Looking at the moonlit sky...

Sex Stance and the Pitfalls of Political Positions

2011-09-02T12:00:00.002+03:00

Pardon my weak attempt at inputting some humour in the title and thus imputing some humour in the entire matter I wish to discuss in the first place. It somehow fits my mood better than my darker musings as to how twisted some reactions to certain issues seem to be. More as a matter of how it would benefit me to write about them, at least.

The issues I am talking about are primarily concerned with how to deal with people at large and in particular when it comes to the differences between individually defined but closely situated groups of vastly differing beliefs or positions on just about anything that is of import to them. Sooner or later, as both logic teaches us constantly and history has taught us consistently, there are bound to be conflicts of interest, which is normal, because the parts that society is made up of are those self-same groups, and their interests differ — thereby, society cannot prevent those conflicts of interest from occuring. Heraclitus was quite right about that, as in many other ways.

However, while change occurs constantly and conflict is inevitable, we should strive to find that logical outcome which people typically miss in the pursuit of their beliefs and convictions.

A deeply-unsettling aspect of that matter is the constancy which defines the presumption of the "truth" of the various political movements, religious in their own manner and thus religions, not entirely unlike those that pervade the rest of the societal structure; for just as dogma defines an essential part of all religion, even in an arbitrary and vacuous form at its least of all forms, so it is that political movements are defined themselves by their own core of beliefs, their own dogma, a set of propositions that can sometimes be so manifestly metaphysical as to make utterly absurd the fact that so few people dare call them religious in the long run.

Take for instance the passion of the Left for avant-gardisme at the face of reason: how often it fails to achieve betterment for all, its true goal, in its fixation with going forward with change; or the passion of the Right for preservation at all matters: how often it fails to preserve the good in its pursuit to preserve everything, even the gangrenes that eat at the entirety of society.

In the case of sexual identity, I hardly need present the abuse many "traditionalists" have made possible. It would be irrelevant and a waste of time. Rather, I'd like to insist on presenting what errors the "supporters" have managed to score.

Let us take, for starters, the insistence about the notion of marriage. Perhaps it has to do more with who I am and where I come from, but it amazes me that so much energy is spent on what anything is dubbed, despite the power semantics have. Allow me to be clear: I understand that desire to be united with your partner equally with other people, but the pursuit of "marriage" I cannot condone, because, by definition, "marriage" is a contract or union in English, anyway. At least, in legal matters. Where I come from, the term has its own weight and is used in its sense, prerogatively, without requiring a definition (which is inevitable for some terms, but causes just enough trouble with some particular terms). Whereas the English-driven dispute in the USA is primarily based on whether "marriage" can allow for same-sex couples or other deviations from the man-woman scheme and whether any change in allowable meaning, if it even be so, should be made in order to better facilitate egalitarianism, where I come from, the disputation of same-sex marriage is that it cannot happen, because "marriage" is all about a reproductive company commonly referred to as a genus under the same home, in common parlance terms. A family... Rather debatable, considering that reproductively incapable men and women can still marry...

Still, the point to be raised here is this; that it makes no sense to ignore the gorilla that thumps its chest defiantly in the room, when it comes to gender-sex concerns. I frankly believe that the fights broken to deliver the people in the ranks of the "LGBT" movement (I hate the acronym with a passion and can expounded on that hatred in several occasions, so I want warrant those quotations marks or give credit to a question about them any further than this parenthetical note), no matter how well-meant, have caused far more strife and damage than they have cured overall... I stand to be corrected on the matter of the amount of damage, but damage that could have been prevented they have caused numerous times already, and that troubles me; for part of the reason that damage wasn't prevented is the fact that the aforementioned gorilla is being consistently and constantly ignored.

Recently, an adolescent was murdered, by all senses of the word, most likely, by another one; a youngster of 14 by another youngster of the same age. The deed was carried out with a gun in a classroom. I could expound on the many other issues at this point as well, but I want to focus on the gender-sex related issues that pervade this particular matter.

The offender is said to have specifically stated that he had severe negative feelings in the face of sexual confrontation by other people he recognizes as male, even as a thought. The words he did use are unimportant in my opinion, but the point here is this: why did nobody consider that? No person should be left to just mull and accept that another might approach him sexually if that is something that even mildly frightens that person. It should be something that should concern us and we should approach as a psychological situation the person should not find oneself in. That is of the essence in a number of legalistic and societal principles our societies have constituted. The fact that this has been a point of inconsistency is of some import.

Likewise, the victim is reported to have harassed the offender, a victim in this sense, by making sexual advances, mock or intended, and that he enjoyed causing and observing the emotional distress he caused to others by approaching them sexually — both a form of sexual harassment. The malginant cause of emotional distress is yet another activity that is deemed detestable and inexcusable. It amazes me, yet again, that this was deemed irrelevant and without consequence.

To be perplexed and confused about something you don't agree with, and to challenge those in those positions, both are the in principle acceptable. What is not acceptable is the outrageously accepting and overlooking attitude to extreme forms of the above that should have signalled out to everyone: "Do something quickly."

There is more I meant to write here, and I will do so later. I want to mull over this later, though, in contrast to this message. Posting now...

Diablo III

2011-08-08T11:26:00.002+03:00

After all the bruhaha online, I have to say this, as simply as I can: I am not interested in the game for a number of reasons, but the most important of all is the fact that this is no longer a gaming offer truly related to the earlier games of the series.

Continuity? Ended with Diablo II.

Experience? Resembling MMORPGs...

I don't mind breaking the continuity now and then, but in RPGs, breaking the continuity can be more damaging for verisimilitude and the suspension of disbelief than anything else. As I said recently, regarding game systems: "No matter what people say, their real issue with most RPGs is what they're ready to accept; any system's peculiarities will be accepted, as long as the people will accept the premise behind it." A friend of mine cannot abide monks and psionics in his D&D, because he doesn't really like how they interact with his obvious preference for Pseudomedieval Pseudoeuropean Fantasy (mind the irony of D&D, especially his favourite first edition, having monks and psionics de facto) and how that twists his own expectations of what the game is all about. In fact, so great an issue he has with these two concepts that he is loath to incorporate them anywhere (of course, he's never going to play a relevant game, because he only plays that one thing, meaning he is never going to incorporate anything besides the pseudoeuropean element in his stories).

As for the issue with gaming experience, am I the only one who sees Diablo III being less Diablo, I or II, than a "Diablo III" should be like? Still, it could just be my impression.

Public letter to Jacob Stein's "Justice for Rockland BOCES Students"

2010-11-08T09:30:00.002+02:00

RE: Titled "Injustice" and written up as "Shame"

Frankly, I am glad you got treated that way: in Greece, a course of actions like yours would constitute hate-speech that is enough to get you to court (and most probably found guilty) and proselytism (for which you would be found guilty) — and, by the way, no secular data is supporting your hate mongering. That somebody lied to deal with you, while unethical by some standards, brings an interesting ethical problem to the fore again: if people believe that your actions are a greater evil (and they can just believe that, without your pandering about ethics applying, since many religious people would say so, to no danger of your attacks applying to them, since your "proofs" that your religious beliefs are true are just specious and cannot trump similar claims), then they could potentially be right to do this to you, under their own code of ethics (see "lesser evil" and such a notion "bringing the wicked low" — also found in some forms of Judaism, at least, your legal application pursuits being a prime example even).

By the way, your job had never been the advocation of this or that which went beyond informatics, let alone that any particular action deserves the death penalty. QED

Merry Mischief!

2008-12-08T04:49:00.004+02:00

Being festive should always involve strong aspects of human emotion, though I prefer the more positive ones myself... One I appreciate a lot is being scandalous, in any not quite devilish sense, which is why most people learn to love April Fool's Day, unless, of course, their experience with it involves shitty practical jokes...

There is something about the physicality of the latter, whether bad or not, that is not directly appealing to most: if part of the joke rests on how slow one is to get out of the way of a falling backet of water, it's just bland.

Not to mention that people may be hurt as well.

You see, jokes are a primarily encephalical endeavour: the point is to trick the other party, not to hurt them; if you can do so at their own game, so much the better.

Here's a thought: use tradition to your advantage; people will try to stick to it by all means possible, or be hesitant enough for all of you, them included, to laugh at the expense of tradition itself.

Above all, of course, have fun!

About the RRS...

2008-12-07T00:58:00.003+02:00

It's not that I don't recognise they can be and have been in error; for instance, I was one of the most ardent critics of Rook Hawkins' errors in his transcription of Greek... What I, however, find most relevant is that they shape up and learn from their mistakes.

To err is human; to deny your errors, however, is twice the fault.

Of Trolls and Goblins...

2008-12-06T22:08:00.002+02:00

An interesting phenomenon with trolling on the Internet is that these people are the psychological analogue of real-life attention-seekers, most particularly the variety that revels in causing societal disruption. They feel empowered in the process.

Having come back after a long time of absence (mostly due to a lack of time to pour my personal thoughts on matters here), I deleted various anonymous comments.

And that is all the attention these trolls should get — reducing them to goblins...

Homo bardus

2008-06-19T10:33:00.004+03:00

The foolish human... I think that this label characterises our species much better than Homo sapiens: the wise human.

Trying to examine the morality of a situation, you'll get people who cannot grasp why the same person who opposes Biblically-recorded genocide can support the notion that genocide can be evil but necessary at times on a theoretical level, and try to pull a reductio ad Hitlerum out of their sorry arses.

Well, people, that's why I am growing to be a cynic: we literally conspire to the death of quadrillions (if not quintillions) of lives everyday... we just do not register this fact.

If we could in any way avoid having to kill in order to survive... would you still kill animal and plant matter to feed on it? Well, would you?

It may seem pedantic, but that's what we seem to deserve: human stupidity.

I feel a little weird about this...

2008-06-15T11:35:00.001+03:00

Having been almost literally running around for the last few weeks, there's neither rhyme nor reason to the way I post nowadays on thie blog any longer.

Scientific Theory

2008-06-12T17:20:00.004+03:00

A hypothesis that is consistent with empirical evidence, thus explaining a phenomenon and predicting its repetition, without being unfalsifiable.

P.S.: No, it's not a typical theory, hypothesis, or hunch; sorry!

Travian, here I come!

2008-06-09T23:52:00.002+03:00

I've started playing Travian at last, after so many people jumped me for not having checked it out for so long, and it's pretty fun!

In the meantime, I still mourn all those resources some other players sneaked away with in the middle of the night (well, not really, but anyway)...

Ah, I'd forgotten how fun browser-based games can be!

Unreachable Utopia?

2008-06-09T01:41:00.002+03:00

I argued the other day that the only real problem Communism has is that, in order to achieve a true Communist society, there must virtually be no end to the wealth that society would be able to produce.

What do you think?

Athens Pride

2008-06-07T01:35:00.003+03:00

Will you join?

Three Wonderful Days

2008-06-02T12:16:00.003+03:00

I went to my first real convention... It was wonderful.

It's OK to say: "I don't know."

2008-05-26T04:47:00.003+03:00

People commonly believe that a non-answer is better than no answer at all.

However erroneous it would be for me to fall back on appeals of authority, I think there is great wisdom to be had in the following two quotes.

