Different Ways of Thinking About God

We all usually adhere to one of two paradigms when it comes to the concept of a disembodied entity commonly called "God" : he either exists or he doesn't. Now, when I say "God" I will be referring to any number of concepts, which include YHWH, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, or any deity for that matter, even a vast pantheon of deities. But for brevity's sake I will just say God.

Personally I don't think God can be summed up in a book. No matter how we try to contemplate such an entity, our shallow reason and imagination can never even glimpse what such an entity would actually be. But modern science can shed some light on what this God is, and the peculiar nature of God.

To start with, we can say that we are real and we invented God. That seems most reasonable given Occam's Razor. Since there is no evidence that God exists, we can conclude that more than likely he doesn't exist. But then again, the celestial teapot fallacy can run this argument the other way : since there is no evidence of God's existence, then there is no evidence that he doesn't exist. But various psychological experiments have shown evidence that God is little more than a figment of our imaginations. But more radical theories, such as Jayne's theory of the bicameral mind suggests that the gods were multiple minds existing in the same brain, and that hallucinations of the gods faded over time as the conscious mind developed.

Contrary-wise, quantum physics indicates that it is possible that we are not real, and that maybe on a higher dimension God is playing some grand computer simulation (like the Sims) and we are in it. When we look at an image on a computer screen we know that it is not really the family in front of a sunset over the Pacific, no matter how realistic it looks. But how to prove it? Just zoom in until you start to see pixels. Pixels are a good indication that the image is not actual reality. But the same occurs in "reality". When we zoom in enough we encounter pixels, though we call them particles or quantum. It may be that God is some goofy computer nerd playing simulations he generated through algorithms on his 12th dimensional computer he custom designed, and his family thinks he is wasting his life playing with these simulations; namely, us and our universe. The holographic universe model seems to indicate a similar theory.

Another more bizarre idea is that we invented God in our holographic minds, within the confines of a holographic universe that God created us in. It is a bit like Alice dreaming of the Red King, who is dreaming of her dreaming of him, ad infinitum. What a strange loop that would be if simultaneously we hallucinated God creating the universe we inhabit, which would later form itself in the conditions necessary to create living organisms that would evolve to the point that they could hallucinate such an entity creating the universe we inhabit.

And my family thinks I'm an atheist. I just think the concept "God" is far more strange than anything that can be imagined. The nature of reality and the universe is quite odd to begin with. The circumstances surrounding the universe and reality's existence must be far stranger. Even more so, the circumstances surrounding the creation of such a strange existence must be far beyond what any of us can suppose. Furthermore, whatever (or whoever, if that is a consequence) is responsible for the circumstances that created such a strange existence must be one of the most incomprehensible elements imaginable. Like I said : God can't be summed up in a book. (Stuff that one in your pipe and smoke it Dey family!)

[Inconceivably Unable To Imagine God Here]

Your Rhetoric Causes Cancer

Everyone has heard stories of individuals who did not believe they were going to die from such-and-such a disease, even when the doctors assured them they would die in a few months. But to the doctors' surprise the individual recovers with little to no treatment (save for some painkillers). These incidences are true and provide strong evidence, albeit still controversial amongst scientists, for the mind's ability to effect the physiology of the body. In all these cases the individual didn't think they were not going to die, but actually believed they were not going to die.

Further evidence of belief effecting the mind's extraordinary abilities to alter the conditions of the body are found with individuals suffering from mental retardation. Mentally retarded individuals typically do not comprehend the "death sentence society places on cancer", says Jeanne Achterberg. Her study of cancer rates amongst the mentally handicapped showed that their rates are about 4%, as opposed to the average of 15-18% (census taken in Texas over a four-year interim).

If only I could be naive and continue smoking without the bombardment of non-smokers telling me I'm "just driving another nail into my coffin". At this point I would pull up some statistics and see cancer rates of tobacco smoking pre-General Surgeon warning compared to today. I would also look up cancer rates between the American Northeast and Southeast, because I certainly get more grief for smoking down South than I do up North. But I'm not. I'm going to go read something else. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.

Your bitching is causing cancer (that's an informal fallacy... I only wish I could actually believe that).

