely comes in handy, if you don’t have a villa or at least a spare room to physically store either the memories or the crap you’ve been hoarding for all those years. Sometimes I wonder what will I in fact be needing in the near and distant future. To be honest, the family pictures and personal stuff of that kind means much more than series, stories, games, lectures and the like that at least I store on our portable devices. All of this stuff is essentially a tie-in between the past and the future, or rather my past and future. This bears the question of where the present moment comes in and what it actually means to experience things in the here and now, as opposed to being the subject of seemingly endless supply of member berries that are for the most part self-inflicted. BTW, thank you, South Park, for keepin’ it real! Anyway, as I was getting rid of my vast VHS collection a couple of years ago, when I was cleaning my cluster of childhood cram, I was recollecting on the old-school way of watching film and taking care of tapes and such. I took one cassette out of its slightly dusty cover and I could still clearly see the heavily (over)used magnetic tape. A walk down memory lane. It was kind of bitter-sweet in knowing I have mostly nice memories associated with those tapes and yet also knowing I have to get rid of them … the tapes, not the memories, because I won’t ever watch a cassette again and can’t pass them on either. The technology changes are so rapid, that saving old VHSs is akin to saving your dusty-ass commodore … if you had one. The time has simply passed them. The memories remain as they should, but unless you’re planning on opening your very own museum of old techs, you’re better of letting go of the old hulks of electronics. Funnily enough, the same goes for the CDs and DVDs. Although they take up much less of a shell space, you have to ask yourself if you’re really ever gonna watch an old TV show or play an old game on a slightly scratched disk that you’re not even sure if it will work anymore or play as it did in the old “glory” days … or have the same meaning as it did before. Now, the CD-VHS dichotomy is interesting from the perspective of rights and originality. It’s safe to say that most of us had home-made tapes, while CDs (especially music and games) were originals … until file-sharing became a thing that hit big with the torrent generation, of course. This is not really about piracy (whether or not you view it in inverted commas), it’s more about the means of getting your information and the stuff you like(d). When Internet was not the all-seeing eye yet, the effort of making a compilation of your TV-shows or music was a laborious process … either waiting patiently for the commercials to end, unpausing your VHS-recorder (because tape space was a big deal back then), or waiting even more patiently for your music to download (we’re talking about days, not seconds here). If I fast-forward to today, there is obviously a chance your car has a CD/DVD-player, so you can enjoy your home-made blast-from-the-past-collections like the top-shit DJ that you are, but that’s not always the case. Hell, modern computers don’t even have DVD-players any more, let alone a floppy disk that was the first one that got limp and forgotten. It’s all about smaller and stronger devices now … and rightly so. Taking into consideration the rapid changes in information gathering and saving, getting rig of bags-full of VHSs really wasn’t that big of a deal. Just as much as it isn’t a big deal if a file or two get corrupted on your PC over time, because the chances of you really needing them is becoming more and more slim as your accumulation of stuff continues. This is just our spoiled ego wanting something and trying desperately to hold onto it like Gollum holding onto his precious ring … that wasn’t actually his and which inevitably led to his own demise. I remember when I was researching for my dissertation and especially as far as mythology goes some books were harder to come by. Vandiver’s Heroes in Herodotus comes to mind. I was obsessing about it for over a year, because I couldn’t order either a physical or a digital copy. I got hooked on Vandiver through her audio and video lectures, because she in my mind embodied the essence of a great academic (or rather, she still does), namely: understanding the basics and complexity of your subject matter, knowing how to express it fluently and interestingly, and unveiling not just interesting information, but in a lot of cases deconstructing some misconceptions about said subject matter (of mythology). In the end, I managed to dig up the book from some library in France and had it shipped to the National library here in Slovenia. It took forever, it wasn’t cheap, it was in bad shape, but I finally got it. And then? Well, the book definitely was worth the effort, but to be honest, it didn’t really add anything groundbreaking in my own understanding of myth. I think it was just about that pesky academic dogma of references for the sake of references. This ties in to what my former mentor said about my hesitancy to research comics for my diploma, because it was essentially a new endeavor altogether. She said that it’s hard (if not impossible) to keep in touch with any given subject. However, if you have keen interest in it, you can manage much more than you can imagine, especially though hard work. It may sound like a cheesy pep talk, but I knew exactly what she meant and she was very honest (especially now looking back). If you love what you do and see merit in it (financial gains aside), you can make up for a lot of what you didn’t know beforehand. I