Carl Sagan

I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.

Socrates

I know one thing, that I know nothing.

Back again!

2008-05-24T21:00:00.000+03:00

Missing for a week after having to do a couple of things, I am back again!

Why Marxism Criticises Religion

2008-05-18T22:52:00.003+03:00

Most USA citizens, and many other people around the globe, perceive socialism as inherently atheistic or irreligious, and even antireligious; the more educated ones will inform you that socialism arose from a deeply Christian foundation, expounding on moral philosophies and reaching a sociopolitical structure with economological foundations. Attention is then shifter to modern communism, which is more viciously criticised for being (supposedly) immoral, intolerant, and authoritarian.

Whereas these are certainly true of the Stalinistic and Maostic trends of communism and these two men should be recalled as examples of oppressive, totalitarian rulers, the association of these states with somewhat earlier political notions is in sharp contrast to reality...

Marx is well known for saying that religion is the opium of the people; the same phrase can be traced back to Sade in his play L'Histoire de Juliette, where she is placed by the author telling King Ferdinand:

Though nature lavishes much upon your people, their circumstances are strait. But this is not the effect of their laziness; this general paralysis has its source in your policy which, from maintaining the people in dependence, shuts them out from wealth; their ills are thus rendered beyond remedy, and the political state is in a situation no less grave than the civil government, since it must seek its strength in its very weakness. Your apprehension, Ferdinand, lest someone discover the things I have been telling you leads you to exile arts and talents from your realm. You fear the powerful eye of genius, that is why you encourage ignorance. Tis opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you. And that is why where you reign no establishments are to be found giving great men to the homeland; the rewards due knowledge are unknown here, and as there is neither honor nor profit in being wise, nobody seeks after wisdom.

I have studied your civil laws, they are good, but poorly enforced, and as a result they sink into ever further decay. And the consequences thereof? A man prefers to live amidst their corruption rather than plead for their reform, because he fears, and with reason, that this reform will engender infinitely more abuses than it will do away with; things are left as they are. Nevertheless, everything goes askew and awry and as a career in government has no more attractions than one in the arts, nobody involves himself in public affairs; and for all this compensation is offered in the form of luxury, of frivolity, of entertainments. So it is that among you a taste for trivial things replaces a taste for great ones, that the time which ought to be devoted to the latter is frittered away on futilities, and that you will be subjegated sooner or later and again and again by any foe who bothers to make the effort.

In this excerpt, it becomes evident that Juliette is criticising strangling the people's inquisitive nature, killing genius in its cot before it can make the effort to upset the fragile balance of a decadent state, with no desire for higher aspirations - and judges that whoever foe makes the effort will lay waste to it most easily. Juliette has been called the embodiment of the philosophy of enligtenment.

On the other hand, Aldus Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, who called himself "Darwin's Bulldog" and coined the term "agnostic," has written in the Brave New World Revisited that soma (an opiate-like drug) is the religion of the people, in sharp relation to what Marx said.

I feel I have to expound on this, as people often miss the point Marx meant to make - in his almost poetic literary style, his statement can be left out of its original context, under a new context that is nothing other than a quote mine, commonly as part of an agenda and completely misrepresenting his claim:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. [Emphasis added]

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

The first paragraph presents us with the religious person: a human who's found self-consciousness and self-esteem in the face of religion, either having not found his own self-worth and importance, or having lost them at some point and submitting to a herd mentality that allows that person some small solace in its numbers.

It's these same numbers that allow a person to feel good, for humanity demands some sort of society in the end that defines oneself by contrast and complement alike. In that sense, religion is a form of circular foundation, a product of a society that has not reached a point where humanity at large has a purpose; lacking this guiding anima, humanity, in its darkest hour, demands for consolation, and thus gives rise to a worldview that in turn introduces special, spiritual notions and explanations based on the needs of the populace, enthusing them and justifying everything.

Religion is thus not criticised for wronging people, but for being the result of a society that is still struggling to find its aspiration; much like opium, religion dulls the pain and anguish of those who partake of it - at the cost of great hurt in the long run. In this inquiry for humanity's true happiness that can only ever be reached when people find each their own goals and purpose, religion is the great last inhibitor, claiming that they are the only ones who have a grasp of reality, and the criticism laid against it was, back then, was not fully realised.

As George Bernard Shaw said:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

This article is based on data from the corresponding article on Wikipedia.

When Proofreaders Cry

2008-05-17T03:14:00.002+03:00

There is something inherently obnoxious when people tell you that media are not in any way capable of inciting feelings properly.

I've come to meet many friends in the last couple of months, mostly because they've shown to be great thinkers, intelligent and ready to consider the truth of claims & ideas that are foreign to their own. Frankly, though, I am amazed at the humanity of each and every one of them, how great people they seem to be. We've never made any exchange that would validate this friendship, but I am sure it is there - how much would empathy have to fail to be fooled in this regard!

One of these people who I have come to admire so much shared a true story with us; a story that he has experienced - first hand; a story that is both heart-wrenching and heart-warming. The best kind of story, I dare say.

Being in a position where I consider my opinion has merit, I was one of many who did go forth and suggested he should work more on it, preferrably publish it in one form or another. I can happily say that, while he initially only wished to share it with us, now he actually considered that advice and actually wanted to get on with it; in many ways, his enthusiasm dimmed our own, like the sun does a candle! I think it was inevitable that this idea took hold of us all, mesmerized by a true story that we could relate to (for various reasons), and most of us set to help any way we could.

Finally, he finished typing the story as he could summarize it so far; I am most thankful for him trusting me as one of his proofreaders, and I have a lot of things to share with him, including a great deal of polishing, but I can tell you this: it has been a long while since last I felt like this... Thank you for sharing this.

P.S.: This is not over, yet; expect more when it is completed!

Losing Patience

2008-05-15T04:05:00.005+03:00

If there's one thing that all people who know me can agree with when it comes to my person is that I care too much about many things. The next time someone tells you that trying to be thorough is a good thing, perhaps it would be good to show them this post - if you ever get to do it anyway.

I have been discussing with many a person throughout these latter years; from the average Joe who seriously thinks his opinion is worth more than all the academic research in fields of study that outwit him, to the bimbo that nonchalantly goes about her life, claiming that being politically or activistically oriented in your life is a waste of time and energy, to yet more and more people whose brains might as well have just been scooped from a dumpster, one never gets to feel that sort of demanding, draining, degrading sort of responses you'll get from the worst kind of conversational companion.

The intelligent person whose conscious thought patterns have been so malignly skewed by agendas of people who would take advantage of them that they are incapable of viewing anything aside their narrow field of view - as if their perspectives have become stereoscopic in the process, and they are shown a single floor plan!

I thoroughly enjoy having conversations or paying attentions to those of others with people such as Jerome - a wonderful human, as far as my limited, narrow perspective does allow me to perceive. I don't mind the way he thinks, even though I disagree with him at some point, because his mind is still there when it comes to it; in the end, he still thinks for himself, and that, for pitty's sake, is what sickens me with the poor, brainwashed thousands out there: that, had they had one half the intellectual activity of his on these matters, they would still be better than now, when the boisterous, ignorant, malignant claims of so many other people swirl in their heads like so much mud in a pool of water...

There are times when I wish knowledge, true knowledge, could be like a blade and I could deal with the tricks played with their minds in one fell stroke, having cleft them in twain! Hardly can that be said, though.

P.S.: I have to concede that Jerome is a very impressionable person; apart from all of the above, being of like mind with his fascination with the fay and his relation to RPGs, who can blame me?

Life

2008-05-12T13:53:00.003+03:00

A condition commonly mistaken for what it is, life is nothing other than the sum of various processes we generally refer to as "reproduction" and "metabolism;" most people will get their knickers all in a bunch at this notion, but it's the truth as we know it.

P.S.: Admittedly, it makes for a great implication in any sort of storytelling.

And now what?

2008-05-10T20:38:00.002+03:00

There are times when you have to write something and you suddenly feel that there is so much to say that you cannot even find the beginning in your ball of twine...

I am in the process of working on a piece that will be read in a convention, and there is this feeling that I described above - I won't let it swallow me, but it's a difficult topic to get through to others at times.

Oh well, I guess it's not that big a fuss anyway...

Playing the Golem

2008-05-08T22:46:00.005+03:00

I've always been fascinated with the tales of the Created in any sense; the Golem is an all-time classic, and art such as that found in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has captured the audience for a good reason: they are like the bow of a fiddle, drawn upon the strings of our very own core - querring what should moral be?

In the Ghost in the Shell, the same notions play out through and through; but here the supernatural is supplanted by the postcyberpunk mentality, dissecting the topic relentlessly, as if there's no sanctity to be had. Other works, like TSR's book The Created in their Ravenloft campaign setting played with our sensitivities in very much the same way, almost the same time that Philip K. Dick's decidedly darker cyberpunk themes hit the Big Screen, unfortunately without the sort of success they were due. More and more items were added to the list and, recently, more RPing products came to the fore on the subject: White-Wolf with Promethean: the Created (admittedly, this past participle has been used to death) and, quite a bit more recently, in the Eberron campaign setting by Wizards of the Coast.

Whereas the former is hardly to my liking (much of it seems pretty bad to me), there is something about the latter I enjoy a lot: there is nothing singularly weird about the "golems" in this setting because they are not its true golems; unlike them, they have a mind of their own and such a place in the world. They are not the monsters of the setting, though some think of them as such, nor are they more powerful, just of different stock. And I finally get to play one.

So, then, more news later!

Why do faeries get the shaft?

2008-05-07T19:10:00.000+03:00

You may have heard the usual disphemistic term Magical Sky Fairy; many find it obnoxious and make a lot of fuss about it, arguing that there's nothing fairy-like about the gods they believe in, how the great flood is a universal myth, pointing out bits and pieces of conventional wisdom that they assert proves their case, the whole shabang.

More interestingly, though, many people actually avoid drawing that parallel, as if it were ridiculous; and hence we have the Dragon in the Neighbour's Basement, Russel's Celestial Teapot, and lots more such examples. Unicorns do get a fair share of publicity too, at least in the Invisible image of Her Pink Majesty, blessed be Her Hooves...

It's evident that these examples are not concepts that arose in vacuo: there is such an enormity and other natural phenomena one would expect of a dragon that not being able to perceive one becomes patently absurd, hence the apparent connection. And none can argue that teapots don't have an aptly cozy and even a bit comedical value to them with their bulging china or silver standard forms, all prim and proper, flying in space. As for unicorns, they've always been a bit too fantastical for us not to mention, especially when they exhibit similarly contradictory aspects like being pink and invisible at the same time with the Abrahamic gods, so there you have them.

To that I have to add the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I digress; the thing is, why do faeries get the shaft?

Let us start with some of the arguments presented: fairies are too childish.

Well, anyone saying something like this is apparently ignorant, as there is nothing childish about the Sidhe or the Redcaps, the Kobolds, the Dryads and Satyrs, the Tuatha Dé Danann, and the like; the Duergar, the Trolls and the Aelfin creatures of folklore were quite as wondrous and terrible, and maybe even less in the latter sense, than any godly creature you'll encounter in most religions. They are the daemons and angels and spirits they had, though, in any and every sense of the word, and that should make us pause for a while and think: why are devas different?

