bernatk

Latest Posts by bernatk

Forget the People

The news having spread quickly and having reached the last poor, unemployed soul, a miserably thin crowd came up to Mr Dis App’s door. As he walked out with his humble luggage, they overwhelmed him.

He had thought he had braced himself against the jeering and scolding and ridiculing. But the judgmental people were shouting wishes of safe passage, the cynics wailed without any comment and his loving mother said her heart was breaking for him.

Nothing too predictable but still, all acceptable from people with no fate and spirit. This would be, Dis App pondered, a gesture unconserved.

He had one backpack, one messenger bag and--what he knew no one would know is a piece of luggage to his new life--a watch.

“Where is Scott?” he asked himself.

But he knew, fate is no mirage, it would not dissipate if he blinked or looked away.

And the used car was indeed parked at the end of the street.

Cottages with unmanaged surroundings. Weeds and poppies all the way to the city limits.

Packing

Fate now come, Dis App was ready in his dispositions and intentions. But a journey, he understood, depends on many things.

Sustenance and garments. Some money for emergencies and some for leisure.

And even the common, directionless man will tell you that when fate calls you cannot rely on the promise of happy returns. But Dis App, being strong and resolute, did not also anticipate failure.

Should he never return, there would still be a future for him. In sweet Far Away.

What should he bring into his life, finally starting? Probably not cheap furniture or utensils. But not even things so far his greatest treasures. Fate can’t offer less than the gray past. In fact it can only bring him to possess more.

But, Dis App thought, maybe a watch beside the essentials. Yes, it was a birthday present. And it is perhaps of no brand and the gilding is fake but the leather smells genuine. It is the most elegant thing of the so far. 

And maybe he doesn’t have to absolutely kill himself.

Scottie Cometh

Mr Dis App had been born into a small rural community. Lived around the same several familiar cottages all his life. But he, he’d always felt, had also been born into a fate. Since early life, he had known things, understood things.

He had had intimations that perhaps he wasn’t alone with his knowledge--perhaps other people weren’t mindless automatons either but there was just no telling and also the inner voice had been impossible to ignore.

Plowing away on a piece of farmland, cognizant of the existence of faraway, opportunity-ridden places, he kept himself ready. He knew someday fate would come for him.

Laugh and scorn all you want, he thought about other people. You will ooh and ah soon enough.

And after an eternity but before you’d know it, there came fate looking. It was old Scottie, in a cheap used car.

Well fate looks off, Dis App had thought. The person is perfect but he is so dishevelled, and the car is wrong.

“You’ve been expecting me,” the sage said.

“You know it.”

“Get ready, we have to go.”

“I am. Where to?”

“There waits pain and ignorance and a shrill pang of disappointment in the city of Nuu.”

“Is it far away?”

“Why, yes.”

And Dis App was happy. Far was perfect.

What is Reckless?

Tumblr’s prodigal son returns to his audience of one--himself.

The past four or five years I’ve been consumed by ideas. Articulations. Unraveling mysteries.

But what kind of a mystery is something that can be articulated or unraveled? Very low quality.

Prose and poetry and music feel a little bit like things of another elevated reality. Such a place it must be, where those irresistible people live from myths and novels, such muses there must be to inspire some of the melodies out there.

So, where I can articulate something, or explicitly understand meaning, there I must break myself. And through the mystery, can one only reach anything worth reaching.

The Oscars & La La Land

Many passionate people were worried this year that Damian Chazelle’s La La Land would steal the award of Best Picture from the daring project, titled Moonlight. To their great avail, it did not happen but I was rather confused by the arguments they presented as ground for Moonlight to win. Surprisingly it never came up that it would be simply a quality film, worthy in its own right to win. The main reason was its theme. 

While I myself am decidedly left-leaning, for me the Academy Awards are about excellence in film. Yet, I see a multitude of people, sharing my convictions, being completely biased toward or against certain artistic creations based on said convictions. For example, a loud outlet of ideas and opinions, Vox, made a video, which highlighted that the current voting system of the Oscars favors the films that have the highest general esteem, as opposed to other ones, which may be polarizing but have the most individual votes. While either way would be legitimate and fine, the preferential voting system might be a bit more precisely geared toward rightly selecting victors. The basic concept is key: we are looking for the best film of the year. If we get a polarizing winner, there will be a powerful minority--even more, since we’re not having a choice of 2 pieces but of multiple, so probably a majority that opposes the winning movie. Thus this system of selection can prove completely erroneous, since the largest minority deems a movie good, while the majority may say it is actually a product of poor filmmaking.

Now I am happy for Moonlight to have won the award but it has to be absolutely clear what its victory means: it is the best picture of the year from an artistic-commercial standpoint. As trivial as it sounds, most advocates of this film called it worthy and important for political, or human rights reasons. It seems progressive to award movies with politically progressive themes but Moonlight’s excellence cannot lie in the skin color of its actors. It can win awards for that but not by the Academy but by organizations or political agents.

In fact I posit a film’s political merits are unimportant details, when it comes to the Oscars. And if for many more decades we wouldn’t see black crews getting the award for best picture, it wouldn’t matter from the perspective of the legitimacy of the Academy or the prestige of the prize. It would and should mean that there are no good enough films made about this subject matter. Moonlight was this year’s best picture, according to the Academy, for its cinematic merits. Even so, were the case different, had they won because of the theme of the lives of people of color, their achievement would be nullified--their Oscar would become meaningless. 

In my opinion La La Land was a rightful contender. The fact that it dealt with life in Hollywood was not a red flag of being Oscar bait. The truth of the matter is, most mainstream directors are actually passionate about the industry and the place, they wake up with it on their minds and go to bed with it--it permeates their everyday, they get their joy from it, even their bread from it.

Damian Chazelle is well-known for his love of films akin to his own creation, so its his genuine love-child. It, in a way, goes against Hollywood shallowness by depleting the idea of easy living presented by classic musicals and generic rom-coms in a witty, satirical way. It is an achievement. But that is just one facet of the movie, designed for people who breathe that in daily. On a deeper level there is a very unique, yet old idea explained to us in great fashion: the dreams and passions define people’s personalities. 

Its truth can be argued but it hit a chord with many a viewers. The general expectation toward any musical is that it should be light and alleviating from the pains of the real world. In La La Land we get just the opposite: we have to face our internal conflicts and routine compromises that corrupt us and make our lives mediocre. Of course, there is a great narrative balance: we get something to learn and we get a little escapade. The profound idea and conflict is our lesson and the shimmering sets, combined with the ghastly beauty of the music is our break from reality.