mean, I read comics as a kid like most of us did, but it was still potentially too much for me to go into this new subject given the allotted time I had to finish the paper. Luckily, I endured and discovered (if not rediscovered) my passion for comics and consequentially visual culture in general. So, thank you again, Veronika! This ties into films as much as it did mythology later on, because myths (stories in general) were (again) a subject matter I enjoyed when I was younger, but had let go over the years. It seems that things come around and one’s inherent interests will always have a lovely grip on you are your reality. I can relate all of this to the whole cleaning is cleansing topic discussed here, because a lot of stuff on my disks in study-related: lectures and books and the like. Alas, no porn (any more) … As much as I would like to think that I will watch, listen or read most of the things I saved on my digital mainframe over the years, that applies only to a small number of works and with more and more of them constantly being produced, the rest of your saved stuff is there just for the sake of being there, you know: just in case. In case of what? The mythical deluge? World war? Profound epiphany? If you don’t need it, if you don’t intend to pass it on and are not sure if you ever will, you might as well get rid of it. Cleaning becomes cleansing becomes purification. Self-baptism galore! Think of it this way: ask yourself what is your most prized possession. And don’t say you don’t have anything like that, because we all do. It can be a photo, a book, a film, an album, etc. Think about it, what makes it special and why you need it. The truth is, in most cases we really don’t need it. You’ll retain the memory of said object whether you engage in it on a daily basis or not. And here’s the kicker: if your memory of it isn’t all that great, that just means you didn’t really need it as much as you thought. In Buddhist terms this is just unwanted fixation that holds you back from seeing the light and focusing on bettering yourself. Well, in Buddhist terms that can relate to the memories themselves, but that’s another thing in itself. The point is that we can live without our fabled prized possessions just fine (and we do actually), we just don’t want to admit it. These are our baby blankets we don’t want to let go in the “big bad world” we live in as adults. I don’t have a favorite book for example, because my interests are manifold and I try to view each work in its own light and in its own right. Smith’s colored and collected Bone series comes close, because it was a birthday present, I know it cost a fortune, it’s a comics masterpiece and it’s 1500 pages of storytelling delights that can because of its thickness and shear mass be used as a weapon to boot … but I haven’t opened it in a while and as much as I love proudly parading it on my shelf, the world (or rather my world) wouldn’t end if I didn’t have it anymore. Humans are hoarders by nature, plain and simple. The whole agricultural system that went hand in hand with the birth of cities and civilizations became one immensely large silo of grain that the heavily-consuming species that we are need … yet, we live in a world that’s on the one hand plagued by obesity and extreme poverty on the other. How can we even come to terms with that? I suggest that first we take the effort to come to terms with who and what we are individually and socially, so the unhealthy ego of mindless gluttony and hoarding gets replaced by the apt ego of positive change that is the drive for progress in general. With that in mind, “confirm folder delete”? Yes, indeed! Archives November 2017
0 Comments
SCIENCE AND RELIGION I want to expand on the last post about Mythology and Phenomenology by stressing the probably the most interesting part, which is also the most problematic, if not controversial; namely, the interplay of science and religion. Although it may seem more fitting to write science vs. religion, that kind of position is largely unproductive and dismissiveness bears few tasty fruits. And since I am of the mind that this sci-rel interplay should be positive and fruitful, cooperation is key, because nothing (of real merit) exists in vacuum. The dichotomy of science and religion is one of the central paradoxes in the modern, science-based view of the world – paradoxical in the sense that science and religion are viewed not merely as opposites, but archenemies in the perpetual whirlwind of one-upmanship and desire for global domination. While the first seeks answers from the outside, the second turns inwards and foregoes factuality for pure belief and faith. Both have drawbacks and both can inspire masses, but in one way or another their subject matter is rooted in myths – either to dispel them or to cherish them as sacred objects. The search for the meaning of life is not just a philosophical conundrum or a future doctrine in the making; it is the very life of what we do in our daily lives and the driving force of our actions … the very ink (or differently colored pixels) in these sentences being read at this very moment. As much as we need to look forward to propel our knowledge of the world and for the world, we must not lose sight of myths as the origins and blueprints of our life journey. As much as Shakespeare has been examined and discussed in debt, his canon of works still holds countless secrets to be discovered. Myths have similar power, however in a greater scheme of things still. We are constantly only one generation away from losing sight of the wisdom of old that gives us better lives in the future, if only we listen to