In fact, though, there is nothing different about them: a deva, much like a nymph, a nereid, a mermaid, an oni, a yuki-onna, a rakshasha and so forth, was no different in its essence to the rest of them all - a numinous, roughly if even conceivable entity that conforms to the notion of a global myth like the rest of the whole picture. Ellusive and mutable as they were, these myths have held great sway in our understanding of the cosmos no less that the sort of thinking that allows us to believe that the bus will arrive shortly after we light a cigarette up, or that it will rain in no more than a day after we wash our car.

What is it that makes the various worshipped deities of the world different? Nothing, really: they are no less the figments of our ripe imaginations than the Bluebird of happiness, dragons, vampires, ghosts, and fires that burn endlessly. It's their existence, along with the global myth of the great flood, that we need to remind ourselves of.

My Greatest Weakness

2008-05-06T01:09:00.003+03:00

There are times when you come to learn more and more about yourself from the very mistakes you make - and still I wish this knowledge came to me more wisely.

I've realised for quite a while now what my best friend told me today - that I have not moved on as I would like to think of myself after this last year's events toot place; and, believe it or not, I always come to the same conclusion: that my problem does not lie with being unable to cope with the problems I face, but with my getting quite upset about being unable to do anything about them anyway.

In other words, it's not that I don't want to deal with them, it's that I find that there is little I can do about them and get all worked up over this fact. Cynicism would be a great philosophy for me to employ in my life, obviously: it would most likely help me avert this foolish way of thinking...

You would not believe this...

2008-05-05T01:01:00.001+03:00

There are two computers in my household: the "Master," my brother's computer which, much like Jason's Ship, no longer has any of its original parts, and "Igor," which happens to be a somewhat misshapen computer which still does quite the trick and is by all means a cute little beast unto itself. It's greatest boon and bane, though, has always been its 19" CRT screen.

You see, for any of us who've worked with colour, there's nothing like a lightly lit little room and a good CRT screen to work with; the problems, though, start when you know almost nothing about the screen you have, which was the case with me, as I got it second hand from a friend who passed it off to me for free but had not take care to retain the manuals and what have you - and, since the info on the screen have by all means almost gone to the wind, it was impossible for me to divine what sort of display it was that I was dealing with, until yesterday...

Believe it or not, I was tampering with my video adapter's control panel settings as I checked up on the multiple screen settings out of curiosity and saw this:

Frankly, I am stunned that the OS knows nothing of it, but this control panel does.

Another novel of mine in the making!

2008-05-04T01:04:00.002+03:00

I have already started writing a sci-fi novel, but now I am looking forward to a new project I have in mind and which I mean to bring fully to my attention as new pieces fall in place by the minute; speculative fiction has always been a personal love of mine, and since historical literature also happens to be quite to my liking, I think that I am going to enjoy this immensely!

P.S.: I've even thought of the title it'll have, as well as its cover; wish me luck!

Bitter irony always became humanity...

2008-05-03T11:39:00.004+03:00

It's been six days since we visited my father's younger brother for the celebration of Easter; all in all, there are many reasons to have contrasting opinions on that day for the whole lot of us, but what I found exceedingly ironic was the sticker on my relatives' door:

We are a Christian Orthodox household; no heretics (Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.) allowed.

Truly, I am amazed at these mental gymnastics as much as I understand the right to privacy and peace; but, really, "heretics?" That's like inviting people of other denominations to convert you...

Sometimes, good things are trivial.

2008-05-02T16:20:00.002+03:00

My brother gave me a pair of speakers today; sure, it's just stereo and they barely have a 5W output, but this means two things: one, they will make excellent speakers for another device when I switch over, and I won't feel bad for switching over, as they are not too expensive; and, secondly, they don't draw on much power!

P.S.: Sometimes, it's best to remember that the greatest presents are the what you need the most; since I had no speakers on this one, it was a great addition!

When will Mrs. Takahashi learn?

2008-04-30T22:08:00.005+03:00

Called the Queen of Manga for very good reasons, Rumiko Takahashi has always been having a minor problem: reaching a conclusion to her stories.

It's not that she has no idea how to do that; frankly, I dare say she has some very good ideas! The issue is, for the most part, that she carries her stories too far, which means that tying the hole plot to an end becomes increasingly difficult.

Frankly, this spoof says it all (please do not distribute):

China, please, reform!

2008-04-29T20:00:00.004+03:00

Many of you may still remember the footage of animals being slaughtered in some of the most inhumane ways I can imagine and have seen (which I want show here, for very obvious reasons); and I believe most of you have at least some incling of the incidents that have been taking place in Tibet. All in all, nothing a rational human should ever approve of. And still China topped both off with the revelations of seemingly abundant cases of infanticide (mostly of girls).

While more and more conservatives argue politicians should be accepting of Chinese internal affairs, no matter what, all of these have again been shown to be nothing other than mere aspects of a much bigger problem: a society that is having trouble dealing with the moral Zeitgeist, as evidenced in this article.

Thousands of children in southwest China have been sold into slavery like "cabbages", to work as labourers in more prosperous areas such as the booming southern province of Guangdong, a newspaper said on Tuesday.

[...]

"The children generally fall between the ages of 13 and 15, but many look under 10," it added.

[...]

"The youngest kids found in the child labor market were only seven and nine years old," it said.

According to a contract exposed by an undercover reporter, a child laborer is paid 3.5 yuan ($0.50) an hour and must work at least 300 hours a month.

"These kids are robust and can do the toughest work," a foreman was quoted as saying, as he pulled a scrawny girl to stand beside him, the paper said.

Xinhua news agency said the county government had sent officials to rescue the children, but some were unwilling to leave, having been sold into slavery by their parents or volunteering to work themselves.

So, children as young as 7 years old and generally no more than 15 get to work at least 300 hours a month (that's 10 hours per day on average) for a mere grand total of 1.050 yuan - the equivalent of $150!

I don't know how the rest of the Chinese fare in this regard, but that is less than a sixth of the minimum €600 ($934) salary you get in Greece for a full-time job, or around a third of the minimum €300 ($467) salary you get for a part-time job, and then you only work 20 days per month, and only 8 and 4 hours respectively. The most disturbing part, though, is that parents give their children off to such slavery and that some of them have even volunteer for all this.

There is one thing we can be sure of: when a human sells his or her own freedom to make a living, something is going very, very wrong...

Truth about: Computers, #007

2008-04-28T00:47:00.006+03:00

Container formats like Ogg Vorbis and Matroska keep getting more and more attention by the more computer literate and us geeks who wish to peruse their vast capacity of properties, tags, and other paraphernalia that make them shine.

P.S.: Meanwhile the rest of the population, including the sort of nerdy geeks who do not really care for all that detail, mostly ignores them...

Easter

2008-04-27T00:01:00.001+03:00

The annual celebration devoted to the purported resurrestion of Jesus Christ; quite interestingly, an event that takes place in very different times worldwide.

The Sacrifice

2008-04-26T13:28:00.003+03:00

Still a little dazed from this Good Friday's revelry with a couple of friends (and more absinthe than I've had for quite a while), I've come to think of the traditions that make this era quite so memorable.

Theme of death and rebirth, and feasting after a long while of fasting.

Sounds rather pagan to me.

Still, will people ever get this? I don't know. And yet I love those traditions for being the customs that colour these days with such broad, wide strokes!

Open-Mindedness

2008-04-25T16:16:00.003+03:00

A state where ideas can freely be exchanged; sometimes used as an allusion to one's ability to accept something, no matter whether there is any foundation to it or not.

On Human Arrogance

2008-04-23T22:07:00.002+03:00

If there is one thing I seriously abhor, is humanity's arrogance; still, it can take so many forms, it becomes increasingly burdensome to tell people about it!

The anthropic principle, amongst theism and other things, is as good a place as any to start, in my opinion, and yet more important than each and every other: why should humanity be the privileged species that makes all of this have profound meaning, when we're nothing other than a speck of cosmic dust and then even less?

Much has been said on the matter, but people miss the obvious facts; philosophy, no matter how great an endeavour it may be, is a serious problem in human logism, as it commonly serves as the basis for nonsense...

Our presence here is no more proof to anything than itself, by all accounts, but how many people would actually feel safe when dealing with things under that premise? Do we not listen to such ramblings as how it would be impossible to be here if all of these things were true? I'm sick and tired, to some extent, at the impossibility of humanity to deal with the world for what it is - a sentiment I'm afraid arose from the mere fact that I cannot keep watching this fumbling and tweetering about, all so very much in vain, with no capacity to make heads or tails out of reality.

And, as they cling to these fables, so do I cling to hope for a place in the world, when we'll have overcome the problems we so desperately avoid facing... Am I in the wrong for hoping so? Perhaps I would have been, were I not trying to make it true...

Thus I live my everyday, ever looking at the moonlit sky...

For or Against God?

2008-04-23T01:40:00.003+03:00

Two polls try and see what people think, the first being quite detailed, the other a simple dichotomy between yes and no - so, what will you choose? I have to say that the results are telling a lot so far...

Where does the substance lie with seafood?

2008-04-21T18:10:00.007+03:00

There is one thing most people hate about shrimps and other crustaceans: their exoskeletons, which one needs to do away with (most of the time) in order to dine on these delicacies (which some people do hate, others are allergic to, and the Jewish deem abominations - the former two I can get, but the latter)...

Still, what every cook with some understanding of his art can tell you is that all sorts of food have all sorts of scents all over their whole structure. For example, we don't eat orange or lemon peels on their own, but they are commonly used for their wonderful aromas - and this is also a fact with crustaceans: if you want to get the best out of your shrimps, you should always boil or cook them with their shells intact and take them out later on; this will enhance their flavour most gloriously indeed, a fact you need to be aware of with lobster as well.

Note, however, that some dishes work against principle - always keep that in mind! I find many seafood substitutes quite enjoyable, in fact, so you should not right them out of the map either...

European History: A Common Goal!

2008-04-20T23:26:00.004+03:00

I couldn't believe what I saw with my very own eyes, that France and Germany have already established what generations of cynics have claimed impossible: a common treatise on the history of Europe taught in both countries, written by French and German experts equally and printed in both languages!

As other blogs have already stated, many people outside Europe cannot understand the elation we feel; just take a moment, though, and think of centuries of nationalistic boundaries, founded so deeply that education was yet another instrument of their imposition - all crumbling to dust, as German Education Minister, Annette Schavan, pushes for the establishment of a common history textbook across the EU. And while evidently some problems still exist in establishing a common position in all matters, I cannot help feeling thrilled!

It is a happy day - a glorious day!

Truth about: Computers, #006

2008-04-19T17:59:00.002+03:00

No matter how much some programmers strive to improve OSS, their greatest flaw will always be their interface...

P.S.: Just take a look at early versions of the Gimp! %S

Atrocity Record

2008-04-18T21:39:00.003+03:00

It's very common for people to accuse atheism, as far as I've seen, for the crimes people such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler have commited, as if it was atheism that drove them to these actions; in these regard, any and all accusations targeting, in the most ironic of manners, science are quite similar indeed...

