There has come apparent recently a certain and dire necessity for immediate action in moving towards energy efficiency and environmental awareness. For those who know, considering the prospect of a peak oil induced cataclysm most undoubtedly evokes urgency that refuses to be quashed. Most unfortunately, if not unsurprising, is that the entire issue has been sugarcoated by the unknown fundamental forces of information dissemination. And such a description is apt, as the instead phrased issue as one of global warming is a consequence maybe not lacking in capacity to devastate, but certainly unequivocally void of the sense of extreme urgency of its counterpart. Personally I don't find this sugarcoating in any way surprising given the utterly failed state of that media delivered in technicolor to masses of unwitting bystanders that passes as modern journalism. It surprises me every time I see Wolf Blitzer or Larry King, just the same with Bill O'Reily, that they aren't wearing big red noses that squeak. How can anyone expect to be informed when the news is irrelevant and somehow massively uninformed? And it is depressing on a spiritual level to know that the popular misinformed have been largely corralled into falling for cheap gimmicks, behaving antagonistically to our own cause by being tricked into thinking it is our cause (oh, it's so green, it's all natural, a hybrid), a cut and dry case of being bamboozled by that force that wants to take our money. This gives rise to, in particular for today, the idea that our news is interpreted as sugar coated because it lacks any and all science, instead giving the impression that they know what they're talking about by using jargon-turned-buzzwords. Strange, this lack of science, given that it is such a particularly scientific problem. I can tell you, as a preview, that the energy situation is pretty rough. But at the same time, every so often there comes somebody who really seems to know what they're talking about, who has some remarkably keen insight and a lot of pretty good things to say, things good to hear. Even better, his name is Amory Lovins! Notice that this was filmed in 2005, it seems to me that if Big Auto were listening to this guy whole heartedly back then their situation might be at least a little bit better now.
PS, the new Prius's solar panel will maybe, after a full sunny day, run your headlights for an hour, maybe. After watching that video you may realize this as self evident, but putting two engines in a car is a stupendously poor step forward. While I don't like the continuation of fossil fuel nor the suggestion of bio-fuel or wind turbines, none of that really matters, because he's run the numbers and it is at least a viable solution, one that we might be able to imagine easier than other of the more radical shifts proposed.
Update: I took a quick glance at the Prius article on wikipedia and it turns out that the new solar panel can't even run the headlights. All the extra weight and expense of the large panel is done so that a small fan can circulate air while the car is off, which is the ONLY thing it can do. I implore anyone who reads this: please, don't purchase/sell an image of environmental friendliness, work for the real thing. It's really not that difficult.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
visual expressions of the inexpressible
These paintings (roughly in reverse chronology) are conceived as a part of an ongoing project, the root problem, from which this place's ideas and name arise. They are done in effort to communicate the essence alternatively, perhaps more effectively as if by some smaller infinity, than those attempts prior. Regrettably these photographs entirely fail to capture the fullness of these paintings, particularly in terms of color accuracy, texture, and accordingly the overall movement of each piece. This is a notable deficiency because most have layers of pigmentation obfuscated entirely by progressive layers, but which remain on the edge of perception as a texture incongruous with the foremost. Likewise, the capture renders the colors a perceptible degree more demur and indistinct, though such is hard to believe for a few, and this deficiency is one of particular detriment as there is often a vastness of variably distinct vibrancy.
I must make a note on method, essential for the link between the thoughts prior and these that follow: these are not abstractions. I do not know what is contained upon or expressed by each, nor have I ever thought that any less than innumerable interpretations were satisfactory. Indeed, this is exactly the effect I am for, that is to visualize the enigma, the root problem, in a way that the previous explication can be seen as a poor attempt to approximate. As procedure, I expend all mental effort on not painting anything particular, to divorce myself as much as possible from the motions that produce the final product. As a consequence then, I often feel unjustified in claiming them as my own; instead, I think of them as products of reality expressed through my temporal vehicle. With that perspective, even if one were to consider the product as one produced by my subconscious, this one must then acknowledge that the subconscious is a product of this existence; one not possibly produced, ultimately, by anything other than the cosmos/existence/reality/strange timespace gyre in which we obliviously perne. The whole breadth of my rumination concerning these far exceeds the capability of a single post, and on the whole I hate to constrain the magnitude of conceptualization of these by others with my own. So:
The rest, as follows, are photographs which I think lend themselves to the exposition of the root problem, though it is of course in any and every photograph that could or couldn't be taken, just the same as those above.