it. Only one generation of forgetting Plato can eradicate a vital part of our conception about thinking. For this very reason it is essential to constantly reread and reevaluate the lessons of ancient progenitors of humanity. Forgetting myths is akin to forgetting cultural history, forgetting humanity itself. In light of materialism and hard capitalism of today, the last sentence sticks out like a sore thumb, but nevertheless. The sacred sphere takes the relative/subjective value of an occurrence (such as marriage) or a person (upon reaching a threshold) and places them beyond their sacrality and truth in themselves into the objective sacredness (thus marriage gets a significant meaning). Marriage even begins to play a vital role in our profane existence, as a modern reinterpretation and reapplication through a non-religious hermeneutic cycle of worth and value. Love in the marriage reflects the love of God and the ultimate reality, playing upon one of the golden rules that is not just central to all religions, but is the basis for the conglomerate that is the social paradigm of humanity. Myth is a mosaic of views and appropriate theories as methodological pluralism, reflecting the multitude of subjective views that make up the collective objective picture of the world. The question of subjectivity and objective reality may be impossible to answer (paradoxically to everyone’s liking). While postmodernism denies objectivity in itself, as we are all mere subjective imprints of the greater social being that we create, ancient traditions like Daoism refer to exactly this interplay of internal subjectivity and external objectivity; the world as such is made of both and flows from the sacred to the profane and back in an endless cycle of life (the aggrandized hermeneutic cycle of sorts). In terms of theory and academic research, methodological pluralism occupies a similarly complex, “objective” approach to understanding art in general. Albeit in this case, the stigma is not against a narrow view on a particular theory, but a constant search for better understanding and consequent application of theory. While the search for absolutism in art can be an insurmountable obstacle, the desire and willingness to understand different point of view of a given work is crucial to getting that artistic epiphany and seeing the proverbial picture in its truest meaning, i.e. its most objective light. Humans have a predisposition towards particular subjects that stem directly from one’s own self and will therefore always naturally turn towards the direction that personally suits them; yet, it is the awareness of the rest of the paths (theories) that creates contrast and keeps the subjective personal reality in check with the socially objective one(s). This is the dichotomy of religion vs. science, of knowing the rules before breaking them and of understanding the world of myth and comics before managing any sort of valid discussion about either of them. Objectivity may in fact be attainable, but its clairvoyance and perditious path is akin to Siddhartha Gautama’s struggle to reach nirvana. Returning back to the topic at hand, semantically, we distinguish god from God by mere capitalization, yet its function cannot be measured in ink. Similarly, if everyone has its own life and we call this the subjective view. We have the objective perception of the world as well, which is predominantly rooted in factuality, the scientific view and the nature of things in themselves. But even this can be labeled as relative or at least a temporal truth, until a better, more honest reality is determined … and science essentially constantly one-ups itself to the point that it deconstructs its old “factual truths”. In such a way, the conception of God may be akin to the conception of Objectivity, the reality beyond (human grasp of) reality, the Brahman, the Dao, Heidegger’s Being or Kantian Sublime. Obvious parallels can be further drawn towards Kant’s perceptions of being and questioning whether our sense can in fact provide an accurate view of what there is … or rather Is … I mean IS. In this case, the verb view cannot be overused, since the majority of our internal and external conceptions are based on sight. Whether or not this leads to insight is another matter, but as much as great minds of the past and present have already uncovered, the fact (still) remains that we have merely began to scratch the surface of the greater truths of Being. Objective value may be taken as the level of excellence. Thinking of canonical works, their objective position as “the best” goes beyond one’s perception of actually understanding them. Picasso’s and Dali’s works excel on many levels, yet most people nevertheless find their obscure worldviews at least somewhat disturbing, the same way as Shakespeare’s richness of language can easily overwhelm his (especially non-traditional) readers. All the creators of myth and art need to be taken in a larger sense and observed as complexly as possible: for the intrinsic values of their works themselves as well as the(ir) contribution to the human race. This observance places the notion of objectivity further under scrutiny; I propose the term SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVITY, which makes best use of limited means, nowadays especially though science, coming as close to objective perception as we possibly can without being able to uncover the true essence of theoretically timeless Being, which is beyond human limits that our more than obvious temporal existence is plagued with. Humanity as such is drenched in finality and can only strive to come close to Objectivity and God. Myths, through