You see, I never believed it's religion that caused all evil - even Professor Dawkins was against giving the documentary "The Root of All Evil?" that title, a fact many people seem unaware of. I believe, though, that ignorance, prejudice, dogma, and all sorts of intellectual dishonesty inhibit our cognitive functions - a process called compartmentalisation which, along with projection, the practice of tagging ones own flaws in others as a sort of ego shield, strips us of what makes us human: our capacity to employ rationality and logic.

Thus, I mean to conduct a simple experiment: I'll try and record any and all data on cases that are atrocious by any reasonable standard, seen from all possible angles so that there's no inherent bias, and compile this in an archive that I will publish when I am satisfied with the accuracy, veracity and volume of data collected. I'll then estimate which notions have caused the most damage.

Whoever feels inclined to assist me, I'll gladly accept all help.

The first case I'll mention is that of a 8-year-old who went on her own to court to get divorced from her husband... Apparently, the court decided that dissolving the marriage was more appropriate, and made the family pay the husband about $250 in compensation! I'm awaiting any comments you may have...

WARNING: Fascism overhead!

2008-04-11T04:33:00.003+03:00

There are some things that are better left unsaid, and yet you wonder whether some atrocious claims ought to be made, just so that people can get aware of the rot that eats at the heart of this world. Still, the all too familiar Shakespearean figure of Hamlet reminds us that this rot can run very, very deep indeed...

In logical argumentation you commonly have to deal with what we call fallacies; a fallacy is a statement that may appear rational, unless someone makes the effort to check up it's logical continuity and validity - a test all fallacies fail. Some of the most common ones are, of course, appeals to non-logical attributes, like popularity, emotion, authority, ignorance, force in case the opponent does not conform to our own attitude, and lots more, but one of the most insidious and outright disgusting is what we call an argument against the person.

Argumentum ad hominem, or ad hom, as it's commonly called, is a supposedly logical argument that fails to address the original point but attacks the claimant instead; by trying to make his or her integrity suffer, the fallacious argument does nothing to counter the original argument but runs an entirely different course instead: a dirty attempt to discredit your opponent.

What amazes me more and more these days is how some people so easily gobble all sorts of fallacies and particulary ad hom up as if it were valid! I guess the world needs a lot more to learn...

Atheist Cartoons!

2008-04-10T20:19:00.007+03:00

You can find these and more over at http://www.atheistcartoons.com/ - a courtesy of Bill Mutranowski.

Sign this, please!

2008-04-09T23:10:00.003+03:00

The artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas was responsible for the death of a dog from starvation for an excibition of his that took place last year; I ask you that you sign this petition in order to stop such atrocities from happening! I know it may seem miniscule compared to other beastly actions we take as a species, but this is inexcusable!

P.S.: If you want to read the specifics and don't know the language, go to Babelfish and enter the above address in the URL bar presented under "Translate a Web page," select "Spanish to English" or "Spanish to French," and press the "Translate" button next to it.

Finally: a trip to Mesologgi!

2008-04-08T20:57:00.003+03:00

Nope, it has next to nothing to do with that particular area that I cheer for this; it's just that this has been one of very few vacation opportunities I've had these last few years, and I'll finally be visiting my best friend's girlfriend, Stauroula, also a friend of mine, at the city where she studies. Yay!!

P.S.: Yup, I would be sick if I were rejoicing about going there!

From the Diary of Dreams Concert

2008-04-07T18:40:00.004+03:00

After my difficulty acquiring a ticket, as the sponsors had drawn them back to be sold at the entrance, I went yesterday by the place where the band would be playing; the ride was pretty uneventful: a simple quarter-of-an-hour trip to the train station on foot, another quarter to reach the junction with the Metro station, another quarter to reach Akropolē station and get there on foot...

I noticed some people who I expected that they were going to attend as well: no matter what we say to ourselves, a dress code is pretty much expected. I initially felt out of place, wearing a scarlet shirt over my black clothes, but I swept it away as best I could, reminding myself that being different is what we all are.

It was then that I entered the hall to get a ticket; it was evident there was some issue or another, of which I will make no mention for obvious reasons, so I waited patiently for them to resolve it. I must have taken a pretty stuffy pose, though, as the most polite woman at the entrance apologised twice to me; what made this all the more funnily apparent, however, was that the director of the event politely asked me if I was going to stand at the door for the event: being quite massive and with broad shoulders makes it quite easy to be mistaken for a "doorman." [lol]

Eventually I got my ticket and waited for RaZz and Bal to come along; it took them quit a while, but we eventually managed to find each other after a phone call by yours truly and settled by the other end of the street before they allowed people to file in.

The preconcert part was quite uneventful, apart from meeting a friend by chance, since I did not know he was also going to come, and the warm-up was quite nice, but the concert itself was a whole other thing: the sound was very, very clear, the band was perfect, the whole event smoked!

We all wanted to have them get back on stage, and they stayed on even after what is expected as an encore, keeping them up for some 5 or 6 more songs than is normal; but what truly made the night end most astoundingly was the last song, dedicated by Adrian Hates not only to the people who made it possible, but also to his best friend, who had died 4 days ago (that makes it 5 days ago, from this day). All our feeling were, I might say, quite tangible in the air, and he was teary - frankly, most of us could not quite believe the end to the concert.

I leave the task of retelling more about the concert itself to my aforementioned friends; in a sense, I'm still in awe. I can only say one thing: bravo!

LIGHT & SHADOWSEARTH SONG

2008-04-06T03:11:00.010+03:00

As I passed yesterday by Metropolis to get my ticket for today's Diary of Dreams concert, I found this very interesting single at the cashier; since money from the sales will be going to help in the restoration of vast swaths of land, the price is pretty low at €4,90, and the music is nice, I felt I had to put this up...

Truth about: Science, #002

2008-04-03T02:54:00.008+03:00

If there is one thing I still remember quite vividly from my days at school, it's the reluctance of people to understand the foundations of tools they make use of every single day: from mathematics to chemistry and biology to linguistics, one can only wonder how we use all these mobile phones and personal computers without paying the least attention to grasping the most basic principles that make them work.

Having to admit that I am a bit of a geek, my greatest wish is that humanity will reach the enlightened state of the Homo universalis, where we would devote immense amounts of time in an attempt to put as much and diverse knowledge in our heads.

One can only observe how that might still take a while.

I say that not out of some moral or intellectual high ground; nay, it's the very result of observation: the very people who reject truly understanding science and, yet more chilling, even some great scientists fall easy pray to their immediate reactions, laid out for them by some paradoxical dogma or another.

Science is, of course, a very misunderstood field: despite what so many people have strived for, most of us are not sufficiently educated in its nuances and, in fact, fail miserably when it comes to comprehending simple principles. The education of people in evolution has suffered the most from it.

It is imperative that people understand the basic facts that make a scientific theory up instead of a hypothesis or, even worse, an assumption;a scientific theory must:

have explanatory power,
have predictive power,
and be falsifiable.

When Charles Darwin first presented his case, he was not the first person to advocate the concept of evolution; some people somehow still stick to Lamarckian notions of evolutionary advanced creatures conveniently developing organs, whereas others commonly make pseudoscientific claims as to what a "kind" is, but the truth is that evolution explains the thousands upon thousands of different life forms that have been found on this single planet, has provided the foundation to predict the nature of many viri as well as how isolating a species in different conditions that the norm can lead to the formation of a new species (speciation), which has been observed, and allows for its falsification in many ways, including: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." - a notion which Creationists commonly fight back, even though they are the ones to provide the inspiration for this wondrous comeback made by biologist J. B. S. Haldane. The purported counter of the Cambrian explosion has also been shown to be a bit of a red herring, as the supposedly miniscule amount of time it took for all these species to crop up actually a huge span of time.

Where does that put natural selection, then, when people still commonly believe that the first step in hypothesizing evolution would be observing it? Clearly, these people don't understand that observing evolution would not simply be evidence, but absolute and incontroversible proof. The demand to observe evolution, then, is either ignorant or dishonest: a strawman raise by the equivocation of observation to immediately observable lab studies; and even that is not enough, it seems, for even tests run in a laboratory won't convince many theists.

The problem, I expect, lies in acceptance of a number of notions: there's no Darwinism or Evolutionism; petty term-coinage doesn't make such statements true no matter how much people wish it did. Evolution has been observed and people should get out of their shells and look at the truth as objectively as possible - as hiding from it only turns the common people into Murlocks; and we don't ever want to assume the role of the Eloi, no matter what some preachers suggest. There is no greater ideal in the minds of most of us than raising the consciousness of all humans alike; and it's most revealing how Christians, Muslims, and Jews spread "the good news," but we are supposedly being dogmatic, evangelical, fundamentalist, polemic preachers who mean to impose our "religion" on others...

There is a saying in Greece: "He avoids [the subject] like the Devil does incense!" Frankly, how can we prevent these people from avoiding evolution like the Devil does incense?

Parallel Storytelling

2008-04-02T01:28:00.003+03:00

What any person versed in either the so-called Leijiverse or Tezuka's lifework is that, sometimes, you should enjoy the art and philosophy instead of trying to reason with the incorrigible timeline conflicts that are so prevalent in both of these great pieces of anime storytelling. And in fact, one cannot help noticing that their author's did not only not avoid these inconsistencies but also went out of their way to introduce anachronisms, character reversals to well-established roles, and many other elements that are considered anathema.

Having played Astro Boy: Omage Factor and finding myself looking up the apocalyptic ends proposed to the World of Darkness yet again rather recently, all the while contemplating writing something about the reemergence of Captain Harlock's figure, and many, many more, I feel that parallel stories offer many good, but also difficult opportunities for competent storytelling. Reaching that goal, however, is an entirely different thing, not that much different from reconciling fantasy with science fiction, for that matter, and it's very common in all of these works to do just that.

It's a brave new world for authors out there; will the hunt be successful?

Should we tolerate Hitler, Ms Bunting?

2008-03-31T20:50:00.005+03:00

Having a discussion over The Guardian on the RDRFS fora, another forum member presented us with the article dedicated to Madeleine Bunting on Wikipedia - and I have to say that I was appalled by the statement that "atheists' antipathy to religion makes it impossible for them to criticise religion effectively.[1]"

It's not difficult to see how religious people can feel attacked or prosecuted by people like Hitchens, and I can see how people can shut what Dawkins says out in a manner oddly reminiscent of children blabbing while keeping their ears shut so that they don't hear what one tells them, but that hardly is evidence of the "impossibility for atheists to criticise religion effectively."

What is very important to draw our attention to is that Bunting is making an appeal to emotion while still turning to the fallacy of the middle ground: not only is she suggesting that these polemics somehow make atheists incapable of critical thinking, something that somehow seems non-applicable to religious people for some reason, it also asserts that moderation is better. I beg to differ: that in itself is illogical anyway, but it becomes patently absurd when put in sharp contrast to what atheists criticise, including delusional beliefs, nonsensical demands, oppression of all shapes and colours, intolerance, and unnecessary violence, to name just a few.