The Truth About The Elephant

"The Truth Is Out There" is the primary slogan of Agent Fox Mulder from the X-Files. Every person, in his or her own way, is constantly in search of the truth. But truth is entirely subjective, so everyone's search for the truth tends to be different. Some choose to seek is by sitting around drinking beer while they watch sit-coms. Others take LSD-25, some go to church, others spend their lives reading, some do yoga, some dance, some are poets, some are scientists, and others think that the truth is already known and that we fog it all up with our search.

The word "truth" we use to denote an explanation for something based on a logical conclusion made from the evidence presented to us to deduct such a conclusion. But what if we don't have all the evidence? Then it is not the truth. We can say that O.J. Simpson did it. But if it turned out that extraterrestrials had implanted a control mechanism in his brain to forcibly madee him shoot his girlfriend, then obviously we did not have all the evidence, and therefore, the wrong "truth".

I believe that this can be summed up quite easily in the old Hindu story of a group of blind men touching an elephant, while each comes up with a completely different conclusion of what the elephant is (and each happens to be wrong). The first blind man feels the trunk and says that it is a vine. The second blind man touches one of the legs and says that it is a tree. The third feels it's side and says its a wall. A fourth feels the tusk and thinks it's a pipe.

Of course, they are all right, but ultimately wrong. An elephant has all the qualities they describe by touching the elephant, the reason their guesses of what it was is so different is because they were each examining a different part of the body. I believe much the same thing can be said about religion. Christians have a different view of the deity than Hindus do, as it is with Muslims, Pagans, mathematicians, Scientologists, Mormons, etc... I throw in mathematicians because many mathematicians find religion in science and numbers. I have a buddy who is of the Pi religion, since pi is an infinitely long irrational number. Therefore, any finite string of digits can be found somewhere in pi, such as your very own birthday, your name in numeric format (A = 1, B = 2, C =3, etc...), or anything you can think of, and therefore an "all-knowing" number in a sense.

We all have different concepts of the deity simply because we are each feeling a different part of something we cannot see. As Jalal al-Din Rumi said it : "The sensual eye is just like the palm of the hand. The palm has not the means of covering the whole of the beast." Lovecraft once said, and I paraphrase : "To understand fully who and what God is would lead to insanity." And perhaps he is right. Perhaps this is the natural circumstance of defying Gödel's theorem (truth and proof of the truth cannot exist simultaneously).

But it seems by our very own nature that we will never come any closer to the whole truth. We would rather kill and bomb one another over whether it is a pipe or a tree or a wall. Rather than actually sitting down nicely together and trying to work it out as a group, we would rather create sides. All our descriptions are correct. It is our conclusions that are incorrect. Not even scientists and mathematicians, especially mathematicians since Kurt Gödel, are ultimately correct. The same friend I mentioned above hated the ending of the show Lost because he felt the wrong side won (i.e. mysticism). Ultimately, there is no "side" to which the truth lies on. The truth lies always beyond the grasps of the most damning evidence. I can't prove it, but I believe, or at least "I want to believe."

Apos Tekton Theos : Or The Self Behind The Curtain

Many architects love to charmingly reference Louis Kahn's conversation with the brick. For those unfamiliar with this idiosyncrasy, the convo classically goes a little something like :

Lou : What would you like, brick?
Brick : I would like an arch.
Lou : Oh brick, arches are expensive and difficult to construct. I could really use you over a concrete post and lintel construction.
Brick : But I would like an arch.

Architects like to use this example of the architect deriving the architectural design from the architecture itself; that the design, the materials, the structure, the site, or anything relating to the building design process should be derived from an intercourse with the design.

But in all actuality it's really just some crazy old guy talking a brick. The problem is that the metaphier of the design process is the paraphrand of a poor metaphor in a rapidly secularizing era of society.

Why must architects continue to "talk" to the building design as a means to develop the architecture? Architects are using a conceptual construct of their own creative imagination and conversing with the deus ex tectonicus, which is only a metaphor for the architect him / herself. And it is such a poor metaphor really. Architects (and any designer / artist / poet) can just cut god out of the equation and simply ask themselves what they want in their work.