their distorted facts about life and insightful messages about our existence, in a way offer a passageway to higher thinking and higher functions that we need to strive towards, if we want to continue the upward trend and prove the progressive evolution principle. Religious truth is the search in the realm of aspiration. We cannot be sure, if the convergence with God takes place, so we need faith to carry the mantle of greater truth until we reach it ourselves. Religious truth becomes our perennial object of aspiration, parallel to the scientific final truth about nature. Pragmatically, the truly important things in life can only be aspired towards, since they have value in themselves. This temporal, physical existence does not allow for greater certainty as we desire it (even science is based on presumption and acceptance of the fact that reality in fact exists) – especially due to the current materialistically-spoiled and answer-driven culture, where value is more and more measured by what can immediately and without a shadow of a doubt be placed on the plate of mindless consumption. The search for Truth is somewhat paradoxically an aspiration for betterment that may not yield any results (in this life, even for the one searching), but one’s legacy may not only teach, but open the eyes of the generations to come (i.e. Jesus, Galileo). Philosophy and religion may deal with extremely difficult metaphysical matters that propose more question than they give answers to, yet their unquenching appetite for knowledge and wisdom have always propelled human understanding of the self and the universe forward (obviously equally applies to science pes se). Without “thinking” as such, there would be no progression, no liberal or conservative movements, no science and the words on this digital page would be not merely nonexistent, but beyond the scope of even thinking about words. This is a direct correlation to the mythic path, which is supposed to be paved with obstacles; the final revelation is merely the icing on the cake, the final layer without which the cake of life is incomplete nonetheless. The future Buddha's final life before awakening was in fact the hardest of all, as the object of his awakening was close as hand like Tantalus was (although from an entirely different perception) endlessly close to nourishment, yet tantalizingly (pun intended) beyond normal conception … except Siddhartha Gautama’s progressed state. Complete attainment is not in the realm of religion or philosophy, for it is the subject of scientific research. It presupposes an important, sublime, even dangerous path for the mind to traverse and uphold, since it may in fact deconstruct perception of being for most (religious) people in this world. If God, Love (agape, the unconditional love), Truth or Objectivity is the goal of our search, it is perplexingly dangerous (since complete attainment dissolves all future human endeavors and annuls progression that we strive towards), but it paradoxically must remain the fundamental precept of everything that we do, because that is one of the building blocks of human nature. If we want to pursue the case of this mosaic of truth, myth needs to (re)take center stage and remain the marker for inquiry and discovery. The obvious critique of this seemingly overpresumptuous cadence of myth can be traced back to Aristotle, whose metaphysics differentiated between myth and philosophy, the latter being akin to science. Myths can equally be seen as the primordial “scientific” explanations about the cosmos and consequently about humanity and the human psyche. However, the main reason why myth(ology) takes such high importance in my research is its unparalleled prominence as the predecessor of artistic, scientific, religious, historic and philosophic thought of the present and future generations. In other words, if philosophy is the love of wisdom, myth is the philosophy before philosophy, whose love transcends towards religious Love and its wisdom stirs the eternal human unconscious even through the obscure and unfactual means myth takes such delight in. Science and religion are rooted in all of that majestic mumbo-jumbo. I dunno how much sense it makes to you, but it puts things in perspective a bit more and connects a few more dots, so I’m happy with that. Archives November 2017 The contribution of phenomenology to the study of myth and especially religion lies in its direct and consequently more serious approach; this means that phenomenology refers to the study of religion in itself, as a distinct discipline with its own subject matter. Consequently, the phenomena, such as ritual, sacred texts and traditions are brought into the limelight without a general reductionist approach as was commonly the case … specifically at the outset of every new methodological tradition (where patrons and personal goals are the predominant factors that give rise of subjective inquiry). This means that phenomenology goes beyond the methodological atheism that the aforementioned and discussed theories and approaches in my Myth in theory series generally adhere to. The exploration of the phenomenological subject matter requires the factual examination to give way to emotional, personal and spiritual positions. The roots of phenomenology can actually be found at the very beginnings of religious thought, where religion and myth were considered sacred and thus viewed seriously and with reverence. There’s plenty of paradoxical irony here, of course. The issue of objectivity certainly comes into play, as there has always remained a distinction between the objective/academic/scientific position and the