And yet this is just the tip of the iceberg, for what truly makes Bunting's claim either ignorant, idiotic, crazy, dishonest, or any combination of these, is that, according to her statement, a Christian cannot criticise Islam for inciting murder; a Buddhist cannot demand some respect from the Chinese government; a rape victim must feel no resentment for her predicament; in essence, what she posits is that we must be tolerant in order to be capable of criticising anything - otherwise, we must either partake of that wrong, be complacent to it, or just have too much antipathy to criticise anything "effectively."

While I don't think I need to point out how that makes no sense, I will still provide yet another instance of Godwin's Law (though this is not, in fact, as you can plainly see, a reductio ad Hitlerum but a reductio ad absurdum): if we are not tolerant of what the Nazi did, but show a strong aversion to it instead, then it's impossible for us to criticise the Nazi effectively; this is, obviously, wrong, so the very idea is also wrong.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

2008-03-31T01:27:00.002+03:00

When someone suggests that ignorance equals lack of truth; a logical fallacy that frequently stems in debates which are related to science in any way.

P.S.: In other words: "I don't see how it can be, therefore it cannot be."

The Phishing Line

2008-03-27T01:25:00.004+02:00

It's almost incomprehensible how many people would fall for any phishing mails such as these two I received today:

FROM: Khalid mahmoud (lirmen@bgnet.bgsu.edu) @ Hotmail
I am khalid mahmoud from Bahrain,I have been diagnosed with
Oesophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical
treatment,I have few months to live. I have decided to give alms
to charity organizations. I cannot do this myself because of my
health. I have Eighteen Million dollars ($18,000,000,00) with a
finance House abroad. Can you help me collect this deposit and
dispatch it to charity organizations? You will take 20% for your
assistance.
I WOULD WANT YOU TO REACH ME VIA MY PRIVATE EMAIL IF
YOU ARE WILLING TO ASSIST ME. ( khalidmahmouds@yahoo.com.hk )

FROM: "Yahoo / Microsoft Incoperation." @ Yahoo!
--

Yahoo / Microsoft Incoperation.
Baley House, Har Road,
Sutton, Greater London SM1 4te,
United Kingdom.

Dear Sir/Madam.

This is to inform you that you have won a prize money of Five hundred
thousand,Great Britain Pound Sterlings(£500,000.00)for the month of
MARCH 2008 Lottery promotion, which is organized by YAHOO/MICROSOFT
LOTTERY INC & WINDOWS LIVE.

YAHOO/MSN & MICROSOFT WINDOWS,collects all the email addresses of the
people that are active online,among the millions that subscribed to
Yahoo and Hotmail we only select five people every Month as our
winners through electronic balloting System without the winner
applying,we congratulate you for being one of the people selected.

You are to contact the events manager on or before your date of
Claim,Winners Shall be paid in accordance with his/her Settlement
Centre.These are your identification numbers:

Batch number.....................YM 09102XN
Reff number.......................YM35447XN
Winning number...................YM09788

These numbers fall within your Location file, you are requested to
contact the events manager,send your winning identification numbers to
him,to enable him verify your claims.How ever you will have to fill
and submit this form to the events manager for verification & direction
on how you can claim your winning fund.

1. Full name..............
2. Contact Address........
3. Age....................
4. Telephone Number.......
5. Marital Status.........
6. Sex....................
7. Zip Code...............
8. Occupation.............
9. Company................
10.State:.................
11.Country................
12.Nationality............
14. Reference and Batch number:

(CONTACT EVENTS MANAGER)
Name: Mr.Melvin John
E-mail: melvin_john107@yahoo.com.hk
Tele Number: +44 70457 54964

Thank you and Accept my hearty congratulations once again!
Yours faithfully,

Mrs.Gloria Bent
(Yahoo/Msn Lottery Games/Lottery Coordinator).

No comments...

2008-03-25T15:03:00.000+02:00

Courtesy of NASA

Question of Beliefs, not of Faith?

2008-03-24T06:57:00.003+02:00

I wonder a lot about how people who supposedly believe in the same god(s) seem to have no problem making a huge distinction between their faiths; it may be very weird of me, but I still don't understand why there must be as many as three or more ways to determine when Easter occurs: being a sort of rite, I cannot see any clearly Christian aspect to any particular formula used...

Truth about: Computers, #005

2008-03-23T01:09:00.003+02:00

Blackle is a wonderful idea... if you are using a CRT or similar screen; any sort of LCD actually consumes more power than it normally would when it shows black.

P.S.: Still, the average LCD uses a lot less power than a CRT screen.

Why don't we listen to the voices in our hearts?

2008-03-21T23:23:00.013+02:00

There is many a song that make me tremble with the words that cascade down upon my mind, their meaning resounding with such awe and clamour in my conscious self, especially considering what things I encounter in life.

A very good opportunity has been presented to me by a friend: there is a program that sends volunteers all over the world in order to aid wherever they can - something that would be a life dream come true. Will I be able to do that?

There is many a slip twixt cup and lip...

Pride and Prejudice

2008-03-20T13:28:00.001+02:00

There was a discussion over what the effects and nature of pride tend to be in a forum and I was sharply reminded of other discussions I've heard. Someone went as far as to actually suggest that people who are proud of who they are generally are obnoxious. This, of course, brought back to me an old question: is pride something we should avoid in general?

Let us study, for a moment, what pride is: it's a feeling of overt appreciation for oneself characterised by claiming that some or all aspects of our person should be held in high regard.

It's evident that such behaviour can, by definition become obnoxious; but that is not what we call pride: we call it arrogance. And while humility has been exalted by many people around the globe, it's interesting to note that pride, unlike the universally condemned arrogance, has been equally praised.

A common theme that can show how pride and arrogance is different is the very real difference between patriotism and ethnicism (or even racism); difficult as it may be for most people to understand, patriotism does not advocate harming others in the name of the nation you belong to - unlike ethnicism, which openly suggests that one's own nation is above all others, thus effectively diminishing their importance on the grande scale of moral justification.

And this is what bothers me: it's easy to lump pride along with arrogance, thus possibly escaping some trouble that may otherwise fly past people's heads and still under the radar; and yet it's intellectually dishonest, philosophically lazy, and morally reprehensible - it's no less than reducing one's sincere feelings to mere propaganda and proselytism or, even worse, chauvinism.

In other news...

2008-03-18T15:45:00.002+02:00

Any and all intimate relationships apart from lawfully wedded Orthodox Christian couples have been announced to be prostitution by the Standing Holy Synod! In utter disgust, I felt I had to make this clear to the whole world.

You have to love religious authorities, huh?

Settling for your dreams...

2008-03-17T22:58:00.003+02:00

There is a great irony in this world; a state in which you understand that pursuing your dreams can actually mean that you have to sacrifice a great deal more stuff in your life. At time like these, even chores may seem like a treat, just because they allow you a degree of luxury that what you crave for will most probably never offer you.

And yet you still know that all of this is meaningless if all you'll ever get is comfort and money, no matter how much!

What next, then, Chief?

Involvement

2008-03-16T18:03:00.003+02:00

Comparable to concern, involvement stems when we do something about things that we find ourselves in, whether we got or were dropped in there in the first place; its tendency to be the result of busibodiness is also similar to that of supposed concern for our well-being.

Engrish.com: guilty, but still very, very funny...

2008-03-15T13:39:00.002+02:00

I meant to sit down in front of my computer screen and post some thoughts on this blog, when my brother reminded me of the age-old compilation of photos we have from Engrish.com...

No matter how I felt, this is a priority.

Concern

2008-03-14T22:15:00.003+02:00

The feeling of compassion that people feel when something seems to be out of place or wrong with people or things they care for; also, the feeling that you have to straighten someone's act up even if it's not your place to do so.

And I thought Intelligent Design was bad...

2008-03-13T02:45:00.002+02:00

A man named Ward Cunningham was the first to ever make a wiki site, WikiWikiWeb. It was the first wiki on the world, and it gave rise to more and more sorts of wiki sites with various target groups, from the most innocent to some I dare not mention due to the rules on Blogger.

The best-known wiki is, of course, Wikipedia, and most of them somehow revolve around it, either by using a layout that resembles it, or by actually trying to emulate, differentiate, or build upon it. And while satyrical and cultural variations of Wikipedia have been a matter of some involvement for some time, I'd never expect to see something like Conservapedia, nor do I deem this just or wondrous...

The simplest question that no religious fundamentalist is capable of answering rationally: "Why is your divine revelation any better than the next guy's?" Maybe I should make a picture with a cat in a fishing net saying: "Gerraf my N3t!"

DSLR Wanted... :(

2008-03-12T23:03:00.003+02:00

I really, really want to get a Digital Single-Lens Reflex Camera...

Papers & Paychecks, indeed! At least they're getting awfully cheap these days, so I believe I'll get a pretty good one by the end of the year.

Pitiable Pity

2008-03-10T11:19:00.000+02:00

It's interesting to note the reaction of my grandmother when she heard of my beliefs - not that I did not expect it, but her phraseology was particularly striking.

"What can I say; know, however, that I'm very sorry for you..."

Is it out of line to say that I am sorry for her instead?

The Lord Of The Rings: A Christian Pagan Book?

2008-03-09T12:50:00.005+02:00

It's not very well known to most people that John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, the author of best seller The Lord of the Rings, was not only a Christian, but also a lover of mythology and pagan beliefs.

Many people compare the aforementioned trilogy as a Catholic literary piece, whereas others insist that its pagan elements are more prevalent; so, asks the conscious mind, where does the truth lie on this matter? It's true that some aspects of the piece are commonly encountered in Christian lore, but isn't Tolkien so well known for having made exactingly clear that his works are not allegorical?

I sincerely believe that Tolkien never wrote any conscious parallels; I sincerely believe that he was an honest man that would not stoop to using the language he loved so much as a means of deceit, so I take his saying so at face value. However, let's not forget the human muse, always, always at work: our subconscious and unconscious mind.

So, is The Lord a Christian story? It's possible that there are Christian elements in it, and there are obvious parallels with Christian lore, not to mention that Tolkien seems to have accepted this as a fact.

Is, then, The Lord a pagan story? That question has more merit than readily apparent: aspects of an inevitable end, rebirth myths, loss and regain; all these elements are used in a way most reminiscent of pagan legends, and one has to question whether we can so easily assume that this makes the book a pagan piece.

The problem rises from how people perceive the choices of the author: many readily associate the author with the literature that author has produced - a blatant error; in this case, we know for a fact that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, which is in itself an obvious antithesis to the notion that the artist produces art that is only fitting to one's own beliefs. But then, how can that be reconciled with his own work that so commonly had common myths as its foundation?

Farmer Giles of Ham is an obvious candidate for comparison: as anyone versed in both the Bible and the pagan lore, this particular work of his is impossible to fit in either pagan or biblical lore in particular: both could have easily provided the groundwork for the main plot and themes, and Tolkien knew both very well.

But here's the major difference between Farmer Giles and The Lord: the former has elements that can easily be found even in biblical lore, like the giant and the dragon, all commonly encountered in Tolkien's stories. But what of the trees that do not only act, itself a mostly pagan theme, but also talk? Or the making of the Khazad, reminiscent of similar ancient tales and so different from the Quendi; what of them, then?