I am now, more able than ever before to understand this place; this specific understanding, no less essential, far more than essential, that which fundamentally opposes the likewise essential anti-understanding understanding of it, it being it of course. Most days maybe a butterfly's wing wind flapped, but this May be instead the air which winged the butterfly to wind. My sincere thanks, Mr. Bynum.
I must make a note on method, essential for the link between the thoughts prior and these that follow: these are not abstractions. I do not know what is contained upon or expressed by each, nor have I ever thought that any less than innumerable interpretations were satisfactory. Indeed, this is exactly the effect I am for, that is to visualize the enigma, the root problem, in a way that the previous explication can be seen as a poor attempt to approximate. As procedure, I expend all mental effort on not painting anything particular, to divorce myself as much as possible from the motions that produce the final product. As a consequence then, I often feel unjustified in claiming them as my own; instead, I think of them as products of reality expressed through my temporal vehicle. With that perspective, even if one were to consider the product as one produced by my subconscious, this one must then acknowledge that the subconscious is a product of this existence; one not possibly produced, ultimately, by anything other than the cosmos/existence/reality/strange timespace gyre in which we obliviously perne. The whole breadth of my rumination concerning these far exceeds the capability of a single post, and on the whole I hate to constrain the magnitude of conceptualization of these by others with my own. So:
The rest, as follows, are photographs which I think lend themselves to the exposition of the root problem, though it is of course in any and every photograph that could or couldn't be taken, just the same as those above.
I am now, more able than ever before to understand this place; this specific understanding, no less essential, far more than essential, that which fundamentally opposes the likewise essential anti-understanding understanding of it, it being it of course. Most days maybe a butterfly's wing wind flapped, but this May be instead the air which winged the butterfly to wind. My sincere thanks, Mr. Bynum.
Monday, January 19, 2009
It is it
I wish to explicate as much as you wish to know it, perhaps even more, but there is a problem; the root problem, by definition, is that which cannot be defined. Its definition is the eternal absence of words...
...but so too the eternal effort of description.
And as long as effort has existed it has been applied to answering or avoiding this question, the question, such that at this point there is a remarkable body of information concerning it.
And for the person who has read and understood it all there will be a complete absence of understanding.
The root problem, by deduction from that title, is the essence, the most essential, fundamental, principle, basic, foundational. It is the singular, the completeness, space, time, everything and nothing aside.
The root problem is The Question whose answer is all answers,
And it is The Answer which answers all questions.
The root problem is Enlightenment,
And it is Anti-enlightenment.
The root problem is Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, Order and Chaos;
The root problem is Zero and Infinity.
The root problem is paradox, not as in those we can conceptualize, but as in those vastly more numerous, those that we can't. Seeing how paradoxes are already really quite confusing, it is not so surprising to find that the root problem is the paragon of paradox,
and well fit to explain why the root problem is so hard to explain.
The root problem is holy peace arising from bitter conflict;
Thought and Reaction,
Sense amidst the Senseless.
It is difficult to say anything more apt, more fitting than nothing at all. The words, they can be read but entirely misunderstood; even a studious glance may yield the interpretation that I'm merely listing contradictions, and that there is no profundity in an exercise as simply listing contradictions. But I can hardly do anything else. The root problem is fundamentally contradictory, but the conflict of it is almost irrelevant compared to the inexplicable subtext.
The root problem is the area where opposites collide, but the same as the whole area where opposites reside.
The root problem is The Meaning Of Life, It is The Purpose;
It is Mortal and Immortal, Man and God as They are the same.
The root problem is nature, reality, existence;
It is evolution and creation,
temporal and spiritual.
And oh, how like the root problem to be the The Final Irrefutable Answer to the meaning of life, yet also the most unfulfilling, empty, fully incomplete Answer. Yes it is! It is the womb and the coffin, the origin and destination! I know I said that the conflict was practically irrelevant, but that is only partially true, part of the time; the root problem is as much about the oscillation aside start and end as it is those points.
It is the indefinite defined and the indefiniteness of definition; the answer as it is a question.
It is it.
Do you understand now?
If you think so, please reconsider. If you think you understand, you do not understand.
But if you think not... well, then you have begun to understand.
And if you not think but be
...but so too the eternal effort of description.
