Archive for December, 2010

Some writing

This is just some writing. Ignore it if you have no desire to be entertained:
Also, here’s a picture!

Far to the eastern horizon, the earliest indications of dawn broke into reality; a lightening horizon that promised to pierce the world of its darkness. Into the distance, the moon fled, in collaboration with a fleet of stars and all indications of night; fleeing from the wrath of the sun that threatened their stellar existence. The process of night and day was an eternal chase; the stars again emerging with the re-introduction of the night, only for the sun to resume its pursuit following its birth on the horizon, chasing the darkness across the sky and its expanse, forever tireless and interminable in its activity, however futile.

The group of three had plunged into a forest, criss-crossing amongst the nucleated clumps of trees arranged along the crowded woodland terrain. Stephen signaled for them to stop; Jack slowed to a halt whilst Door ceased his movement abruptly, with a somewhat awkward motion of his arms. “We will rest,” Stephen said. “The guards’ search is unlikely to extend to as far as here. As the day progresses, Jack, you will lead us to Williamstown. There, we shall hire a post-chaise to carry us to the capital. I have hidden a stash of food, which is to be our breakfast. Now, if only my memory could avail me for once and remind me of the location in which the food is stored…”

Stephen committed himself to his search, examining the ground with an explorative stare whilst pacing evenly throughout the area to which he had brought the men. Jack positioned himself on the root of a tree, large enough to act as a stool. Door simply stood, watching; his tongue was bound by the inhibitive effects of the drug under whose influence he was controlled, the grass beneath him shriveling away as though in death.

Although a light sky was noticeable through the thick canopy of leaves, the trees who soaked up the majority of dawn’s sunlight prevented the morning from penetrating into the forest. Far into the distance, a jovial Stephen erupted in spouts of glee; “I have it!” he cried, drunk with the intoxicative effects of success, “Breakfast, at last!”

Breakfast of cold coffee, dry cakes and tough bacon – meat that was scarcely edible after having been preserved by age – was eaten solemnly in the depths of the forest, with no man uttering a word. Alexander Door appeared to struggle, encountering difficulty in his swallowing of the coffee; a beverage that he could not have been used to; and ignoring his bacon completely, presumably as a result of his poor and dysfunctional teeth. Jack finished his meal and waited patiently, gazing into the solid wall of vegetation by which they were surrounded. Stephen recommended that further inaction by sustained, to continue to restore their energy in addition to allowing the food a moment to digest.

Half an hour later and the three were again in motion, Jack, this time, leading, with Stephen and Door directly behind, trailing down a path through the forest to emerge, at least, into a clearing of grass. The sky was relatively clear, but in the distance dwelt a threatening fleet of clouds, dark and ominous as they lay low on the horizon. Williamstown was a collection of houses commanded by several towering spires of churches that lay several miles distant, but clearly distinguishable from the terrain as it lay close to the River Severn. The same river would carry them to the capital if traversed by boat, but explosive mines often inserted by Unionist forces upstream made travel by water an unnecessary risk, when post-chaises were so often available as an alternative.

Read Full Post »

Unity is strength, but for what price?

So. Unity. All humans united under a signal standard, without separation or division incited by adherence to religion, symbols and nations; every ounce of a concept that involves segregation amongst people abolished. Shouldn’t that be good? Well, you can deduce from the title that I’m not going to betray anything of the sort. Of course I’m going to say it isn’t good.

So unity is great right? We have no senseless wars between men involving argument that concerns conflicting desire or religious contradiction. All humans acknowledge and accept each other sensibly and without protest. The dream is a vivid utopia in which peace and goodwill persists between all humans. Is that dream truly one that is desirable, though?

Come to think of it, in order to imagine a society that is united, we must first examine how a united society might emerge from the chaos of competition and conflict that has defined much of human relationship up until this present. How would we encourage the people to accept each other and to work as a single unified force, without the eruption of argument that would spark an internal war that would eventually lead to the establishment of a multiplicity of independent states, as there are now? That is the dilemma.

My supposition is that the concept is this; if every human was of a similar mind, then they would all be of similar agreement. For unity, there must be an equal level of status, an equal level of knowledge, and an equal level of privilege; sounds a little similar to Communism, right? I’m not going to talk about Communism though; this post does not concern methods of governing a unity, but methods of producing one.

One human ambition is the mere appetite for knowledge; an insatiable curiosity that is present in us all that drives us into an exploration to search for evidence and provide conclusion to what we know. This appetite must always be expected to be present – indeed, ubiquitous – amongst all humans of intellectual significance.

If a group of individuals are of different educational background to each other, emerging from different societies and in practice of different religions, what are their excursions upon thought likely to lead them to? Well, if such individuals were to have their thoughts examined, you can guarantee that they’d be thinking about entirely different things, sure, but that’s what you can expect from any group of people. What defines the discrepancy between their minds is that their meticulous threads of thought that extend from the roots of the initial conception of an idea lead them to conclusions and psychological conditions that are immensely different to each other. The fact that they are individuals of such great difference in an innumerable quantity of ways means that they will be led to ideas and principles that cannot be expected to be similar to one another.


Would all these different people want the same things?

So, if everybody has emerged from a diversity of cultures, you really cannot expect to unify them if eventually one chooses to promote the concept of Socialism, whilst another arrives upon the conclusion that Democracy is in fact more beneficial to human ideals (I make no assertion that this claim is actual). Alternatively, if every human is raised beneath the same society and is taught under the same curriculum to be appreciative towards similar religious and political preferences, then human thought in general is more likely to proceed in a single direction, as a unanimous approach towards enlightenment, rather than as a fragmented concept, scattered and anarchistic in nature, advancing down no certain path towards no certain end.