La La Land reverberates the old American way of grand gestures and grandiose ambitions. It slowly died out from the everydays in the ‘60s but they are surfacing again in the works of this writer-director. 

Finally, I cannot end without praising La La Land’s ending. There are almost as many interpretations as there were audience members. One can easily find convincing and intelligent opinions, which certainly seem to coincide with the creator’s vision. However, returning to the underlying concept of the film I think the strongest side of it is how it shows the characters’ humanity, idealized but torn down to the ruins. 

The most obvious thought about the final sequence is that “it should have been” their story. At the end of the movie we have a lot of sympathy toward the protagonists and we are greatly saddened by the failure of their relationship. However, we should try to step outside from our perspectives, after all, that is what immersion is all about... From the characters’ point of view we find the same summary of “it should have been”, but it means more than from the mouth of someone sitting in a movie theater. It means “I have erred, I should have done it differently.” I think this is a great addition to the already intriguing basic concept. 

The main characters have cultivated their dreams and passions and thus their personalities have become the amazing thing they always wanted--it is inspirational, yet not unrealistic. It is actually a viable route in life to develop ourselves in fields we are passionate about, people do not lose their fortunes because of their dreams or passions but because of external hardships or internal flaws. But this inspiring journey is contrasted with a personal failure. Love is undeniably an important part of life--it is argued against only by the cynics. On the forefront of human happiness we find both personal growth and love. These both determine our happiness and it is not a zero sum game, where we must choose one of the two. But it is true that we can be successful at one and lose tragically on the other.

An Essay Against Calvinism

As a premise to this essay I want to note that I write all this as a Christian, I go to a Baptist church but I was also greatly informed by many of the Catholic Church’s teachings on numerous matters. In this context it is plain to see that I don’t intend to negate the validity of a Calvinist’s faith, however I truly believe that there are some completely mistaken ideas that are either introduced by Calvin himself or held sacred by contemporary Calvinist cells. Connecting to this last sentence I must add that many of my complaints and reflections come from contact with actual Calvinist theologians and from current -- sometimes underground -- publications by them.

First of all I want to present the claims and concepts of the Calvinists that I’m going to argue against. (#1)Out of many articles of teaching they are most boastful of the center of their theology, which they say is God and they contrast it with other denominations’ different focuses -- or at least as they perceive that this contrast can be legitimately made. At the core of their Scripture interpretation lie two crucial elements: (#2)the Predestination “fact” derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans; and (#3)a very broad incorporation of the Old Testament’s teachings. There’s also the doctrine of (#4)“Total Depravity”, which states that men can do only bad things -- meaning all men at all times do only bad things.  And lastly there is (#5)a contradictory stance held by Calvinists on the principle of “Sola Scriptura”.

#1: As it will be explained in the point about Predestination, Calvinists support and try to resolve the internal conflict of their theology by referring to God’s infinite greatness, his infinite power, and the infinite influence of his rulings. They use these attributes of Him to get rid of all logical counterarguments because, quite undeniably, He’s above all human intellect, so we cannot take up a fight against Him in any way, not even dialectically. This comes together with -- again from another point -- the faith that God decides about everything constantly. Predestination to them means that God actively makes unbelieving souls believe, by His own selective choosing. This is always irresistibly happening, but in fact this is the case with all things in the world: God makes everything happen.

Without spoiling my second argument too much, this, in a nutshell, is why they think the focus of their theology is God -- they refer to Him about everything. This is usually put in contrast with how other denominations treat the questions of faith and Christian conduct: all other schools of Christian faith believe there is an active human component in these matters. For example: when somebody is converted to Christian faith a generic Christian will say “He found God”, whereas a Calvinist will make the same assessment through these words “God made him believe”; another illustration is that in generic terms someone would “sin”, in Calvinist terms someone would “not be forced to do good things by God”. I hope this clarifies it: Calvinists do not in fact put God more at the core of their focus than other denominations, they only erase other words from their dictionary*. This trickles down to their theology in a peculiar way, as they find it arrogant of other Christian theology’s to involve positive action and human initiative in their tenets because those are not autonomous, instead made directly by God. Why would anyone mention something else, or explain something through other means than God’s work, when that is all there is? goes their argumentation. 

I find it to be a serious misunderstanding of the contrasted denominations to say about them that they don’t put God at the center of their theology in the same exact way as them. In fact they say the same things with regards to God: He is all-powerful, all-encompassing -- the real difference is what Calvinists think about human beings. In a way they don’t believe in humanity. Not in the way that they don’t praise humanity or believe in its power to save itself, rather they don’t believe in its existence. More on this denial later, back to the point. As I’ve said, these theologies follow the same pattern, all believe there’s no salvation through actions, only through Christ but Calvinists laugh at the idea, when other denominations teach the believers about everyday conduct or talk about the search for purity. And they can’t avoid but laugh, since for them it is futile speech, men can do nothing on their own. Men’s every minute is ruled by God, if they be pure, God made it, if they be bad, God didn’t make them be pure.

This is an important mistake because all of Jesus’ warnings against pride and evilness fade in the shimmering light of denying the need for any Christian to strive to follow the teachings of the Bible -- after all, he’ll follow if God rules it, and he necessarily won’t if God doesn’t, he has no internal agency to act or remain inactive. Probably another point will bring more light on this...

#2: In Romans 8:29-30 Paul talks about how God has known and decided about His own before time to become like His Son. I was paraphrasing because I tried to both encapsulate the part that Calvinists base their teachings on and remain true to the text, not to accidentally bend it toward anything I might unconsciously prefer to be there -- I even tried to utilize the original Greek’s meaning for the most attainable truthfulness. The other bedrock of the Predestinarian Calvinist faith is the first part of the ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It is an extremely dubious thing what the Calvinists do: they pose an interpretation of these scriptures and claim it is explicitly the content. I say it’s dubious because somehow non-Calvinists didn’t take up this mental and it’s never really been the canon interpretation. So they rely on one very revered source of the past: Augustine. His turn from Manicheism gave the Christian tradition one of its greatest theologians and philosophers, yet he shouldn’t be named as the one Calvinists will rely on. Augustine first championed the existence of free will, then, arguing against other schools of thought, went on more and more to shrink away from it. In The City of God he introduced the concept of God’s election for His salvation. It was much more moderate than Calvin’s but about near the end of his life, Augustine got to a point, where he, in a way, denounced free will and got to the point Calvin did. The reason he’s not an ideal theologian predecessor is that he never rested at any one state of opinion on the matter of predestination but kept it changing from work to work. Its evident reason is that he was continually arguing against others and in this fashion of reactionism were his interpretations born. Today we’re not having a discussion with the Plageans, there’s no actuality of his works, they should be inspected with a much more contextual approach and more analytically, not accepted as, well, Scripture. I want to note that I don’t intend to discredit Augustine, as there’s absolutely no way for me to do that, as he’s clearly my intellectual superior and I’d be a predestined loser in a sparring match, still, it’s important to see that there’s something forced in the Calvinist approach to legitimize their claims of predestination.