And as long as effort has existed it has been applied to answering or avoiding this question, the question, such that at this point there is a remarkable body of information concerning it.
And for the person who has read and understood it all there will be a complete absence of understanding.
The root problem, by deduction from that title, is the essence, the most essential, fundamental, principle, basic, foundational. It is the singular, the completeness, space, time, everything and nothing aside.
The root problem is The Question whose answer is all answers,
And it is The Answer which answers all questions.
The root problem is Enlightenment,
And it is Anti-enlightenment.
The root problem is Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, Order and Chaos;
The root problem is Zero and Infinity.
The root problem is paradox, not as in those we can conceptualize, but as in those vastly more numerous, those that we can't. Seeing how paradoxes are already really quite confusing, it is not so surprising to find that the root problem is the paragon of paradox,
and well fit to explain why the root problem is so hard to explain.
The root problem is holy peace arising from bitter conflict;
Thought and Reaction,
Sense amidst the Senseless.
It is difficult to say anything more apt, more fitting than nothing at all. The words, they can be read but entirely misunderstood; even a studious glance may yield the interpretation that I'm merely listing contradictions, and that there is no profundity in an exercise as simply listing contradictions. But I can hardly do anything else. The root problem is fundamentally contradictory, but the conflict of it is almost irrelevant compared to the inexplicable subtext.
The root problem is the area where opposites collide, but the same as the whole area where opposites reside.
The root problem is The Meaning Of Life, It is The Purpose;
It is Mortal and Immortal, Man and God as They are the same.
The root problem is nature, reality, existence;
It is evolution and creation,
temporal and spiritual.
And oh, how like the root problem to be the The Final Irrefutable Answer to the meaning of life, yet also the most unfulfilling, empty, fully incomplete Answer. Yes it is! It is the womb and the coffin, the origin and destination! I know I said that the conflict was practically irrelevant, but that is only partially true, part of the time; the root problem is as much about the oscillation aside start and end as it is those points.
It is the indefinite defined and the indefiniteness of definition; the answer as it is a question.
It is it.
Do you understand now?
If you think so, please reconsider. If you think you understand, you do not understand.
But if you think not... well, then you have begun to understand.
And if you not think but be
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Atop the wild wave he rode, adrift upon the tumult of the unknown
Ever before, Ever here, Ever after. All is change changing, yet the looked looks the same. "It is impossible," the indescript void of knowledge those before passed, "to cross the same river twice."
All sayable said, all thinkable thought, and all doable done, left to drift as an orphaned leaf, tumbling amidst the cooperative competition of forces greater than itself.
In all things beauty, life, the tempest of energies birthing at no end a magnificent aesthetic wandering wonder. Destruction as a form of creation, the most epic battle of paradox as the unwitnessed witness witnesses the unwitnessed witness witnessing. So man does as man has done, the unknown deed of the system that has unknowingly done him. A problem, an answer. No problem, no answer. But if it's isn't, is it or isn't it? To say it is can not be true, because it's isn't. But to say it isn't is also false, because it is isn't. So then what? Then develop mathmatical models. Then resign in unknowing. Before then. Then. After then. What is it anyway? Is it possible to not be? Suppose I were to describe something that did not exist, for instance, a unicorn. If a unicorn does not exist, how is it possible to describe it? Perhaps it does not exist in the same manner as horses, however it exists as a thought. Thus it does exist. What then could one describe that didn't exist? It is impossible to describe something that does not exist, as the very description of it brings it into existence. But this question suddenly becomes much more complex in one specific situation, the same confusion wrought before when wondering if it is isn't: if it is impossible to describe something that does not exist, does nonexistence exist? Nonexistence by it's very nature can not exist, otherwise it would be existence. But nonexistence can not not exist because we are able to describe nonexistence.
How often does this seemingly irresolvable paradox even present itself in the daily course of life? All the time. Beginning to learn algebra the students are taught that apples cannot be added to oranges, becuase they're different. Unfortunately, neither can apples be added to apples, as even the most superficial observation of the individual fruit would yield the fact that they are completely different themselves. And yet everything works anyway...
All sayable said, all thinkable thought, and all doable done, left to drift as an orphaned leaf, tumbling amidst the cooperative competition of forces greater than itself.