subjective/intricate/religious view, perhaps most notably observed by Kant. The central paradox is thus assumed; namely, how can one critically study a subject, when its conception is based on matters beyond the factual and physical approach? Dare I say POST-META-physics!? What the worldly sphere wants to scientifically scrutinize is actually rooted in the world beyond; this is the paradigm of what Eliade divides between the profane and the sacred, the world of society and the world of myth. Essentially, we have returned to the issue of science versus religion, the duality of body and mind, fundamentally the concept of the Dao not being present in the now or the physical reality. This is consequently not only a philosophical dead end but a conundrum for any research like mine that kind of walks on the fringes of what is concrete and what can essentially never be completely understood within the confines of current human evolution. Plus, this already touches upon the Kantian paradox of not being able to prove God’s existence, yet not being able to disprove it either, which is not only one of my personal favorite concepts because it essentially “attacks” both sides of science and religion, but this agnostic paradox is pragmatically very much still in effect. The duality of science and religion is something that has always interested me personally and academically. Truth be told, the perpetual tug-of-war between the fields is still raging, however, the distinction between these two long-held rivalries lies not in their seeming opposition, but their commonality and cooperation. Just as the yang and yin are not separate but integral in each other as the spherical symbol itself denotes, so the world we inhabit operates between different positions which are not excluding (or at least should not be), but are interwoven as any scientific or academic theory is. Life is intertwined, plain and simple. Even if you’re lucky enough to master a particular field or endeavor, you’ve essentially done nothing, because you are still a minnow in a miniscule pond of potential that we have only begun to explore. It’s not nihilism or some post-existentialism, this goes far beyond money, ego, success, morality and many more issues that we either hold dear to or take for granted, especially when it comes to Being itself (speaking either strictly philosophically or extremely concretely …or rather both). That may be a hard pill to swallow, but if you really think about it beyond yourself, it’s as true as it has always been. Now, how does this refer to myth? Myths in the sense of stories of Being connect the human condition to the (perceived) reality our condition occupies. While myths may seem like an absolute, fantastic position, even touching upon blind religious obedience, their factual analysis occurs on a seemingly opposite field, the “absolutism” of each is dependent on each other and the middle way of appreciating myth in itself and understanding the blueprints that make up its subject matter seems to be the only palpable position to take. Take the example of the word logos: meaning either word or reason. This perfectly illustrates how religious texts entice the readers to experience their teachings not merely through passive reception, but actually reason and try to find deeper understanding of the subject matter. Thus, it becomes clear that just as myths and religions function on different levels, logos as such demands simultaneous awareness of both meanings (if not more). Consequently, the demand for a distinction between myth and religion or science and religion pales in comparison to a greater holistic comprehension of our subject matter and ourselves. If religions were obsolete, time would have already devoured them and their many offspring (denominations). Why else would esteemed academic professors still be devout in their religious approach? Why hold to doctrine and tradition of let’s say the Biblical cosmogony, when you can scientifically prove that the world is much older and differently structured? On the other hand, how could Indian sages account for a much much more vast existence beyond the human gaze and conception (even today), if their understanding of scientific facts was “primitive”? Equally, if most of the world still holds near and dear to their religious roots and traditions, why is the mainstream geared more towards science? Perhaps the best answer is that we need both science and religion to keep each other in check, in a sense maintaining balance by not allowing any mode of reasoning and being to become too pervasive and hegemonic. Succumbing to merely one point of view – no matter how truthful or factual it seems – denigrates the kaleidoscope of thought to absolutism and verges on doctrine (and I mean doctrine as stale dogma, not its original meaning of correct way). I tend to rave about the holistic approach (that I’m still piecing together), because it goes beyond ego and temporal ideology. At least in theory, because the amount of research needed to “master” numerous subjects can quickly verge on the palpable idea of parallel universes, when you’re paradoxically only occupying one. This isn’t meant as a self-deprecating excuse, because I would much rather be privy to parallel existence than not. Also, it’s not about perfection, because that’s as fabled as any divinity. It’s about rooting out unnecessary reductionism and narrowmindedness that set traps for us at every corner. Hello, google generation! Hell, from Nietzsche’s perspective, even liberal democracy presupposes its own dogma and ways of thinking and acting. To carry the analogy further, the democratic model has never