The Calvinist concept of predestination is as follows: God, in his sovereignty, elects certain individuals for salvation. Others He elects not, as everybody is worthy of damnation, which even further glorifies His loving kindness and goodness, since He does elect some by His grace. 

First of all it is crucial to remember that, despite what Calvinists claim, only the Calvinist interpretation of the texts from Romans is the above one. Other denominations and schools of faith never taught that this is the meaning of Paul’s words. Mind you, despite the claim that this is explicitly what he says. This statement of mine must be amended because the Calvinist interpretation isn’t completely dissimilar to others, traditionally Christians have believed that God works in people to help them to get to faith and on their own people wouldn’t be able to find salvation. Even so, this is what the work of the Holy Spirit in us is most often credited for: He helps us to break free from our flesh and eventual death, in order to be resurrected. This I do not argue against. Yet, it’s not identical to the Calvinist version.

The reason why predestination isn’t an interpretation that Christians traditionally believed is that salvation has been connected to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and faith in it. Even though Paul doesn’t speak of any of these things in these verses. His mention of the Pharaoh, of the Jews and Gentiles, seem to show God’s workings on Earth. Especially so, since in these cases there was no Gospel, at the time of Moses the Jews didn’t have a concept of any afterlife or salvation, yet they were elected. If this election means election for salvation, then God’s saving works used to be happening completely without the sacrificial death of His Son, which I think is blasphemy. If we make the step as to say chronology is irrelevant from the point of view of God, there still seems to be a problem with Evangelization: if people were saved unknowingly, why does the Bible put an emphasis on the spreading of the Good News? Why does it matter? The question of afterlife for people before Christ’s time is quite mysterious for us but the Calvinist answer is outright contradictory, to say the least. It seems that Paul could possibly mean something other than God would choose on His own accord to save some and damn others, and like most Christians believe, there likely is a reality on the part of human initiative with regards to faith, even if not achieved completely alone.

Now there are Calvinist responses to these:

Predetermination is argued against because it seems illogical, whereas it seems so only because humans are much lesser beings and what constitutes logic**? Human constructions, whereas God’s great works far exceed those. He wills what He wills, that is His sovereignty and we are not to understand it but to abide by it and make ourselves subjects to it.

This is problematic only because predetermination seems to reflect solely the Calvinist vision, and I suspect they refer to God’s sovereignty only in order to prove themselves, as His rulings are indeed inarguable. Traditionally this isn’t the interpretation, logically it isn’t the interpretation, there is no reason to accept it, other than Calvin and Augustine said it and that falls into the category of tradition, which proves weaker than the entire Christian tradition; whereas if someone claims to have come to the same conclusion about predetermination, they used their logic, which is again overruled by sounder logic.

God is great, in fact He is the greatest in existence. It is arrogant to assume He needs our assent, that is, our initiative, our, so called, faith, in order to save us. If He wills to save someone, He cannot be stopped with any obstacle and if He wills not to save someone, those cannot somehow get into salvation.

My answer to this is that God’s irresistible greatness is made evident in His work of Salvation through Christ. That cannot be undone by anyone or anything, it is done forever. It is superfluous to go as far as to assume He must decide for us. This is, of course, assuming that it is possible for humans to autonomously believe. I will explain this later but it is a crucial question because Calvinism tends to express its stance not dissimilar to disbelief in human existence. So the problem with the Calvinist argument is that they believe non-Calvinists think God needs us to repent, on our own, is because He couldn’t otherwise save us and that makes Him look incapable of overcoming our will. And yes, evidently He can harden and soften people, but were it the case that people could decide to believe or disbelief, He could let them. God’s all-powerful work is that we can be saved and if we believe there’s no circumstance that can take us out of salvation -- simply, Calvinists reject the notion of free will.

#3: Now it is universally true that for sound doctrine it is necessary to incorporate the entirety of the Bible, that is, including both Testaments. Why Calvinists differ from other Christians in their doing so is that they look at it normatively (not differing from all schools of faith, as fundamentalist interpretations usually follow the same pattern). This is problematic because in the New Testament it becomes quite evident that Gentiles are not required to conform to old Hebrew rules and patterns and in the light of the Gospel the Old Testament’s essence seems to be revealed to be something completely beyond normative texts: it is a narrative gradually moving toward the final revelation, which is Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior. Paul also talks about the role of the Law in the Christian life, and in addition to this, many texts of the Old Testament, especially the ones concerning normative parts, philologically seem dubious, as in attributing rules and laws to Moses whereas they were created much later. This makes it questionable in the context of usefulness as normative texts and it seems just more likely that they are included in canon for other reasons, namely for context, or helping to create the image of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Now this is not as elaborate as the previous arguments but I hope I have at least made this argument at least an inspiration for understanding the underlying problem with this trait of the Calvinist faith.

#4: Calvin introduced the concept of Total Depravity in Institutes. It’s based on several verses from the Bible and he concludes that all men at all times are doing evil things and they cannot help but do that.

I will present three counterarguments to this, the first one I consider a weaker one, the second one I consider a more powerful one, and the third as an auxiliary one.

Firstly, through empirical inspection it is quite visible it’s untrue. Not only in the sense that not all people are doing the most vial crimes imaginable at all times but also seen in how sometimes people perform completely innocent acts. There’s familial love and care, which isn’t universal but at least general and usually observable. To this can come a counterargument of selfishness. People can perform seemingly innocent acts but be, in their spirits, totally depraved while doing so. Selfishness is widely accepted as a manifestation of sinful nature and when a mother takes care of her child, she wants gratification, she wants some subtle pleasure in return. This is understandable and eerily similar to Kant’s moral criteria of the categorical imperative. Still, many idealists, who aren’t Christians, show self-sacrifice for the sake of a good cause, without any hope or desire to be remembered or praised for their achievement. It is a rare, noble behavior, but nonetheless observable. Of course, what is empirical evidence, when a man can be deceived, or can misunderstand what’s before his eyes? This is why it’s a weak argument, when dealing with higher things than base natural science.