It is rather odd that we would think it to be god out of the machine, when a more proper translation from the Greek would mean "god of our making" or "god out of our creation", since the machine is of our making. We can dismiss mysticism in a secular age of construction, but while architecture exists almost purely profane in the contemporary age, mysticism has not left the scene at all : it has only changed its form. We still talk to our creations as third party divine entities that have a conscious notion of what they "want" to be. When in all actuality it is really only us talking to ourselves via a poor metaphor of our creative imagination. And, to top it all off, we teach the usage of this misleading metaphor in architecture schools!

John Locke : I've done all you've asked of me! What do you want me to do! Tell me!
Then there was light.

EVERYTHING Is Good For You In Moderation

We have all been told wine is good for you in moderation. Duh. A new study reported on the Today Show discusses that coffee is good for you in moderation. Coffee has health benefits, such as "wakefulness" "increases cognitive ability" and "increased muscle coordination and strength." It also helps the heart and a bunch of other stuff like that... No kidding, that's why I drink two pots of coffee a day. Then again, that is why my teeth get stains and I'm wired every night and groggy every morning. Brewing a fresh pot of joe at midnight is not moderation.

That's why they always throw in "moderation". But everything is good for you in moderation. I bet Guns n' Roses and Iron Maiden is good for an in utero fetus in moderation because of its intensely sophisticated audio stimuli that will increase a child's ability to work with system rules at intensely fast rates. But, of course, only in moderation or they may turn to harder bands like Deicide and Emperor and end up like me : some guy working retail because he can't get a job at an architecture firm while he does freelance work on a $250 million Masonic Library and Museum in Texas, even though no architecture schools want to accept him so he can finish his Masters... but that's another matter. Cigarettes are good for you in moderation : after you eat they semi-clean the teeth (that's supposed why the French and Italians do it) and it dilates the arteries and increases blood flow.

I can't think of many things that are not good for you in moderation. Cyanide is probably good for you in moderation, probably only trace amounts (like the amount in a cigarette), but that's moderation! It has shown that swearing is good for you in moderation. Just when you think you can't take it anymore and you just yell "Fuck!" really loud has shown to reduce pain and increase satisfaction (whatever that means).

Here is the real test : just type in anything into a search engine and add "is good for your health" at the end of your item of inquiry and see what you get. Practically anything you can think of will be good for you, but somewhere in the article it will say "in moderation". Currently the only things I have found that were not studied to be good for you are :
-Anal sex with Adolf Hitler's corpse
-Bill O'Reilly's grandmother's cat
-Turning the lights on and off until the bulb blows
-... ... ...

Okay, it will actually be a long list. It could practically turn into a Cantor Set of sorts (i.e. for every positive element to your health in moderation will correspond to something not yet studied to be good for your health... ad infinitum). But we could easily break up each inquiry into smaller parts and test them. Anal sex is good for you in moderation (at least no negative effects). And so are corpses (i.e. organ transplants and medical experiments). But Adolf Hitler has been found to not be good for your health (if you're not of the white Christian Aryan race)... so the first can be concluded as a NO / MAYBE. Bill O'Reilly, grandmothers, and cats have found to have positive effects on health (so says Bill O'Reilly). So YES(?) Lights either on or off have positive effects to your health in moderation. Blown light bulbs have yet to have been tested, so the third is inconclusive.

The point here is that common sense has turned into an imperative authorization to continue to do the things we love. Men like to masturbate. We just do. Recent scientific evidence has shown that sperm start to deform after 36-48 hours and will, therefore, have difficulty in getting to egg. Masturbation allows males to get rid of the old sperm and generate fresh new ones that are more capable for fertilizing an egg. Now we have an evolutionary excuse. But why do we need an excuse to masturbate? Why can't "I just felt like it" or "I was horny" or "I was bored" or "I just like to" be sufficient enough?