been an ideal, neither from its original Athenian roots, deeply embedded in slavery, nor in its current representative form at the backdrop of institutional capitalism. Most of us are still living in the world of aristocracy As mythologies in theory (unwillingly and unknowingly) depend on tricksters or trickster-like figures to stir the status-quo, we as humans depend on the imagination just as much as we do on hard scientific facts … and in both cases this “anarchy” is inevitable meant as advancement in one way or another. There is no science without imagination. You can’t just dream up the notion of a black hole or dark matter just by looking at movements of celestial bodies and the interplay of their shadows, you need foresight and insight in the same light. Inside or outside a religion, faith and belief are central to our being. In one way or another – even as children – we have to take things at face value (learning the rules) before discovering your own truth (breaking them). We have to let go of our ego and allow ourselves to be vulnerable to our lack of information and knowledge. Opening ourselves up to the world of science and religion (or what they represent) is not just the prerequisite, but rather the norm, the central doctrine we live by. Consequently, the interaction of the self and the world is ever-present. Similarly to the perception of myth placed between extremes of a sacred and false story, we can observe two central processes that have (depending on one’s position) either driven or plagued (mis)understanding of faiths; namely, the paradoxical relationship between the conceptions of fear and love. Looking from the outside in, true religion is essentially marked more by fear than love, especially through the notion of awe. A profound reversal of the love-inspired Christian teachings of today (or perhaps professed by the mainstream). Historically we can see fear of hell (through institutional demands of the Church) as the first step towards knowledge, with love and thus wisdom as the final goal. Either in the presence of an actual divine force or psychologically condensed state of implied sacrality, awe as the Kantian sublime refers to the presence of a very “scientific” force beyond human comprehension. The sacred must be by default extremely different from the known mundane world; the hero, priest, shaman or prophet must feel the presence or be in the presence of something unprecedented in order to make the relevance and magnitude of faith a worthy cause. Even to the point of overemphasizing the divine, since the followers can hardly internalize the same true power as the few chosen have been privy to. (How can you comprehend one or many infinities, if the core of your know perception is rooted in finiteness?) This is not a justification of charlatans or false prophets, but refers to the true revelation that goes beyond personal means. Further, this reflects the reality of our world, where the many follow the ruling of the few, whether or not the ideal of the philosopher king is justified. But the ideal should nevertheless always be perused, yet there’s a lot to be said that the Ideal is beyond the conception of what we currently are as humans. The fear factor becomes a natural, instinctual response, as if marveling at the first sight of the lightning of the mighty Zeus. Awe essentially means nothing and is false if it can simply be “understood” and thus taken for granted, or is too personal, as if being uneasy about the divine out of fear of eternal damnation; akin to love as unwavering belief or blind faith that borders on brainwashing and can be both religiously and politically exploited. All in all, the mundane society and the sacrality of myth are closely connected, just as much as the mind and the body need to coexist. Well, surely we’re not in the Matrix. Or at least if we do “live” in a simulated digital or spiritual reality, the details and believability of this program are quite extraordinary, especially if this sucker is running on high-settings … I’m just not sure if I wanna know what exactly I’m plugged into in through which orifice. The mythic paradox is thus not a paradox, but a requirement of trying to understand different positions in themselves; a sort of “empathy”, if you will. Why else does the mundane world or the scientific sphere reject blind faith, yet still count the history of the world from the vantage point of the most famous religious martyr that may or may not have existed? (The simple answer is: because it’s easier.) Why are most celestial objects given mythic names? (Again, awe and tradition … plus, it’s easier to think of Venus than a combination of digits and letter.) The connection between society and religion is almost inseparable. In this context, the religious, imaginative, other-worldly position functions as the extra-perception, even the sixth sense. As it plays the role of art to the requirements of survival and reproduction, it is the expressive potential and the essential driving force of understanding and being. While science may in theory desire to understand everything objectively and beyond ideology, human ego and social constructs are the largest and most powerful tools that we unfortunately have perennially (or only) at our disposal, so we are always gradually tearing down the great mausoleums of old (beliefs) and building brick by brick not a new world, but a clearer world based on their majestic foundations that we owe everything that we are and … are yet to become. Archives October 2017 |
Author
For reasons of extreme prejudice, the author of this blog wishes to remain anonymous … Archives
November 2017
Categories |