Secondly, Calvin seems utterly and irreverently selective with regards to his choosing of Bible verses. From the time of Noah, when everybody was evil, yet a man truly just before God existed, through the Psalms, which describe evil and good people, to Paul, who was quoting the Psalmist, everywhere in the Bible there is a dichotomy of Good and Evil persons. It’s very important when dealing with this matter. Even outside of the community of generally accepted believers there seems to be, at least portrayed, gracious characters in the Bible and contrary to a selection of decontextualized verses, the Bible never categorically claims that people would be inherently incapable of doing anything but evil. In fact, it would be futile to call anybody to do good or resist evil, were it impossible for them. While sinfulness in nature is apparent, its totality is Calvin’s invention. Other schools of faith teach the doctrine of deprivation in the way that all men are sinful and cannot achieve salvation, therefore are in need of God’s mercy, realized in Christ and His work of salvation.

The reason I find need for an auxiliary argument is that with total deprivation comes the incredible doctrine of human-denial. The ultimate response to any criticism about total deprivation is that men can do only wrong and God can make them do good, when He decides so. He does that for the sake of His own children’s benefit. This means that humans are bound to take the course of evil, unless by God they are bound to do good. The horror in it is that for anything to be alive it must have agency, it must be autonomous but if we are truly not doing things on our own accord, as we cannot possibly alter our will to decide between good or bad, we are not in fact real agents, we are not in fact alive (in terms of soul or spirit). Also, this claim is self contradictory, as if men were incapable of doing anything good, the evil they do would not be their own responsibility. For, are we responsible for things we don’t decide to do? Are we responsible for things we are forced to do? This can’t be a true state, as God is just and righteous, He isn’t condemning people if they are not responsible but they are. In Romans 9 we see a seemingly similar line of argument, only that applies to the election and that has already been discussed above.

#5: The principle of “Sola Scriptura” is that faith is based solely on the Scripture. Yet, this is, illustrated by my previous arguments, far from realized in the Calvinist system. They have their own inventions, their own interpretations and they cling to it and often choose to change the scripture to fit to their doctrines. There are visibly higher authorities than the Scripture among Calvinists and not only Jean Calvin himself -- but he certainly is --, but Councils and texts declaring doctrines. Of course, many denominations utilize extra-biblical sources to base their rituals and modes of teaching on, what separates the Calvinists is the hypocritical nature of it. While a church may have an influential tradition, it is possible to remain true to the Scripture, theologians only have to know which is which; in contrast with the Calvinist way, where tradition and authority is said to be the Scripture or its only right interpretation.

In conclusion to this essay I’d like to add a few notes. Most importantly the reason behind writing this is twofold: on the one side I find a few great errors in Calvinism, especially the kind I encounter through certain theologians and their influence, and I am worried it would spread (evidently more and more people are impressed by it); and on the other side I haven’t seen any denomination in my life be as actively critical and hostile toward other churches as the Calvinists, and it’s important to see that the ones who call the Catholics non-Christians and non-Calvinists as lessers, do in fact comprise the greatest sect in Christianity. These last few words might seem very harsh and I only half-mean them but in light of the above arguments I find myself strongly leaning away from them. Ultimately, I mean no harm, I intend not to hurt any Calvinist’s feelings, I’d be thrilled to continue it as a conversation on faith, and, most importantly, I don’t think Calvinists can’t be saved by God because of their mistakes.

Before commenting consider the following: this is not a scholarly work; I have written it truly as a Christian, don’t try to mix into this essay any other religion or atheism.

NOTES:

*In James there is a lot said about acts and while they’re still no way of salvation, he points out they are necessarily part of a living faith. It is for this reason that non-Calvinists typically mention good acts and even include it in their teachings, since, according to James, a good conduct is inevitably paired with faith. (I wonder if Calvinists are ever puzzled by James’ words.)

**Logic is often associated with humans, as inherently flawed, just like them, whereas in reality logic is the formalization of the paths to right conclusions. In this way it’s easy to see logic can’t be blamed, as it, by nature, cannot err. Where there’s failure in the conclusions, there’s a lack of sound logic. It’s a little bit beside the point, that’s why it’s a note, nevertheless, I thought it important to remind us all that logic is never the culprit, it’s not human-like in any way, it is a precise way of formulation, much like language is a way of expression, yet we -- while language is often unable to fully express something -- don’t make it the Big Bad and reason of false ideas.

***”schools of faith” is a phrase here, referring exclusively to Christian theological teachings and nothing of other religions, nor pseudo-Christian ones

An Argument for God - The Genuine Nature of Christianity

This post is a product of a heated conversation I’ve had very recently. The argument I will present is in no way a proof, rather a compelling line of reasoning, supporting the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

First of all, religious beliefs have been present since the naissance of our race, as evident from numerous archeological findings of ritual items. Although primitive iterations of different faiths can be connected to the lack of scientific understanding. For example it could seem logical for groups of humans to praise the sun, as they had no distant idea of its inner workings, and as something beyond their comprehension, yet observably powerful, it appeared to be an entity far above them, ergo a god of sorts. Similar patterns can be found in countless natural religions, as usually their objects are things or persons of immense influence and/or outside the intellectual and physical grasp of their subjects. This mode of religious faith (or fear) is thus very natural, almost inherent to the unknowing masses of the distant past. Opposite to this, the Judeo-Christian tradition had an original birth, meaning it was not connected to observable objects, rather an entity outside of the physical and intellectual realms, through revelation through a long line of prophets and inspired people. In comparison the natural religions had an understandable reason to be invented because their objects were things overpowering humans, whereas Christianity’s roots came from a place outside of the boundaries of rationality, ergo, as far as religions are concerned, the birth of Christianity is genuine.

Secondly, in the stratum of religions from revelation, there is a great amount of corruption and an even greater amount of dubious sources. Many faiths come from the preaching of inspired individuals, who have claimed to have some supernatural knowledge, and usually these persons even had miraculous happenings in their close proximity. Whenever one such individual could amass a cult, a new religion was born and very often their teachings remained the core of their religion ever after. Now this is problematic because the only convincing power of these faiths is that of their missionary’s, the original prophet (or anyone called by any name, serving as such) is completely at the mercy of the skills of the coming teachers and preachers of given religion. Even more severely so, when history discredits the original bringers of revelation. Probably the most outstanding example of this is the case of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. First, his first amanuensis left him. It is extremely alarming, when the person, who writes down the words of a prophet reports that he lost his faith in the prophet’s revelation’s genuineness. Second, when the prophet’s teachings became self-contradictory, evidently along the lines of personal interest, a large group of people left the prophet. Third, the prophet had to discard parts of his teachings, attributing it to deception from Satan, when its contents found no popular acceptance. Mohammad thus seems like a hardly credible source. Of course his revelations are very compelling to many people, who choose to overlook all these three discrediting instances. The Bible, at the same time, has been created in the span of thousands of years, written by many dozens of inspired people. The revelation, to be so spread out, is quite unique in this manner, unlike any other out there. It can be thus said that, in comparison, Christianity’s revelation -- again, as far as religions from revelations go -- is genuine.

