the GOD within (II)

That which surrounds us, also pervades us. We, ourselves, are as much an expression of our own essential core as we are an expression of our environment. And our environment expresses itself through us. Our surroundings are a nexus to us, as much as we are nodal points to our surroundings. The question to be asked, however, does not only concern the extent of those surroundings, but also its definition. If by surroundings (environment) is meant the physical and socio-cultural surroundings, the above statement shines in all its justness; the only reason why I am not a muslim is because I wasn't born in a muslim country. But where does this environment end, and where does a new one begin? Do we actually know?

We have created words such as 'country', we have built entire systems -both tangible and mental- on language, thus propagating antigony, dichotomy, this and that, but also one-unity-all. I wonder what came first: 'this-that', or 'all'? Doesn't 'all' immediately imply 'this-plus-that'? I'm guessing the concept of distinction consequently gave birth to 'similarity'. Versus the mother gave birth to Plus, son as well as daughter. Let us long for Plus' matricide! Lines, categories, limits, borders, drawers, definitions,...in the end we should all burn them, drown them, because they are the tools of our own mental architecture. We have created them, and they have created us according to the laws of chain and snow ball. This is how we became. This is how I became this and that, this is how I am being perceived by my surroundings. This is how I perceive my surroundings. We are very much so molded by our surroundings and tend to vaporize, into zillions of thits and thats, bouncing within its confinements.

Parallel with the last post, allow me to take a look at another TED speech. Here's an excerpt from Rev Tom Honey's speech:

How would one deepen such a faith? By seeking the inwardness which is in all things. In music and poetry, in the natural world of beauty, in the small ordinary things of life, there is a deep indwelling presence that makes them extraordinary. But it needs a profound attentiveness, and a patient waiting. A contemplative attitude, an awareness of my own infinite value, and a generosity and openness to those whose experience is different from mine.

Two main themes can be distilled from the above: inwardness and openness. I believe both are one and the same; that which surrounds us also pervades us. There is no such thing as an essential core, there is no such thing as surroundings. There is just. Thus I am All and All is I, and so are You. This is what it means to scribble outside the lines.

the GOD within (I)

Yet another comment on what was said at TED global, but this time I would like to make a rather unusual connection between two of the speakers: the aforementioned Richard Dawkins, and Rev Tom Honey. In this post, I shall reflect on what Dawkins said. The connection with Honey will be made in the forthcoming post. (sounds rather conceited, doesn't it? - pity me)

Dawkins explains the human mind's limitations, as stated in this BBC News article:

"Our brains had evolved to help us survive within the scale and orders of magnitude within which we exist, said Professor Dawkins. We think that rocks and crystals are solid when in fact they were made up mostly of spaces in between atoms, he argued. This, he said, was just the way our brains thought about things in order to help us navigate our "middle sized" world - the medium scale environment - a world in which we cannot see individual atoms."

In other words, what we think is solid and well-defined, is actually made up of space; nothingness in between tiny little dots. The void is as much a part of everything as its tangibility. This goes for all matter, including us human beings. But as an example, let us think of a straight line that pierces through the sky for instance. The line in a very similar way not only needs that sky, is also consists of it, within its own boundaries. The sky is necessary for it to be (to exist) in two ways. Firstly, it is a means of highlighting the line, functioning as a supporting background; without the sky, the line cannot be seen. Secondly, the sky also pervades the line itself. It doesn't stop at the border, it has infiltrated within. The line is a filter.

This second view is the hardest one for us to grasp. Even my ways of explaining it denote a certain subject-centeredness, as though the sky had distorted the balance of line-versus-sky. The truth is though that they both need each other; there is no absolute dichotomy between subject and object. Existence is a form of mutual (or even multilateral) communication.

Maybe we should stop telling our kids to draw inside the lines. It is what happens when the pencil crosses the lines that we become what we are: gateways. Scribble night and day away!

What is reality?

Interesting post on WorldChanging, apparently taken from Richard Dawkins' speech at TED, 　a website worth checking out by the way. Reality is relative, because of our limited perception of it: our reality is not that of a mole's. Our brain is a tool for survival, and therefore we need to know only what we need to know. So it is said.

--In other words, reality as an object is only defined by what we, the subject, perceive it to be. Reality's relativity is therefore based on the variableness of the subject. The subject becomes its criterion?--

So, Dawkins continues, to get a better grasp of actual reality, we should expand our imagination.

--I'm having trouble with the notion of an actual reality. In case reality is relative, is the notion of an actual reality possible outside of our cognitive framework? I wonder, isn't that imagination born within that same limitation? Is there actually room for growth and expansion? Or should we instead consider imagination as some gateway to go beyond our own boundaries? Or, in other words: is there hope?--

richard, dawkins, ted, reality

London blasts and "this world we live in"

London
Originally uploaded by Yptucide.

I believe this prtscr from one of Belgium's most -distinguished- newspapers' online website is a shocking example of the manifold daily reality this world is whirlpooled in. On the right, one can read how "London is preparing itself for an improvised party" while Blair is smiling triumphantly in front of the Olympic five rings, representing the union of the five continents. On the left, Blair's facial expression literally changed over night. Chaos in London, due to a lack of union amongst the five continents. In the meantime, Britney's doctor has told her not to have sex any more because it might damage her pregnancy. She wants too much bilateral union.


May our thoughts go out to:

-the victims of today's terrorist attacks
-the victims of any terrorist attacks
-any victims
-and Britney

london, terrorism, media, britney

Eros (Wong - Soderbergh - Antonioni)

This tripartite film was something I had been looking forward to for a long time. Just by hearing the word Eros in connection with the names Steven Soderbergh and Wong Kar Wai (I had never heard of Michelangelo Antiononi before), I envisioned extreme close-ups of sweat-skin twinkling in the morning sun, moments of doubled silence afterwards, waiting for the coffee machine to finish, and maybe even a turquoise skirt covering the camera lens. I was wrong.

While I've always been a fan of Wong Kar Wai's bittersweet poetry, but his contribution "The Hand" seemed to be a repetition of In the Mood for Love and 2046. Nothing bad about that of course, but as I said, the man has a tendency to repeat himself. I feel it is time to break your own tradition, Mr. Wong.

Moving on to Soderbergh, I truly enjoyed his interpretation of the "eros" theme as something in between dream and reality, a yearning as much as it is a frustration. Soderbergh definitely outmatches his colleagues here.

But oh my god, Michelangelo Antonioni's version looked as if it was made by a banned priest, trying to rediscover not only his earthly roots as a first year's film student, but also his penis.

My final judgment: take Soderbergh's wit, Luisa Ranieri's body, and Wong's photography. But whatever you do, do not use Antonioni's dialogues!!

Eros, WongKarWai, Soderbergh, Antonioni

"I saw God, and she's black."

"The images of God have a far more powerful effect upon our emotions than our ideas. And when people read the (b)ible, and sing hymns; Ancient of Days who sittest throned in glory, Immortal, Invisible God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes...We've still got that fellow up there, with a beard on. It's way in the back of the emotions. And so, we should think first of all, in contrary imagery. And the contrary imagery is: she's black." -- Alan Watts.