I daresay that The Lord incorporates elements from both sides, but, whereas the values may be more uniform, the parables and themes are more readily pagan. Of course, I can always be wrong, but what worth has anyone's opinion if not properly stated with whatever backing it may have?

Computers suck...

2008-03-08T22:48:00.002+02:00

I'm trying to log in my account on the site of the University, but no, it just has to remain inoperational!

Don't you love technology - especially when you must use it?

Ars Magnifica

2008-03-06T23:04:00.003+02:00

Aren't there times when you feel that music that you've heard for a million times can no longer make you sing to its tune, when once great movies seem no less like simple flicks to go through on a night with lots of friends and drinks?

There's nothing wrong with the music, the movies, the art around you, and it is not you either; nay, it's just the boredom that overcomes us at times and, at least in my case, my wish to share the experience with others who have not yet had the luck or pleasure to check these things through.

And yet there are times when your mood demands something different: for every moment that has been filled with the electronic flashes of Vangelis and Jarre's brilliance, for every old but dashing ballad sung and galliard played, for every voice that rings with majesty not foretold, there is yet a day or even month that these won't sound in my abode and, be that as it may, I cannot find fault in this - for the song that strums the strings of my soul one day may be too sorrowful the next for me to stand with like readiness.

Apart from all that, however, it's so cathartic, listening to the right song at the right time, especially an album that has been left by the side, as if to age and be opened at the right time like a rich red wine in some cellar...

Tolerance

2008-03-05T06:37:00.002+02:00

The respect shown for another person's personal opinion; also applied to such issues as history, religion, factual discourse, and other logical functions that should not be subject to subjective interpretation, either by mistake or wantonly so.

Atheists are angry...

2008-03-04T06:49:00.011+02:00

because some people:
1. lie about our motives,
2. project their concerns on atheism,
3. or reject anything against their faith.
because some people suggest we evade religion.
because some people espouse chauvinistic dogmas.
because some people indoctrinate every child they can.
because some people generally present us as amoral idiots.

P.S.:This is my most illustrative (and literary) mindscape thus far, a sort of optical literary piece that I shaped through continuously restating and repositioning these phrases to what struck me as best, until I realised that I had inadvertently produced this slope; it's my wish that at least one person will be able to see himself to the summit of this Mount Improbable through the rational, progressive steps of its slope, instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion...

Finding the Centre

2008-03-02T17:51:00.003+02:00

There is a unique experience, when you come to realise that the more you detract from some situations, the better your living can be.

Surely it does not apply to every aspect of life, but meditation, painting, writing, all share this unique aspect: you can add to them by subtracting from them. Just like the best weapon of any category for any person is the heaviest one that person can wield with effectiveness and grace, so is simplicity a prevalent merit in the arts and life at large.

Find the centre, whenever, wherever you can.

So it would seem...

2008-03-01T01:43:00.006+02:00

that my last post is the epitome of Irony Gold: Photobucket.com deleted the Swastika picture I drew and put on the Internet for the sole purpose of the aforementioned post because it "violated their license agreement."

Seems to me that some people should learn what the difference between the swastika and the Nazi really is...

Symbol 15:1 - Swastika
Corrupted Symbols: The Swastika - What It Really Means

P.S.: After having contacted the Photobucket.com team through their Contact Form, under the premises of Abuse, I received the following message on my email account:

Dear [my email account],

The image was removed in error and has been restored.

Sincerely,

Your Photobucket Support Team

Remember, people, that your voice has strength: a simple show of protest and, voila! the mistake was undone with little to no harm.

The Swastika

2008-02-27T23:36:00.005+02:00

I'd like to draw people to the fact that the swastika was not created by Hitler or the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei (a.k.a. NSDAP and Nazi); it's an age-old symbol and, if some people want to ban it due to how it has been used, the question that should be made is: "What is the reason people want to ban it?"

Logic

2008-02-26T23:09:00.000+02:00

A product of sentience, it's conveniently dismissed by many as subjective and inconsequential when it would not be beneficial for them to face it, and wasted by people who don't know how to sate themselves with it.

Rudeness

2008-02-25T23:09:00.004+02:00

Lack of tact, particularly when being brutally honest/dis~ about something.

Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines

2008-02-24T22:14:00.004+02:00

There are few games that can actually come close to setting you up for the world they take place in - and buggy as it was, Bloodlines still is one of these games!

One of the few things that we should set down is that this minute review cannot even begin to put in writing all the important details regarding the game world; suffice to say that Wikipedia can satisfy every piece of trivia you need to know about the World of Darkness setting where it's taking place, particularly the old Vampire: the Masquerade franchise.

Most of you who may be looking at this will be wondering as to why should one ever write on his blog about a game that most people have either already played or not really care about; frankly, this is not true.

You see, Bloodlines, like a myriad other games that have come and gone for the general public, tend to have cult followings. Not the sort of people who'd wear hooded cloaks and kill virgins under the moonlit sky (they are a myth, for the most part), but people who like to go through their game just one more time (or two... or five), getting a sort of ritual benefit that many people lose: replay value.

It's games like these that some people enjoy for the richness of possibilities - and the choices one has in the process! Playing a Gangrel loner, Tremere member of the "Pyramid," Brujah Anarch, all these and more are possibilities that a lover of stories will rather enjoy, at least for the heck of it. Damn, even getting to play the different aspects of each clan is fun: the mad insight of the Malkavian, the need of the Nosferatu for stealth, all that and more contribute to a unique playing style if you wish to go that way.

It's important to note that a lot of issues and things to have in mind have been fixed by the designers in their 1.2 patch, and I am looking forward to checking up the new patches that are logged specifically for our convenience by the Patches Scrolls (including the needed official patch, and the unofficial 4.8 patch, as of yet).

A possible online board game?

2008-02-23T10:52:00.003+02:00

Yesterday was my birthday, so we took out the Dungeon adventure game my best friend got me as a present three years ago; it's fun to play, to be honest, but I was thinking of this: for all the fun of it, some people would rather not have to check up the rules of the game every now and then and so on.

It is actually quite possible to turn it into an online game. The three most important things that must be solved first, however, are:

copyright issues,
game engine,
and ruleset.

If these issues are overcome (the engine possibly being the easiest to solve, ironic as that may be), particularly the matter of rights to use the whole material, then it could be done pretty simply...

Food for thought, I guess.

Sweeney Todd - what's the problem here?

2008-02-20T21:03:00.004+02:00

I went to the cinema to watch Sweeney Todd with four friends just yesterday. The second most important thing I have confirmed is that musicals can still be dawdling, since they share some aspects with opera (frankly, the impact, plot length, and less repeatedly sang verses make the former much more agreeable to my tastes).

The first most important, on the other hand, is how apparently cinema suffers as an artform from marketing and trailers in particular.

Most people who went to watch the movie did not know that the film was a musical, as evidenced by the voiced concerns following the complaints about the seemingly endless tobacco commercials (in which I heartily took part); but, what struck me as even more improbable was the lack of knowledge as to how graphic the violence in the movie was going to be: notice how Tim Burton ironically glossed over all other matters, and dealt even with the murders and gore on the movie just as if it were an everyday situation, bodies smacking head-first on the flagstone floor of the bakery basement, flesh and bones and vermin lying about whenever and wherever appropriate.

And yet, even more surprising was how I finally related the opinion of the people who talked about the movie with what I saw. Anyone who's ever heard Johnny Depp sing knows that he's anything but tonedeaf, and it's obvious that his singing is deliberately flat or scratchy at times - he is playing a psychotic murderer, after all!

Helena Bonham Carter portrayed her role very well indeed, and it seems that many people have noticed her diverse talent that allows her to play on screen with such ease. Her singing was also in line with her character: elegant, weird, loving, mad.

It's certainly not a movie for the weak of heart (and stomach) but, frankly, I am still amazed by how the media failed to make its content more obvious; perhaps it was not as much a failure, as a deliberate downplay?

Never the less, it's an excellent movie, particularly for the irony it raises.

Snow!!

2008-02-18T01:00:00.000+02:00

Unexpected as it may be, snow has graced Moschato once again, after so many years.

I only wish it will last till dawn breaks!

UPDATE: Here's a photo taken yesterday. :)

A New Age Review

2008-02-17T01:36:00.004+02:00

The first time I listened to the music of Enigma, Vangelis, and Jean Michel Jarre, I became enthralled; maybe it was my fleeting contact with electronic music, and my passion for the blues and their descendents, but it's difficult to describe how much it affected me.

A very good friend of mine told me that he liked the dreaminess of electronic music. Dreaminess is, in fact, the best word to describe it, and while he did not really seem all too thrilled about its ambience (was he defensive?), it's not bad either - not to mention that not all electronic music, and new age specifically, are ambient.

What I find most weird about music is how it manages to evoke emotion with such ease, with no more than a tremor through the air. All the mystification, this majesty that evades us, is phenomenal!

The above three remain my favourites, but they are not the only ones - Chill Out. ;)

Relating Relations

2008-02-16T12:47:00.002+02:00

Who would have thought that there's so much and so little in our cognizance of the ways of the world and humanity... Every day, thousands of people probably fumble and stumble about with the very people they love, unable to make ends meet.

Friends quarrel, couples break up for no apparent logical reason, either cannot see each other due to timespace constraints (nothing sci-fi there, Mr. Spock), and yet others simply make the most foolish things in the world.

So there comes a time when you face humanity; people who swear on the beauty of love and others who claim there is no love to be had; close buddies who believe they'll never break their bonds and others yet who solemnly remember the friends they have not seen in years; and people whose memories spark to life when passing by a spot they fervently made out with the one they had the greatest passion for.

And yet, all this and that come and go. The most weird issue we have to face as people is that, by definition, we are not significant per se - it's our lives and actions that may leave their mark on this world, however long it will last.

So, if you ever despair, just look up to the sky, the world, and everything; it's par for the course that you will experience anguish at some point or another in your life, but you'll eventually manage to understand that you have to go on. It's not easy; it's not simple; and it's not pretty all the time.

But it's better to smell the roses while they are still fresh, right?

Material Majesty

2008-02-15T22:47:00.003+02:00

Many people see two points of view that are fascinatingly contradicting each other: some suggest that the beauty of the world arises from a deeply supernatural cause and thus resort to not trying to understand the physical, whereas others go to great lengths to point out that they don't care the tiniest bit about the workings and the aspects of anything they look upon and thus look at these things at the most empirical levels?

Why is it weird that a human being can actually see the beauty of something without attributing it to something totally unrelated? And why must something remain mysterious (but not a mystery! for it is not one) to retain its beauty?

Science versus Philosophy: O Tempora! O Mores!

2008-02-14T13:22:00.003+02:00

Oft times you come across theists arguing on the grounds of works written by great minds of philosophy and science on the matter of religion, and how these minds either suggested that there is no reasonable ground to refute the existence of a divine being, or that there should be some sort of deific existence to make up for the problems they perceived in the cosmos.

The problems of such argument are manyfold, but let us examine a couple of them.