Thirdly, the Judeo-Christian revelation claims to have been proven and fulfilled. Like religions in a large percentage, Christianity also operates with many prophecies. Yet, it is quite exquisite in that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ(1). This is some two thousand years worth of texts, which have been completed in a real persons life and death and his message. Now at this point, to accept the above sentence, it requires faith, however, the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition counts Jesus Christ as fulfillment to its prophecies and expectations is very unique and can be counted as a genuine basis of faith.

And lastly, the inspiration behind the text is very credible. Most likely in connection with the long time span, the revelation of the Bible doesn’t follow lines of interest. Quite the contrary, often great historical influences were opposed by actual revelations and sacred guidance. Even socio-economic contexts were ignored or opposed time and time again, which again, proves that the revelations are genuine. Now whether or not to believe them still can be a question but not whether or not the claims are genuine.

Note: I’m aware of the possibility my above argumentation might be plagiaristic but as this is not published as a scholarly work I feel I don’t need to go source-hunting. Originally the basic concepts presented here are used in a novella I’m still trying to write and I put it out here in this shape and form because I’ve been deeply inspired by a personal conversation (see preface).

(1) Jesus is, historically, better recorded than Julius Caesar, so his earthly existence can be regarded as historical fact (as long as one accepts such things, since they can sometimes seem questionable), his metaphysical significance and the truth of his message is what is usually argued.

An Essay on Café Society

Woody Allen’s most recent film, Café Society, has been probably the season’s most anticipated piece in a few circles, as the old writer-director has unceasingly uphold his reputation in the past several years. He had many exceedingly and a few hardly memorable movies in his line of annual releases. This year’s film is simultaneously a worthy continuation and a surprising departure from the latest trend in the Woody Allen factory.

In numerous respects it’s a classical piece with all the usual themes: urban life, particularly the praise of New York; disillusionment; the overall pointlessness of life; being a Jew in America; neurosis and neurotics; unfulfilled love, and jazz. In some ways these were easily identifiable and fresh but at the same time they seemed to be somewhat rushed and stale--it is almost impossible to describe it without contradictions.

In this period piece we get to follow the life of a Jewish New York family and their several exploits. In the focal point there is a young, neurotic Jessie Eisenberg, who looks and acts quite similarly to the young Woody Allen. He falls in love with an unsuccessful, unspoiled Hollywood debutante, even has a chance at a short romance with her but his influential, wealthy and well-loved uncle takes the girl. As the protagonist returns to his hometown, he finds solace in high social life and a nicely growing success as a bar manager. The movie ends without many great twists and turns, with a few bitter moments of the once-lover couple meeting but never chancing at starting again together. 

I think it’s unnecessary to go into details concerning the family, the why’s and how’s, as the real treasure that this film is is hidden somewhere else.

In the context of the last twenty years of Woody Allen movies he has arguably been creating more of essays than solid works. The characteristics of his films have been changing, from the surreal reality to more subtle ways. The incomplete list of his themes above is very well-known among the people who have seen at least three or four of his works and there seems to be a will to find a perfect body for a Woody Allen film. Evidently experimentation with tone, color, period, narrative tools and much more have been defining the writer-director’s approach to his work.

Firstly, the tone is now balanced and masterful. With Match Point, and Irrational Man he has gone down the path paved by Dostoevsky. The dark brutality that he has tried to grasp in humanity has been so refined now that he probably felt it burdensome to emphasize its graveness and made it as frivolous as is fit to someone, who grew up on classical film noires. But also the romantic and neurotic air, so typical, has been refined into a cynical calmness, beyond even the point of “I can only laugh”. We have all seen the disillusionment of Woody Allen but it seems the energetic overtone is now smoothing out, which is a good thing, since the things to replace it are subtlety, mastery and unpretended grandeur.

As regards the color and period of this film I must say this is the closest I have seen to perfection. Obviously these work as great reassurances to the subject matter of the movie but there is also an important subtle depth to them. His most successful attempts at these two have been Irrational Man and Midnight in Paris. The former with its rosy color foreshadowing violence, the latter being half-set in the most resonant period of American history. In some respect Café Society is an adaptation of The Great Gatsby, dwarfing Baz Luhrman’s--in comparison--cheap attempt. In the titular film several moments are highlighted and tainted with a golden shade--something not similar but identical to Fitzgerald’s work. At first it seems to underline the high hopes and dreams of the likable protagonist and it then gradually flowers into the color of death and decay, more and more disappearing from Jessie Eisenberg’s scenes and more and more coloring death around him. In the beginning he is hopeful, he is made golden but what it symbolizes loses meaning and moves into external things, for example originally he feels this golden color and loves a brunette, then in the end feels nothing close to that but his wife has golden hair. The period of the film is also evocative of The Great Gatsby: one will feel both a romantic feeling for that specific time and a detachment because of the overhanging horror.

In To Rome with Love we have seen a contemporary, yet clear narrative with multiple storielines to follow, hardly ever intersecting each other, connected mainly by the place but not limited by anything. Now Café Society is far more conservative but clearly shows the understanding that the creator has obtained through a daring project. It is subtle, it is a lot but it is enough--according to this blogger. Here it is the family members that create multiple dimensions, although they are pointing toward a final intersection inside our protagonist. To me it’s these simultaneously running stories that create the oh-so-familiar feeling of neurosis in Café Society.

A nowadays often looked-down-upon tool has been utilized in the film: voice-over. However there is nothing to be despised about it, since it is no more than semblance that it served the function of exposition--in fact it is subtle but continuous cynicism, magnified only by the past experiences with Woody Allen films. It speaks a language known only to the adepts but to them it speaks it quite comprehensibly.

Even the casting of this film is subtly outstanding. We have several savvy choices of returning actors from past Woody Allen movies, like our old Hemingway as the brute of the family, or pseudo-neurotic Jessie Eisenberg. What I think is the greatest decision with regards to the actors is Steve Carell, who is Italian enough to play a Jew--a joke a little too much on the nose...

Overall this film is one more step in the direction of at least my ideal of a Woody Allen film. It has so numerous merits, it looks so subtle, expensive, real and beautiful that I won’t stop praising it in a reasonable space of time.