I like to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes, albeit more than moderately (by a long shot). But the next time someone tells me why I should quite smoking or not drink coffee I can always throw at them medical evidence of how it is good for you in moderation. That's the point of all this "medical evidence" : to authorize every decision we make that can be scrutinized for their negativity. We haven't come very far in our ways of progress (whatever that means). Before the gods had to tell us what was good or bad. Then came the kings, emperors, Caesars, and Popes. Now we have scientist and their medical evidence. Why can't we just do the things we enjoy and accept the costs of having a bit of fun and pleasure without authorization from any but ourselves?

"I'm willing to take seven years off my life in order to not sound like one of you whiny non-smokers."
~Bill Hicks

"I'm not a Communist. I believe in community oriented societies."

Even after Daniel Tosh poked fun at anyone who says, "I'm not religious. I'm spiritual," in which he remarks, "I'm not a liar, but you're interesting," people still say it. Likewise, with the current trend of communal social orientation people are arguing for a denouncement of individualism and for the propagation of concern for the community; simply because the whole is always stronger than the individual.

I can't count the number of times in which that argument has been proposed in architecture / urbanism discussions amongst friends and peers (though the number is probably rather small). One of these arguments occurred the other night, more or less (thank you for discussion, by the way kiddo). So here is my retort forever (and by forever I mean for as long as I care to be concerned) : "Move to China! They are community oriented and denounce individualism. Your concept is not new. It's called Communism, and to your delight it is a very successful system. In fact, that is where the word 'Communism' comes from : community."

Really what is being argued for is that we should all live in communes or live under Communistic rule. Of course, in our Socialist-Democratic nation we see Communism as a negative, usually because of Hitler and Stalin. But Communism is a very successful system, and I say that based on evidence. Now, usually people say something like : "Well, it works well on paper, but doesn't work in practice." Well if that isn't the truth with everything, then I don't know what is. A circle has an infinite number of angles in mathematical theory, but in reality it has a finite, though very large number of angles, which is the result of Planck's Constant (the smallest measurement due to the materialization of quanta particles).

No, Communism does work in reality, and there are some good examples. Communism is the most basic and primitive form of governance, and it is common in the animal kingdom. For instance, ant colonies are a Communistic rule. The queen ant is little more than a slave for breeding. The warrior ants are even less useful, usually being sluggish and don't really do any fighting (which is done by the workers). The drones do little more than breed with the queen. It is the worker ants that rule the colony. They have a very successful caste system that is dynamic amongst the individual ants, but is constant amongst the group. It is the workers that propagate the success of the colony, and queen takes little credit for anything. Bees have a very similar social caste / governance system.

With mammals the situation changes dramatically, because mammals usually have fewer numbers than ants and bees. But the concept is still similar. There is usually a leader with primates and beasts. The leader's reign is always subjective to his generosity towards the group. Once the leader becomes tyrannical, usually another male will challenge his authority. But, of course, the workers can always leave the leader, which is why amongst primates the leader tries to help out a lot (also, he usually does this because if he does a lesser subject a favor, then that subject must be faithful to him as payment for the favor). Of course, each system is different, and I am greatly over generalizing here only because it's not necessary to get detailed.

Regardless, Communism does work in practice. The only thing is that it doesn't work well with humans, because of our lust for power, and with that more power. I personally favor individualism, but that is another account. Really the point of this post is : just say it like it is. If you want Community-oriented societies, then just say Communism and move to China.

Your Old Road Is Rapidly Agin'

Welcome to the technology generation, and an era of social connectivity. Now, right there someone might say that technology has greatly disconnected social interaction. But this could not be further from the truth. It's just that the old farts do not want to get out of the new road because they can't lend a hand.

The argument I am accustom to goes a little something like this : "Children just sit inside and play on the computer... they don't go outside and play in the neighborhood with other children. No one meets in the public square anymore on a lovely spring afternoon to chat with a lifelong friend... they'd rather do work in a Starbucks." It's not like they are being antisocial. Humans are social creatures and we won't let something as silly as walking to California stop us from interacting with someone in LA.