First of all, science and philosophy are two distinct and separate terms; I don't mean to suggest the NOMA principle of two magisteria - rather, the principles of philosophy and science are conflicting. Philosophy tries to logically break a matter down to come to a conclusion with no more providence other than the human brain and its thought processes, whereas science looks up for the evidence and examples that refute a position.

An interesting example is the difference between the philosophically real and what is evidently real; I believe you all know Descartes' argument: "Cogito ermo sum." This was but the answer to an interesting philosophical debate: people initially argued that reality can only be perceived through our senses, hence only the perceived can be considered real - but, others argued, that means that, if something was forgotten, hidden in a cave or covered by dirt and rocks, then we would not be able to perceive it, but it would still be real. However, it is not evidently real: science does not refute it might exist, it's just skeptic about the whole affair.

This is a dichotomy: whereas philosophy commonly deals with matters that fall under the jurisdiction of science, the latter does not back down - both are perceived using different principles.

A most interesting issue here is Zeno's paradox; Zeno was a mathematician, a physicist, and, as was common in his temporum and relevant mores, a philosopher who posed this argument: suppose that we want to note the travel of a distance s by an object x from point A to point B; at m nths (where m < n) of the distance covered, the object x is that much closer to point B, at a new point C; having then covered m nths of the distance from point C to point B, to point D, the object is yet again closer to its goal, but not there; ad infinitum. No matter how much it travels, the object will never reach its destination, because there will be a time when the object will be very close to it, but not quite there, since there still be a little more distance to cover. His example included an arrow covering half the distance on each interval, by the way.

Note that, using both common sense and any scientific study we have, Zeno's paradox is immediately turned on its head; using mathematics, we can point out that he used an empirical form of limes: i.e. he gives us what we might call an ever decreasing in speed slow motion presentation of the arrow approaching its target, just before it actually does that - which point the "film" does not include. Any mathematician can explain to you that numbers represent "goals:" if x→a, then x≠a, but x≈a. To put it in layman's terms, if you have to cut off the tiniest piece of an apple you want to eat because the single piece is not good to eat, like a small part that was badly hit in a bump and got brown, you don't argue that you did no have one apple to eat.

The various theses made by various scientists who also were philosophers not only have to deal with these issues: they suffer from the added presence of religion literally for millenia to tell them that "God" existed.

Imagine a scientist whose scientific and moral understanding, like Pascal, made him or her feel that there was an argument to be made, a position to take, since his or her very findings and work do not come to terms with what he or she was facing with religious dogma. That human would put on his or her philosopher's or scientists cap to face this issue according to what seemed appropriate to him or her at the time. Again, these people's twofold standing should be examined carefully.

Taking Pascal yet again as an example, he argues in his Wager that there effectively are four different possibilities, broken down in two quanta on two different axes: there is/isn't an afterlife; and you do/don't believe in God. His assertion that it is prudent to believe in God because the consequences of doing otherwise are infinitely more unappealing than those of a single human lifespan fails at a number of points, most important of which being that the nature of such a moral stance is, as proven by a number of philosophers and psychologists, immoral in nature: you don't act morally because you are moral, you act morally so that you will either be rewarded (which is different from reaping the reward of your effort) or not punished (which, again, is different from avoiding harm); morality has also been proven to have originated in instinctual mechanics (supporting and maintaining the community), just like slaughter (for sustenance and matters of gene advancement). Note that many scientists criticise the age-old principle of punishming/rewarding im~/proper behaviour as a disciplinary action.

An even more interesting matter is the very nature of good and evil; whereas some things can be considered evil in principle (e.g. murdering babies), manslaughter, war, even rape have been justified as non-evil by a number of people, even practiced against other members of the human species. Studies show that some Muslims in France consider not evil to gang rape a woman that does not practice their societal norm, just like Christian priests preached that killing others in the World Wars would be an act in lieu with the teachings of the Bible, since they are unbelieving heathens - and the list just goes on and on. Isn't what is right or wrong subject to whose point of view we look at things from?

Putting my conclusion in a single period, it's irrelevant to use the philosophical positions of a scientist to try and disprove the scientific argument of another scientist, particularly when the times are so different - isn't it normal for the morals to change with them once more?

RE: The Rational Response Squad

2008-02-13T05:10:00.006+02:00

Whoever has read my recent posts may have noticed the Rational Response Squad; you may have also noticed that I have mentioned not too long ago how I am an agnostic; to that, I want to add that I do not believe that a divine being is, as Richard Dawkins put it, a matter of PAP agnosticism, but of TAP agnosticism. That is, I believe that there reasonably is no god, but the falsifiability of god is yet a little back on track, even if this is of little consequence on the matter of proof (i.e. it's not scientists that have to disprove god, but theists that have to prove "capital g" God if they want us to take them seriously about it).

I honestly say that I am facing some serious issues with this matter. I was brought in a typical Greek "Christian Orthodox" manner and, after so many years, I have come for some time now to the conclusion that the only awe I can come to feel in a church has nothing to do with the religion it stands for and everything to do with the art one can experience within - and I don't mean the verse of the psalms, but the chants of the cantors, the architecture, the frescos - and yet they are no more worthy of any other form of art.

The greatest problem I face for some time is how to treat my mother... It's not that I am being afraid of her reaction regarding me - my parents won't cast me out - but her reaction regarding my status in the world (and the next one, apparently): I feel awkwardly sad seeing her tremble at the slightest word of mine that points out how I feel, not to mention my brother's own feelings, since he is a staunch (if subtle, yet uncompromising) atheist. Consider the irony that my sister is not only a theologian, but also the wife of a priest!

Dawkins also quotes the Anglican Giles Fraser in The God Delusion: "the nice country vicar in effect inoculated vast swaths of the English against Christianity." Could it be that my upbringing, gentle as it was, eventually gave me the opening to move yet another god down the atheistic ladder, or was it some property of criticism that simply would not abide by what seemed false? I can still remember how I could not feel satisfied with the trinity of the God of Christianity. Recent years, in a most peculiar manner, likewise allowed me to peel, in a way very much like how Christians relate the story of Saul-turned-Paul, the curtain of lies cast over my eyes and notice how the Roman Emperor Constantine promoted Christianity to a religion to gain the favour of thousands upon thousands, how the first official blessing was given to weapons wielded against former comrades in a civil war painted with the hues of religion, despite its political roots, and a myriad other things.

Many would jump at the opportunity to attack my sister and my brother-in-law. I find it funny how my position may very well affect my beloveds' position in the world, or how things would not be so, if only people saw reason. But the world is not so, and I find some small solace, even as I tremulously write down these words on this page, not out of personal fear, but out of anger and excitement and a weird feeling of impropriety imposed on humanity. How did we come to this? How many centuries it took for these dogmatic beliefs to seep so deeply in society, I wonder!

Which brings me to a rather recent enlightenment - not in the form of agnosticism (which I had found in principle, if not in name, for a very long time now, in retrospect) and atheism (to which I aspire and now strongly support), but in the form of real contact with atheists who voiced their opinions, who challegned religion in an open, well-rounded manner, with just about the right amount of sarcasm and a bag of chips, as someone I know would have put it.

Mindcore, a very interesting blog in its own right, put up a public endorsement of the Rational Response Squad (hence the title, by the way). I have been pondering for a while, quite honestly, whether I should have done something like that, and now I feel a little hot in the cheeks, not just from embarassment, but also from a peculiar sense of fervor - not a religious one or, rather, an unbelieving sense of fervor!

Amicable as they may be, the RRS face a multitudal onslaught on a regular basis, and I am sure that even Huxley took a sentimental beating at some point at his self-appointed role as "Darwin's Bulldog." I am equally sure that there is great relief to be had at such open letters, or endorsements, or proclamations.

So, there you have it: I publicly abjure all religious beliefs and likewise endorse the Rational Response Squad. You have my best wishes and regards!

Thinking Never Stops

2008-02-13T04:12:00.000+02:00

No matter what we do, despite our most fervent attempts to do otherwise, albeit any means we may actually employ, people shall always trace things back in their minds to the memories of times past, pondering how they might have effected a better present.

While philosophers would argue over the practicality and wisdom of such actions, putting the cons of near hysteria and the pros of introspection on a fine scale to come to their own conclusions of the merits and flaws they have, it falls on the shoulders of each and every individual to step onward, with or without harking back.

And yet the memories shall still prevail.

Human Rights and Humans Left

2008-02-12T15:31:00.000+02:00

One thing stands more and more in contrast every single day that passes for the whole world: we openly criticise poluters, smokers, bombers, and every other-ers that cause any sort of discord in an effort to destabilise what they consider not to their liking or just because they don't give a bloody moment's notice to anything apart from their own petty hides.

Isn't it weird that the people who's rights are most trampled are those of the people who are least vocal about it?

Take for example what the consequences are of people who shout about how their religion is hurt by others. Do they not hurt others in the name of their religion, though? Most of them don't understand this but, unless an act obviously and patently abuses another person's rights, you cannot come about and demand them to stop.

It's not only a matter of religion. Political, social, and economical position, thoughts and actions, the least vocal are, generally, those who suffer the greatest abuse... Is this a new sort of the Beaten Wife Syndrome? Isn't it awkwardly like it?

Homo inadequatus!?

2008-02-11T13:58:00.000+02:00

People talk about the inadequacy of the human species. They go on an on about how we cannot run as fast as animals, cannot overcome our "natural greed" and a multitude of other things that pretty much tend to portray humanity as the cesspit of evolution, a weariness that is as founded as most arguments against atheism.

Racism towards our kind? How ironic to hear that from libertarians and ecologists!

Is it any wonder that I find such talk to be no more worthy of real consideration than tiresome babbling - exactly because it may just be awfully close to that and no more?

The Player's Place in RPGs

2008-02-10T13:41:00.000+02:00

There is a very interesting piece of advice one should always remember when roleplaying: you are not playing yourself per se.

Needless to say, people don't always remember that - in fact, it's common to feel insulted or even frustrated with other party members because "they did [something] to [you]!"

Pardon my turn of phrase, but that's just bollocks.

No matter what happens, roleplaying should be, in fact is, the interaction we bring about between any number of characters that are nothing but figments of our own imaginations. Merging the interests and feelings of said fictitious characters with our own is sheer folly and is sure to cause more hurt than gain in the end.

However, let us consider for a moment what effect equating the character's ordeals with our experience of the game can have. Apparently, there can be great wonder, but isn't such wonder just an illusion of grandeur, a false sense of achievement blending our perception of our success as players with the imaginary accomplishment of a fantasy we only helped be played out? Isn't that, at its core, one of the most dangerous forms of escapism, where you don't only try to have a different, out of character experience, but actually relish emulating something that does not even exist?

Surely, one cannot just claim that escapism is a problem without some foundation; even studies have shown that assuming a role that differs from who you are, even in what you manage to succeed at, if not in goals and habits, can be a significant benefit to one's self-esteem and relief of stress. There's a world of difference between these two situations, though: the latter practices a healthy form of entertainment, whereas the former seems to seek actually being someone else.