Tarsem’s The Fall #2 - Immersion

In this series I’m exploring the reasons why Tarsem’s “The Fall” is my favorite movie.

Seeing a movie for the first time can be awfully important because as the viewer goes along with the story they build up their attitudes, which will hardly change later. Now this doesn’t apply in all cases, since many art films heavily rely on alienation, absurdity and obscurity, all these undermining the importance of the first time, as the case is often that the conception and solidification of attitudes and a deeper understanding of the experience come later. In fact we regularly process movies after the event, however this is usually more of an adjustment in the case of genre movies.

One feature that I find overarching The Fall is its generosity and it is present and foremost here, in the field of immersion, as well as in many other places. The Fall, being an independent film with an R rating, didn’t have very much to win by being as viewer-friendly as it ended up being. My argument is that this film is enjoyable and not at all puzzling at the first time viewing but it serves an artistic purpose and not popularity.

I found two interconnected parts of the film that helped it accomplish this feat.

#1: Placing us in Alexandria’s point of view. First off, a child seems a relatable protagonist, since everyone has been one. Her being in a hospital with a broken arm seems like nothing out of the ordinary; even if one has never had a broken bone, there’s nothing predominantly exotic about it.

#2: The narrative arc is gradual. To delay the exposure of the audience to the more powerful motifs of a film is a hard thing to do because it requires confidence in the script and performances and high payoff value expectation. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the story’s starting point is very familiar and seemingly simple. When we are shown the characters and their depths, the movie follows a classic formula: we start with more mundane details and progressively move toward the more dramatic. A juxtaposition: in today’s storytelling it’s more common to try to shock the viewer early on and thus induce an immediate and strong emotional response.

The Fall follows through with this approach of gradual expansion on every layer, e.g. Roy’s story starts out as an independent tale, which is very safe and light, then it becomes inseparable with their reality and concerns the darkest and hardest topics around the end. In this narrative mode the audience is granted safety from confusion, as there’s an obvious story on the top that is entertaining in itself. At the same time, however, the more profound layers of the film, through being concentrated in the later parts, can be encountered without the deception that sudden shocks and an ensuing emotional chaos would have caused. Thus I think the art in The Fall is exquisitely genuine and can be experienced as such, which is a very rare merit.

Tarsem’s The Fall #1 - Resonating

The Fall is my favorite movie, so on many occasions I was confronted with the question, ”What do you like about it?” In this series that I’m starting right here and right now I’d like to investigate the reasons behind my connection to the movie. I want to start by the most personal tie.

When I first saw the movie I had no more than a vague idea what it would be about and a brief sample that I had watched just to know if it’s as beautiful as promised. As the story unfolded I was, of course, swept away by the beautiful imagery and the generous and unpretentious way a child’s imagination is translated to film but of course this wasn’t my first time seeing gripping visuals.

At the bottom of my experience there lay a powerful component: Much like Alexandria uses an avatar in the form of nurse Evelyn at one point of the story, I too have found a character to embody me. Prior to my first viewing I had had a very unpleasant happening with my heart and I was still far from having a ready medical report, so I was compressed into a two-dimensional state, consisting of uncertainty and fear, these very efficiently feeding each other. Later I turned out to have a manageable condition but at that time I was thoroughly afraid of dying. As a twenty-one-year-old this was my first time of facing mortality in its reality and eventuality. To me the way Roy took the defeatist standpoint was a familiar attitude, as I was also regarding my state very grimly.

Roy: “ It was the natural order of things... all things must die.”

The catharsis at the end of the movie, with the idiosyncratic added heartbeat-sound, could really move me. Although I saw no analogy there with my life, I still felt lifted up and hopeful, which was something I craved.

Months later, when I revisited The Fall, I had had new developments and I finally knew considerably more about my health. I was in no imminent danger but I was ordered to keep away from a very long list of kinds of physical exercise, which made me morose. I, a young person, had known the world most profoundly through times spent with the thumping in my ear, signalling that I was at my top speed or at the limits of my strength. Sports have been to me, what I’m sure is easily relatable, the place to feel very clearly that I was alive.

Deprived of this physical but pure joy I felt, and to a certain extent still do, that I had been handicapped, robbed of my physical future. I saw that I was restrained to the bounds of moderate movement and I was filled with the hateful expectation that my life, however distant from actual danger now, would undoubtedly be deemed to be shorter than what I had originally hoped for.

Over time my fears had somewhat dissipated but whenever I watch poor Roy struggle with his very physical inadequacy and his hopelessness I also see myself. The Fall is a story, in which people use a story to shape reality (had I no medical issue I’d probably love this movie most for being so meta) because stories, however escapist, have actual impact on the audience’s reality. I had always been invested in fiction because I understood that it has the potential to be almost supernaturally powerful, however, no story had cut deeper than this and none had treated me with more care than this.

In the past few years my activity on tumblr has been irregular. I have written original posts but also did a great deal of reblogging and quoting, which are both very nice but are not why I want to have a blog. For me it’s a place for intellectual exercise and an outlet of thoughts. I want to be more focused here to chisel my mind and crystallize my opinions and thoughts, therefore I will make an attempt at returning to exclusively post original content and I want to be more committed. If I could write here everyday I’d be thrilled but that’s probably way too much to be crammed into my schedule--which I admit is not full momentarily but airy spaces of time for relaxation are what keep me mentally fit so I don’t intend to deprive myself of them.

This is it for now, writing it down only so that I will be more motivated to follow through.

Frankenstein? You Certainly Have No Idea

A while ago I wrote a similar post about Bram Stoker’s Dracula, where I explored how we’ve gradually departed from the original concept and eventually turned the whole story inside out--the way it’s usually believed to be today.

Horror and genre fiction in general are looked upon as solely entertaining literature. It is best represented by enormous fandoms around horror stories that are really the shallow water of the stream of art--yes, I’m referring to Stephen King.

Although is it not supposed to be more? Shouldn’t horror really be more than a good fright? Obviously I ventured out to write this post because I strongly believe horror can have more profound dimensions and it should. Actually, my opinion is mainly informed by Stoker’s Dracula and Shelley’s Frankenstein (and a good portion is a result of reading Poe extensively in my teen years, as it shows in the post later).