The product of such a movement must necessarily result in a society in which there is no conflict; equality – literal equality upon all levels – between all people exists so that truly there cannot be any contradiction to that which is already universally accepted. Of course, there are always variables that exist to contribute towards a surprisingly different result, but the general conclusion is what I have just made.

Is such a society favourable, however? The price of unity is an ignorance that is so diverse and so profound that it pervades the mind of every man, woman and child that could ever have the privilege of knowledge. The general direction of human thought is articulately interpretable, but it is lacking in diversity and travels perpetually in arrogance of alternative routes of thinking.

It is difficult to deal with the stress that is associated with the acknowledgement of crises and dreadful actions, but it is a far greater struggle to drive oneself into ignorance so that one recognises naught of what is in occurence, and has no conviction to be aware of that which occurs. As blissful as ignorance has often been described as being, how many humans exactly are prepared to surrender themselves to an absence of mindfulness? Are you prepared to accept a unified body of souls that can be defined as the human race; an ignorant body that is in recognition of a narrow choice of concepts; for a price that by its very definition diverts humans away from their humanity?

Science and religion: click to enlarge

The fact is, unity on a scale in which it can exist in the present world must indeed by a collaborative effort in which all minds share an equivalent desire to be united and to revoke upon the pestilence of conflict. It only takes one man to make a contradiction that incites the re-initiation of the cycle of war. A preferable unity, therefore, in which there is no universal ignorance, is perceptibly impossible.

Or is it?

Read Full Post »

The picture is unrelated, but I figured it would be attractive to decorate the page with some images rather than have it consisting predominantly of text. Not to mention, it looks pretty neat to have an image displayed below the title… I think I might include an image or a video with each of my posts from here onwards for that reason alone.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, with whom some significant words were exchanged. I thought I might as well publish them here, because, after all, that is part of the purpose of this blog, and, “Truly glory consists… in writing what deserves to be read,” and it is my belief that this is indeed worthy of reading (Although I make no claim that glory is what I seek).

The conceived idea is that humans require a considerable amount of both rationality and emotion – and an excess of neither – in order to live healthily.

Rationality is a significant component of human society. In regards to philosophy, many individuals contrive to seek rational answers to our existence, our afterlife, and our purpose upon this Earth. Rationality is important within a human to fulfill human ambition for rationality; we have an appetite to understand, and thus we seek logical understanding, and it would be shameful to exist without it; it would be shameful to exist in a society in which delusion and illogic are in frequent demonstration.

Emotion, however, is just as significant, although somewhat ignored to a certain extent. Although we require it for sentimental stability, and although our pleasure in life relies profoundly upon our interpretation of our emotions, emotionality is somewhat ignored in certain regions of human activity, such as in business, education and construction, where technicality boasts a greater importance.

An example of the significance of emotion can be seen by those who live beneath the dictatorship of Fascist and Communist regimes. Although rationalists worldwide belonging to Democratic societies may criticise these organisations and formations of government, there are still many of those who follow these governments who live upon them in order to receive what is their conception of freedom and happiness. A prime example is modern North Korea; there, the citizens are contented with their lives. They are convinced that their rulers are flawless, that their regime is infallible, and that their circumstances are highly desirable. Rationality argues that their freedoms are restricted, that their happiness is proposed and not actual, and that they lead deluded lifestyles in which they could not tell an egg from a chicken if it was educated to them that both were the same.

We can be emotionally gratified simply by perceiving our environment as being acceptable. Although the rational human mind may demand that analysis into the true conditions of the environment be conducted, the emotional mind concerns itself only over the ecstasy associated with that ignorance.

If truly emotional satisfaction can be accomplished merely through self-delusion, and through that procedure, seamless happiness be enjoyed, then why the presence of rationality? I’ve mentioned the answer earlier; the human mind craves rationalism. To understand is more than entertainment; it is a fulfillment that all humans require. Yet the social imbalance between emotion and rationality nonetheless continue to exist.

I believe that the public superiority of rationality is the product of human fear; to believe in God because it is a comfort to you rather than because it is a means of providing understanding can be regarded as ridiculous. A coward is what an individual would be called for adhering to the demands of emotion and maintaining a persistent, purportedly irrational belief, for the purpose of inner security. In truth, however, what is the more cowardly action by far is to avoid the risk of practicing individuality and instead provide meticulous and superfluously developed explanation as to the reason behind your belief, or to simply avoid belief entirely and abstain from the topic for the remainder of your life.

All humans seek methods of satisfying their desires for both rationality and emotion in their lives. Excessive rationality in society may lead to a emotional private lifestyle or hidden countenance; the human mind, perhaps the most adaptable mind on Earth, discovers methods of reaching an equilibrium between rationality and emotion; however, the subconscious nonetheless maintains limited control over the conscious mind, and there are still many whose deep absorption in the proceedings of society have result in an excess of one ingredient or the other, leading to an unmovable, inhuman attitude that would be alien to the mind of most others.

In about six months, I’ll probably just disregard all of this and my disposition might be entirely different. Our ideas are but an interpretation after all; how correct or incorrect we are in our philosophies cannot be judged without contradiction from others, who are just as likely to contradict themselves severals years after having declared their own stance. Oh well, Merry Christmas to all those worthy of merriment. Indeed, you must certainly be worthy if you managed to make it through that immense barricade of text displayed above.

Read Full Post »