Nothing in the ways of social interaction has changed, only the form in which interaction takes place has changed. Rather than children playing cops and robbers over at Jimmy and Sally's house, they play WoW and kill monsters with Jinn in Korea and Hansel in Germany. But what a double standard youths of this era face, they are told to get off the computer and go play in the neighborhood... BUT, keep your cellphone (with GPS) on, and call your mother when you get to Jimmy's house, and make sure mother talks to his parents so she knows you're not lying and out doing drugs behind the Kroger where men in vans with candy might kidnap, rape and kill you and leave you bound in electrical tape on the side of Highway 17. And be back before 5:30 or mother will have to call every parent in the neighborhood to find out where you are!

When I grew up I could go anywhere in the neighborhood and my parents didn't have to know where I was or what I doing, so long as I was back by dinner. My mother used to tell me how she would ride her bike into another county, and didn't have to tell my grandparents where she was so long as she was back by sundown.

Technology has allowed social interaction to take on a whole new dynamic form, as it always has. I can express this with a little mathematical endeavor. Let's say I had to have social intercourse with someone in California, but I live in Boston. Thousands of years ago I would have had to walk, which would have taken about 3 months to have this little social interaction. We can call this distance with respects to it's time to transverse that distance A. Upon the advent of the car it only took 3 days to drive to California. Now the distance didn't change, but the time to transverse that distance has. Now in a 3 month interval with the car I can travel approximately 30A (or 30 times that of walking). Now that we have internet and cellphones, I can just conference call someone in California and instantly start talking. The distance is still the same, but the boundary of time is extended way further. We can now say the cellphone provides GA, where G is a finite number, but very large number (since G would be based on radio waves, so our distance of time boundary would be 3 light months).

The problem isn't the technology. It's that the older generations don't want to see the world change. Technology allows us to extend boundaries and create social interactions in new ways, and most of them would have been impossible back in the golden days (whatever that means). Seriously, I would had to pay hundreds of dollars to fly to California, book a hotel room, rent a car, and purchase tickets for a TED conference if the golden days were still in effect. Thankfully they are not. Now I can chill out, eat a bowl of cereal in my bath robe while I watch it for FREE on the internet. Forget the golden days.

Now of course there are going to be drawback (everything has a drawback), namely that children can become exposed to violence and porn on the internet, and think that that is the way things actually are... that is why there are parents around. If a child really thinks women like to be bound and gagged with a 12 inch black rubber dildo, then what does that tell us about the parents? But, then again, how is it any different from children finding where their buddy's dad keeps his vibrators and graphic porno magazines are stashed at?

Of course, how are children suppose to grow up without being given the chance to be wrong, to be hurt, or to experience tragedy? The greatest tragedy that could occur would be if there were no tragedies at all. What a naive and depraved society we would be.

Social interaction... only not with the person next to you :

Sorry, Something Came Up... Can We Reschedule The Apocalypse?

Several times throughout history - well it's more like a biannual event - a new prediction for the end of the world is forged. A more recent one put forth is 21 May 2011, so says the Christian Group, and they are dead certain of this. But, of course, if that fails to occur, then we can look forward to 21 December 2012, because the Mayan calendar says so.

I find it rather ironic that Christians, of all faiths, would actually persecute, murder, enslave, ravage, pillage, burn, and other atrocities against other religions for centuries... but when their own text doesn't give an exact time for the Armageddon alarm clock, they look to other religions (ones they usually have persecuted) for possible dates of the Apocalypse. "But the Mayan Calender ends on December 21st 2012!" ... ... Well my clock ends at midnight, but that's doesn't mean the world will end. It just means it is tomorrow. The reasons the Mayan probably made their calender to extend several thousand years into the future than they could possibly have anticipate was probably to avoid any unforeseen mistakes... like forgetting to add two extra digits into computer clocks when Y2K rolls around.

But aside from all that, what is the biggest concern about the anticipation of the Apocalypse is not the Apocalypse itself. Deep down, what is really the problem is that we as a species, a world culture made from multiple subcultures, and as an evolutionary phenomenon are so miserable we want everything to die.

Is life so miserable that the duration of our individual lives has to turn into a litany for mass death? Is existence that pathetic and painful that if you have to die, everything else must go as well?

The most amazing thing that Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, and any other Messiah could ever do is to actually come back, dance around for a while, and then leave. No great wars or mass famine... just them telling us that it was all one big joke and we all need to get along.