Let me begin by explaining a bit about contemporary horror’s genesis. As a branch of literature it has very little to do with books, it is only an indirect continuation to the tradition. Today’s horror comes from a set of movies, some of which were book adaptations or remotely inspired by them. Actually one name is a recurrent theme here: Bela Lugosi, a.k.a. the king of horror--much more so than anyone would have thought. His version of Dracula has proven more enduring than the written one, so the underlying themes of Stoker’s novel, which even concerned the metaphysical at times, are lost, quite tragically. Also, the popular image of Frankenstein’s monster comes from the 1939 Rowland V. Lee movie Son of Frankenstein. The shape of the creature, its mindlessness, the castle, the assistant--every bit people associate with Frankenstein is a direct result of the movie, hardly any of which actually features in the novel.

A written genre originating from a visual one is encased in the limitations of both--what could not be visually understood won’t appear, and the same applies to the written part. It is an almost unimaginable thing but originally these horror stories barely ever showed the horror. “Why, we have that today,” the ignorant reader might say but the horror of old times was not filled with the today commonplace suspense and disgust elements.

In this post I focus on the method of Shelley in Frankenstein: Her approach was what we would today call the purist. Her novel embodies horror--the dictionary’s definition of it actually. She only ever tells as much about the monster that it exists, reluctantly adding that it’s too hideous to behold and once dropping that its hand resembles that of a mummy. The main instrument of this story is a very long line of deaths but only in the purist spirit, as well.

A prolonged prologue commences with establishing the members of an extended family. They are talented, intelligent, wealthy, charitable people, who are just the dream of the era. After individually stating about every relation how enviable and admirable they are, the monster is briefly introduced. No lightning is involved here, only the statement that Victor Frankenstein, the visionary, somehow figures out how to bestow life upon things and then, once the monster is created, he instantly regrets it and falls into a state of mental breakdown over the realization of how unhallowed his work is. The monster then lives alone for a while, gradually comprehends that he is frightening to humans and feels that he is forced into a perpetual state of solitude, which he loathes more than anything--so much so that he will burn down the entire world if necessary to get himself a companion. And that’s about it. The monster asks Frankenstein to create him a mate but as he refuses he decides to avenge him as the creator of his desperation through killing everyone he holds dear. Enter the death of all characters...

The horror is how Frankenstein watches everyone he loves being killed at the unstoppable hands of his own creation. His guilt and reflections at it are horror. He is horrified. Horrified. He--along with the invested reader--is not exactly startled, nor disgusted, but profoundly horrified.

But there’s more to this story than just being the original horror. I explored that dimension only because of the framework of today’s horrible, genre-redefining novels.

As contemporary horror tries to grasp what visually equates horror, all content is lost. Shelley operates with what Poe designated as the horror-writer’s most powerful instrument: “The death of a beautiful woman, is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world.” In human relations the most extreme loss is that of one’s child but the loss of someone one loves tenderly comes in as a spectacular second, with a much more elevated pathos.

The reason this is preferred by Poe and a myriad of authors is that a parent-descendant relationship is a natural one, where choice has roughly no role, whereas in a romantic relationship, while having a powerful natural component, active choice is central. This is why a parent losing a child usually goes with the line: “A parent should not live to see their child die,” when a lover’s loss comes with: “They were taken from me.” So, while the first kind of death evokes the more profound pain, the second one is the more aesthetic. It is a better case of antagonism: what one actively binds themselves to, pledges to unite their identity to, is actively deprived from them by a second actor, thus their willing choice for whom they would value most highly in life is irrevocably undone.

The peak is then the death of a beautiful woman but it can only be a real peak if the beauty of that woman is fully realized. 

An interesting juxtaposition can be made here between the book’s model and the contemporary one. The book emphasizes multiple faculties, such as intelligence, a charitable nature, intuition and nobility of character, whereas today’s model is derived from the passions of the flesh. Contemporary theories favor a simplifying approach, which marks the core of all traits the sexual of a person. However, Frankenstein is a great example of how it used to be a valid action to discrete the sexual, the intellectual and the emotional. Today it would be called repression of the true motives (the sexual), since all the faculties associated with beauty are just expressions of the deeper, truer core of identity. Feminists of the past would have pointed out that the death of the beautiful woman symbolizes Shelley’s vision of the intelligent, competent woman’s fate, as she is determined to die, even by the principles of literature (or Poe). Today’s most progressive feminists, though, would confine this story to the literal body of women, however, not only a story but women, and all people, are much larger than bodies.

But Frankenstein is not the perfect novel. Whereas it succeeds at many things and has its outstanding merits, it does fail at anticipating what the reader can guess, as Frankenstein misinterprets a supposedly enigmatic line and prepares for his own death, when his soon-to-be wife is threatened. Sadly the target is so obvious that it’s impossible to believe what the protagonist believes to come next but, as I have stated before, this is a completely marginal element of the story and perhaps even Shelley didn’t want to make it a really elaborate twist...

All in all Frankenstein is the beacon of the lost genre of horror. But beside its literary quality it might also be a reminder to the readers that there used to be a way of thinking that thought it possible to abstract from the material.

...one day you love them and the next day you want to kill them a thousand times over.

What a mystery, this world…

And that taught me you can’t have anything, you can’t have anything at all. Because desire just cheats you. It’s like a sunbeam skipping here and there about a room. It stops and gilds some inconsequential object, and we poor fools try to grasp it—but when we do the sunbeam moves on to something else, and you’ve got the inconsequential part, but the glitter that made you want it is gone.

F Scott Fitzgerald - The Beautiful and Damned

Discipline is Hard but Weakness is not my Game

I’ve been feeling waves of regression washing over me recently but at the same time I’ve been leaning forward. My ambitions, exuberant and overwhelming, have been leading me. And, again, I’m arrested in a state of complete antinomy: I’m satisfied and dissatisfied, hopeful and disillusioned--I feel these over the same things.

Leaping toward the shimmering notion of how I think I ought to be is what I’m trying to do, yet there’s this unbearable inertia in my life. If I say I want to write, I find I should throw away people, or care considerably less. In my constant struggle for creating something noteworthy I encounter discouragement. Well, on the heartfelt occasions. Of course I get the you’re great and the it’ll be fine but what are those supposed to mean? Not even the ones closest to me think of my writing as a tangible thing with tangible effects. For my environment it’s no more than a dream I’m sometimes having. Certainly romantic but not to be pursued to the damage of even the smallest thing.

I often wonder if the world’s as small as some people see it. Do I need a small job in order to this and that? Well, I refuse the necessity of it and always have. The start of a career or a seed-like job is a different case but I’m regularly pressured toward being practical the ordinary way and I see that as derogatory. I do encourage some folks to master base skills and unromantic professions and I am not against the concept of these, only I feel they get the wrong animal with me. I can’t do all that other people can but I have a strong conviction that I can excel, even create new frontiers, where our race seldom goes: the abstract, the grand and often vain projects that frighten so many. I crave those paths but I get the feeling that with it I frighten those, who love me.