The problem lies in this simple point: if you don't like something about who you are, you should either change it or come to terms with it; actively trying to become someone else is a deviation of your goal, since you no longer care how you are, but what you are. It's no less like an apple trying to be an orange, instead of a better apple: no matter what happens, the apple will always be an apple, and that's not a bad thing. I won't tie this to such cases as gender change and the like, since I seriously think that it may be what's best for some people: we don't have any real evidence on the matter, anyway.

The player who confuses his or her place in the game has probably confused what he or she is supposed to be doing in game: the existence of a player and the portrayal of the character(s) that player controls are entirely different and separate things. In fact, both can exist without the other, which proves that they are not dependent on each other. This proves that any interaction between characters should never be confused with any interaction on any level between the players, assuming good faith for all participants: while the players obviously interact, this interaction is just a mechanism to have the fictional characters interact with each other.

Feeling insulted, taken advantage of, or otherwise slighted is yet another case where one should exercise his or her ability to look at things from a different perspective: maybe the other player did not mean to do that, or it was just what happened in game and in character that you thought of as directed at you.

Learning that difference and managing to assume the role your character has, even in the form of body language and voice tone, can be great fun - don't waste such wonderful opportunities in petty misunderstandings. And if some people are truly insulting and uncaring, deal with them maturely - you'll feel better in the end.

Once again, with even more feeling!

2008-02-09T13:49:00.000+02:00

Exams are practically over, and the new semester will start shortly; my brother is over with his being a cadet, and he will be staying over at our sister's place in Kalymnos before coming officially back.

Still, the world is not in order: my best friend had a small traffic accident, people still come and go, for better or worse, and Life can still be a bitch.

On that note, where the heck am I supposed to enter the data given to me by the Institute? I am not sure how I can get enrolled for the new semester - I will have to check this up with the secretary...

Oh, well, see you soon! ;)

No comments... Just watch.

2008-02-06T08:56:00.000+02:00

From: http://o-politis.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jglCyU8TPJw

FLICK GREEK!!

2008-02-04T18:24:00.000+02:00

OK, I am literally and quite royally mad at all the freakish things people come up with...

I have been using Windows for quite a long time; I've seen their many quirks time and again, and yet they've always been a system that can actually remain quite stable if you don't go blabbing around with them all the time, no matter what people say. It's also true, however, that they can be a great mess when you want to use a language other than English; that's not a new situation.

What I cannot understand is why people cannot see that multilingual support should be a real given! If you install the Greek language pack on English Windows, just because you prefer the clarity and consistency of an English interface where you can easily refer to everything in their international, standardized form, just because you find that a lingua franca is a great thing, programs suddenly try to get installed in Greek, only because they've found you are using those settings! You try to maintain a steady system where everything should run smoothly, but then Microsoft decides that Windows Live Messenger must be installed in English, Inkscape's menus and options and everything are in one part Greek, and other parts of theirs are in English, and so on... The instances are not that many, but were did they come from? How did they crop up, really?

Are we still supposed to be speaking any one language, and, if speaking more than just English, then we are not supposed to want to use English as the groundwork? How come they assume all that on their own? How come I must make do with what they think is best for me on their own?

Open Versatile Anime RPG

2008-02-03T22:00:00.001+02:00

OVA stands for "Original Video Anime," a sort of animation that is not produced for the Big Screen but for the video at home - back in the days, a cassette, nowadays a DVD or more... The name of this RPG is named after such a little play on words.

A game following the same initial build-up as BESM, OVA admirably attempted to present a system were you can play any anime-like character with much ease and little need for hustling and bustling around; central to this game is its system, which, like many others before it, uses a 5-point scale which represents how good you are at something for its most basics. Unlike them, though, OVA assumes that you meet the baseline on any stat you don't have anyway: you basically are an average human by all other standards, at least in terms of capability. Every single dot in any of your character's aspects define how much better you are from the average, from +1, which sets you as very good at it, to +5, where you are one of very few in the world.

It's also important to note here that, exactly due to the above, the game is not centred on a few universal abilities: you won't find such a thing as your typical list of ability scores or attributes on the description of any character in OVA; whereas there are such abilities as "Strong" and "Agile," your character can easily have neither and still be quite playable.

Likewise, each character may or may not have a number of weaknesses, which, unlike the above, only range from -1 to -3, from a minor hindrance to a very real inhibitor in one's life.

It's refreshing to see such a short book being that inclusive and easy to grasp; I can assure you that even beginners will find it easy to deal with, and its system (including dice rolls) is stellar for what it tries to accomplish. Adding its miniscule $9,95 price, it's one of the best buys you can ever make, if you are not cringing at the idea of running an anime-like campaign.

Truth about: Stuff, #001

2008-02-01T22:08:00.000+02:00

One who truly hopes will not despair; only those who wish do so...

P.S.: Like all rules, there are exceptions.

Truth about: Relations, #005

2008-01-31T07:27:00.000+02:00

There is a very particular and exactingly weird feeling that comes with age: you no longer want to spend time with some people.

I know that sounds wrong, so here's a reiteration: you don't feel the desire to spend time with some people as strongly as you did in the past.

The most obvious "people," of course, would be one's immediate family. I don't see how people have an opposite view, especially with the onset of this situation for some time now, including having stayed mostly alone - and I mean alone - for two whole months; it's just a fact. My desire to see my sister is not as strong. My desire to see my brother is not as strong. My desire to see my parents is, likewise, not that strong.

It's not that I don't like them any more; quite the opposite, in fact. What I came to realise, though, is that I cherish that interaction, but I don't need it on such a regular basis as I did when I was younger. Still, it's important to make clear that I want to be there for them in good and bad, for better or worse.

Of course, I came to realise at some point that acquaintances of all kinds can be seen under that light - and some already have. In fact, retroactively I came to realise that all relations are equally subject to any sort of treatment.

The question is: "How are you willing to treat another?"

The Fruits Basket Blues

2008-01-30T10:27:00.001+02:00

Have you ever read something so good for so long that, when it was finally over, you felt a little empty inside? That's exactly how one of my best friends felt with Furuba.

I sincerely believe that this story should be told as an anime in its entirety, not just those few arcs alone. :(

One lives in hope...

The Influenza Influence

2008-01-28T10:02:00.001+02:00

If there is one thing I still hate, despite my increased tolerance of accidents and annoyances, is being sick or otherwise in pain. Thus, I can easily say that my worst enemy is the hated influenza!

It may seem like a joke to most, but I really abhor this feeling of weakness, the raking coughing, the sluggish movement of my limbs, and the reduced mental faculties that are so... honestly, even writing can be bothersome, as I cannot focus on what I mean to type. And the worst part is, of course, the memories...

I have to admit that, if there is one thing I cannot deal with, it's the nightmarish recollection of anything that has not yet been resolved, the menacing light even the most innocent of incidents can be brought under!

I truly hate this feeling.

Truth about: Science, #001

2008-01-27T14:19:00.000+02:00

or rather #000a, if you'd prefer that.

Meaning to conclude my earlier statement, allow me to use a bit more mathematical approach.

Zero, or null, or nill, or μηδέν and any other such denominator ("not being") clearly suggests the initial nature of the symbol 0 before it even got a symbol; this logical datum signified an absence of quantity, and thus did not merit a place amongst the numbers - a place that was disputed even for the monad by many mathematicians of antiquity.

In mathematics, 0 represents the lack of what was to be observed: it simply is not there. Whether that is a static or dynamic aspect of the system we studied is, by all means, unimportant and inconsequential. However, it also means that zero is, in fact, the numerical group [0].

Why is that? Simple: taking complex numbers as the basis of our argument, it's easy to see that having 0 of something means that there's nothing of that which we measure or take count of. Even the slightest presence of something, even the most infinitesimal of quantities brings us beyond that non-quantity: there is something there, even if it is not complete. This suggests that, given enough such parts, a total quantity of one can be reached. This proves that the quantity of 1 is part of a new group, which is (0..1] - and the list goes on with (1..2] and so on.

Thus, you can never proceed in having a part of a 0th number of things.

P.S.: Of course, some people will still not understand. :(

Status Theologicum

2008-01-26T11:44:00.000+02:00

First things first: I am an agnostic, as Thomas Huxley put it over a century ago, in 1871.

But what is an agnostic? The term was coined to present not just someone who simply opposed the gnostic beliefs of times past; rather, it rejects the notion of Gnosticism itself, claiming that some things - possibly even reality - are unknownable because of the subjective nature of the observer's experience.

Thus, an agnostic believes that, for example, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of deific beings, because those who believe in them take it for granted, whereas those who don't believe in them take their nonexistence for granted - while these people can change opinion, they will simply shift sides (or possibly become agnostic): i.e. they cannot believe in God and then say that they may be wrong and there is a possibility that God does not exist, and vice versa.

One can notice that this inherently applies in theological studies: most theologians are almost universally religious people, most commonly theists, and there are very few atheists, gnostics, or otherwise non-religiously inclined philosophers. This, of course, tends to schew theology as a study of religious affairs, making it more of a tutelage of lobbied religious groups.

It's easy to see that it's become almost impossible to make a normal discussion, let alone a logical debate, over theological matters without encountering mental walls, emotional blockages and blockades, and even odium theologicum (quite appropriately). In fact, it's ironic how pious people react by feeling threatened to such claims.

Thankfully, we don't have to face Creationism (a lot) here in Greece...

Posts I never wrote...

2008-01-26T06:30:00.000+02:00

or the disjointed weekly postage, as one might call it.

These last few days, a number of things have crossed my mind and, yes, I mean that in the most metaphorical of senses - it just so happens that I can still think for myself, despite what some people claim, as it is.

Apart from a few things that circle my thoughts, the most important reason is a number of things that have happened, like the fortunately rather uneventful accident my best friend had today; he pretty much broke his left wrist, albeit quite badly indeed - he will probably need to undergo surgery for that.

And the world goes on. It always does.

Truth about: Relations, #004

2008-01-24T07:34:00.001+02:00

Parents generally fail to grasp the age of their offspring; no matter how old they are, they still are their children, and that can mean a lot of hustle and bustle...

P.S.: Just try to ignore what you may ignore.

Truth about: Computers, #004

2008-01-22T17:15:00.000+02:00

If there is one thing that shows very little sportsmanship, pardon me the use of the word, is when a person removes a bit torrent he's finished downloading from his queue instead of seeding it; it's particularely aggravating when you are the only seeder and feel obligated to allow a single leecher to get it, only to find yourself seeding it on your own once more, and a new leecher having taken the place of the first.

P.S.: Makes the term "leecher" particularly apt, doesn't it?

Empathic sympathy

2008-01-21T03:02:00.000+02:00

To be empathic is when a person can actually sense the undertones of another individual's feelings much as if one could relate or actually had them oneself.

It's a very weird sensation; in great, moving works of art, an empath has a fluid experience, where even card-board deep characters come to life and hurtful things hurt one just as well as being cleft in twain, and joyous matters bring tears of happiness to one's eyes.

I am an empath - know that does not mean that you cannot make mistakes. One learns to learn from what one did not learn in the first place, though. And empathy can be a great gift when you are fine with who you are, but a real burden when you are not. Again, Life's a bitch and everyone wants to bed her too. :P