In all things beauty, life, the tempest of energies birthing at no end a magnificent aesthetic wandering wonder. Destruction as a form of creation, the most epic battle of paradox as the unwitnessed witness witnesses the unwitnessed witness witnessing. So man does as man has done, the unknown deed of the system that has unknowingly done him. A problem, an answer. No problem, no answer. But if it's isn't, is it or isn't it? To say it is can not be true, because it's isn't. But to say it isn't is also false, because it is isn't. So then what? Then develop mathmatical models. Then resign in unknowing. Before then. Then. After then. What is it anyway? Is it possible to not be? Suppose I were to describe something that did not exist, for instance, a unicorn. If a unicorn does not exist, how is it possible to describe it? Perhaps it does not exist in the same manner as horses, however it exists as a thought. Thus it does exist. What then could one describe that didn't exist? It is impossible to describe something that does not exist, as the very description of it brings it into existence. But this question suddenly becomes much more complex in one specific situation, the same confusion wrought before when wondering if it is isn't: if it is impossible to describe something that does not exist, does nonexistence exist? Nonexistence by it's very nature can not exist, otherwise it would be existence. But nonexistence can not not exist because we are able to describe nonexistence.
How often does this seemingly irresolvable paradox even present itself in the daily course of life? All the time. Beginning to learn algebra the students are taught that apples cannot be added to oranges, becuase they're different. Unfortunately, neither can apples be added to apples, as even the most superficial observation of the individual fruit would yield the fact that they are completely different themselves. And yet everything works anyway...
Friday, March 21, 2008
The root problem?
The root problem isn't something keen to fit in the guise of normal words. It's something that one could spend a very long time explaining without ever getting much across the void between two minds. It can be clearly defined and remain ambiguous. The root problem, to begin, is the question. The question as it is a whole concept, not a mere iteration of said concept. It is very important, however, to emphasize that the root problem is also the answer, particularly in the manner that it, the answer, becomes a question itself. Thus, the root problem is the question and the answer.
You can't take my gold.
The other day I visited a strangers house, and, for a time, it was uneventful. Two of the few people in the room, friends, men, were talking about guns and how fun they were. One of the men brought up the practical aspects of gun ownership: "When you have a gun, nobody can take your gold."
"Yes," the friend confirmed.
"And not only that, when you have a gun, you can take other people's gold."
It was at this point that my friend, whom I admire for his wisdom, spoke up joining the conversation.
"You can't take my gold."
"If I had a gun, I could take your gold. You couldn't stop me. Even if you had a gun, you wouldn't be expecting me."
"You can't take my gold." My friend repeated, simply, with a grin.
I am not one who enjoys conflict. I was very uncomfortable and couldn't understand why my friend persisted so.
"Dude. I've had a gun pulled on me and let me tell you, when you see a gun, you know at any moment you could die. When you see a gun, you empty your pockets."
"I've had guns pulled on me. But you can't take my gold."
I could stand it no longer; I went outside to escape the pressure.
For a few days I pondered this scenario as it repeatedly surfaced in my conscious thought dialog. It did seem that someone with a gun could surely take someone else's gold quite easily, yet my friend had never wavered in his confidence. This friend, great as he is, I knew, has an ego. I had thought all along that he was being egotistical, sparring with words exhibiting strength and fearlessness; primal superiority, I thought, rode the undertone of his words... until it struck me.
Ryan's gold isn't made of metal.
"Yes," the friend confirmed.
"And not only that, when you have a gun, you can take other people's gold."
It was at this point that my friend, whom I admire for his wisdom, spoke up joining the conversation.
"You can't take my gold."
"If I had a gun, I could take your gold. You couldn't stop me. Even if you had a gun, you wouldn't be expecting me."
"You can't take my gold." My friend repeated, simply, with a grin.
I am not one who enjoys conflict. I was very uncomfortable and couldn't understand why my friend persisted so.
"Dude. I've had a gun pulled on me and let me tell you, when you see a gun, you know at any moment you could die. When you see a gun, you empty your pockets."
"I've had guns pulled on me. But you can't take my gold."
I could stand it no longer; I went outside to escape the pressure.
For a few days I pondered this scenario as it repeatedly surfaced in my conscious thought dialog. It did seem that someone with a gun could surely take someone else's gold quite easily, yet my friend had never wavered in his confidence. This friend, great as he is, I knew, has an ego. I had thought all along that he was being egotistical, sparring with words exhibiting strength and fearlessness; primal superiority, I thought, rode the undertone of his words... until it struck me.
Ryan's gold isn't made of metal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)