Yet, after all, on a few days I too wake up with doubt. I despise doubt and loathe it, along with cowardice and ignorance but, much like the next person, I’m susceptible to all of those. Sometimes I read back what I’ve written and I’m disappointed. Then, of course, I get down to the part of grinding and go over it once again, until I can accept it but the next day it’s exactly the same amount of disappointment over yesterday’s promising new words. The temptation is unceasing, the beating inside me is counter-driving my soul, into disbelief and the will to abandon my work. But then it’s the universal beating of all ages and if anyone ever amounted to greatness, it’s no more than walking without letting herself be broken. We don’t need anyone for that--to break us. We are very efficient at giving terrible advice to ourselves, although it’s true that the world around us lavishes it at us without limit.

Similarly, in my emotions I’m conflicted. There are things that I want and there are people I want. My desires are sharply defined, there’s no need there, but I regret to want them. There’s no smart way around this though. Truthfully I don’t even know the objects of my desires thoroughly, yet if I were made to choose I would throw away all I have to have those. I think it would be painful but it wouldn’t take me more than a moment of having to contain whatever is trying to get out through our throats, when we feel profound loss, then I’d be immersed in the crisp breeze. I am certain I have the capacity to be like that only I know it’s wrong. It’s immoral and unwise, yet the demands of the soul of a man, who’s otherwise consciously fighting to reach his other desires, called ambitions, are hard to put away.

My desires resist and pull me. Whichever is to be attained is painful, and the ones that I denounce, will not leave me. Everything’s hard--said the poet.

“The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1,5-9

One day Joseph, a Masai warrior, who was walking along one of these hot, dirty African roads, met someone who shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with him, and then and there, he accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. The power of the spirit began transforming his life, and he was filled with such excitement and joy that the first thing he wanted to do was return to his own village and there share the good news to the members of his own local tribe. Joseph began going from door to door telling everyone he met about the cross, suffering, and the salvation that it offered, expecting to see their faces light up the way his had. And to his amazement, the villagers not only didn’t care, they became violent. The men of the village seized him, held him to the ground while the women beat him with strands of barbed wire. He was dragged from the village and left to die alone in the bush. Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a water hole and there, after days of passing in and out of consciousness, found the strength to get up. He wondered about the hostile reception that he had received from people he had known all his life. He decided he must have said something wrong or left something out from the story of Jesus. After rehearsing the message that he gave at first, he decided to go back and share this message again. Joseph limped into the circle of huts and began to proclaim Jesus. “He died for you so that you might find forgiveness and come to know the living God,” he pleaded. Again he was grabbed by the men of the village and held while the women beat him, reopening wounds that had just begun to heal. Once more, they dragged him unconscious from the village and left him to die. To have survived the first beating was truly remarkable. To live through the second was a miracle. Again, days later, Joseph awoke in the wilderness, bruised, scarred, determined to go back. He returned to the small village, and this time, they attacked him before he had a chance to open his mouth. As they flogged him for the third and possibly the last time, he again spoke to them of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Before he passed out, the last thing he saw was the women who were beating him began to weep. This time, he awoke in his own bed. The ones who had so severely beaten him were now trying to save his life and nurse him back to health. And the entire village came to Christ.

How Our Suffering Glorifies the Greatness of the Grace of God by John Piper (via worshipgifs)

You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Revelation 3:17-20 (via thatwhichdoesnotsuffer)

I don’t want you to die. Roy. Don’t kill him. Let him live. Let him live. Don’t kill him. Roy? Promise? And don’t cross your fingers.

I think the original poster is a great piece, very artistic and can't be equaled. All that said, these pictures are beautiful mementos and give back a lot with much grace.

Neat compositions

Dear Hank. As I was reading, I had a revelation: without the little voice in your head, you couldn't read, couldn't think, etc. Do you know how to explain that little voice?? Am I hearing my own voice, but in my head? If so, do toddlers have that voice in their head when processing information? How is this little voice generated? I confused myself asking these questions, so I'm not sure that I've fully gotten what I've asked across. But it mostly is: what is this voice and how did it get there?

The little voice is a construction your mind uses to analyze itself and the world. The little voice saying all of its little words is the culmination of billions of years of evolution and hundreds of thousands of years of culture. The little voice is both you and the thing that created you. No one understands the little voice. It’s probably best not to think too much about it.

does the job

Quickly threw this together and it instantly made me feel less anxious so it might help some of you idek

Things are sweeter when they're lost. I know--because once I wanted something and got it. It was the only thing I ever wanted badly, Dot, and when I got it it turned to dust in my hand.

F Scott Fitzgerald - The Beautiful and Damned

that’s about humanity’s dignity

Magnificent

https://www.youtube.com/embed/u0zhZVKS1eo?feature=oembed

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0zhZVKS1eo)

sick as frick |-/

this is actually beautiful

Happy Bloomsday!

The Last 50 Lines of Ulysses

This overwhelming critical and intellectual uniformity is rather depressing. It was Habermas’ idea that a society’s quest is to find the forms of oppression and then make the problem the ruling topic of communication as a way of remedying inequalities. Admittedly, it might be the best idea ever but might as well not be, so, as I’ve said in the beginning, it is depressing that it is so overwhelmingly winning space.

Following Wheezy’s videos and tumblr I think it’s safe to say that he’s absolutely in favor of and encouraging changes toward more widespread equality. It seems that he has a very similar set of values and ideas to the person, who criticized him, so it’s really friendly fire.

The topics of WheezyWaiter videos are quite diverse but a large part of intellectuals are against this kind of content because the focus is chosen by him and not wholly provided by the general rule that everything in the world should be emphasizing inequalities.

This criticism is merely profound adversity to the very idea of the video. Wheezy said that everyone should pursue whatever they want to, then the commenter came and said no, he, by all means, shouldn’t. Ironic.

It wouldn’t be organic if Wheezy started making videos, criticizing cultural structures and such things, as he has been known for other kinds of content, which is completely fine. It’s terrific that some people are working for change and they’ve probably achieved a lot but pushing Craig toward abandoning his way in order to conform more visibly to this Habermasian ideal instead is, at least, counterintuitive. It would be the destruction of creativity, entertainment and communication--a completely harmless form of those--for the sake of something that already has an immense group of devoted supporters.

Today I ramble on about the idea that you can really do anything you want at any point you want to do it & you shouldn’t think others have magical, innate abilities.