I Did It For The LULZ!

So, recently one of my cousins wrote on his Facebook about the hacker group ANONYMOUS. What he was referring to was when they hacked an FBI website. This website the FBI created and asked anyone who could hack it, and that if they could the FBI would pay them a large sum of money and give them a job. ANONYMOUS hacked it and wrote "I did it for the LULZ", meaning they only hacked it for kicks and didn't want the money or the job. My cousin pointed out in his posting that the "LULZ" didn't have anything to do with LOL cats.

At first, I thought he was simply making an odd observation. But it then occurred to me that he is of the generation that has accepted "lol" as a legitimate word, and does not quite understand it's etymology. 

I was about 13 when "lol" was being used frequently on IM. I actually remember when I first came across this acronym I had to ask what it meant. It wasn't until I was about 15 that I heard people people say in everyday conversation "l-o-l" (i.e. spelling it out) And it wasn't until I was about 19 when I heard people simply saying "lol" (i.e. as in "lull"). He's about 14 years old (I think), which means he was about 3 years old when that term was beginning to gain momentum in usage.

For someone who studies word roots, etymology, and linguistics for kicks (or for the lols), I simply find this amazing. This is the birth of an actual word, no matter the vulgarity. Who knows how long that word may survive until found archaic or is corrupted (as lulz is a corruption of lols). And for someone who spends a good chuck of his research dedicated to the origin of things (namely architecture and the architect), it is amazing to actually experience the origin of something as simple as a word, rather than just reading about it in the dictionary. And just so we are clear here, on March 24th, 2011 the term "lol" was added into the Oxford Dictionary. Welcome to the Internet Meme generation. Get used to it Baby Boomers.

I particularly enjoy their reference of a possessed man (I suppose a "trolled" or "hacked" man) in Mark 5 : 9...

Tell Me Mr. Frank Gehry, Do You Hate Architecture Now?

I believe I'm not the only one who is beginning to wonder if Frank Gehry hates architecture. This is why I am dubbing him the new Mies van der Rohe.

Van der Rohe was one of those architects that changed the language of architecture, much the way Gehry introduced new forms for architectural consideration in design. One looks at Mies's early career and finds several very exciting projects of his. Two of my favorite buildings of all time are the Tungendhat House and the Barcelona Pavilion. The usage of materials in planar simplicity contribute so much to spatial definition and sensuality. Even the Seagram Tower is rather extraordinary, although simple (and today superfluous due to Miesian followers), it is still intriguing in its usage of that liquor-brown glass, as well as the detailing. Then comes Mies's later career, like the Martin Luther King Library in D.C. and the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin... especially the Neue Nationalgalerie. It is really like he hates architecture by that point : it's just one big roof (about 14 feet deep, I believe) on 8 columns on the outside of the building (not at the corners) on a pedestal. No interior columns, no playful spatial definition through materiality. Nope, just a big roof on some columns, enclosed in glass. In fact, the roof was constructed on the ground, the columns attached at hinges, and the whole thing was lifted up and locked into place... ... he definitely hated architecture by that point.

Gehry's New World Center in South Beach, Miami is quite the same story. It's just a big white box with some glass walls, and with some curves thrown in here and there. Just like his proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial in D.C., it's like the man doesn't even try anymore. The Eisenhower Memorial looks like he just passed it off to his interns. Some would say he is maturing... that or he hates architecture.

So this is what architecture has turned into : just pass everything off to the interns and hope that somehow you still will win an award and end up in Architectural Record (i.e. Hadid), just because you were awesome at the beginning of your career. If it's all about the press coverage and awards, then architecture needs a serious rebirth. If it isn't dead, then the contractors will kill it no time.

Wasn't architectural supposed to remind of something eternal, like, oh, I don't know, the awesome things humans can build? Rather than these mere trifles of effort?

No seriously, this the Eisenhower Memorial proposal for D.C. :

When Will The Truth Be More Common Than Falsities?

I attended a little party of my neighbor's last night and I found myself correcting false statements that are deemed to be common "truths". And I just have to ask myself, how long is our culture going to continue passing on bad information? This is more or less how the conversation went :

Man : You will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Me : That's not true. If you have flies, more will go for a bowl of vinegar than a bowl of honey.
Man (speaking to a girl) : Really? We should do an experiment on that. You have flies at your place don't you?
Girl 1 : No, I have bacteria. [Who doesn't have bacteria?] But the bacteria would probably go for the honey rather than the vinegar, just because vinegar is sour, fermented, and pretty much a foul wine.
Me : That's not true either. Honey is anti-bacterial. Actually the Ancient Egyptians used to use honey to disinfect wounds of injured builders of the Pyramids.
Girl 2 : Why would the Egyptian's care about the health and care of their slaves? Aren't they slaves? Not that I'm arguing that slaves should not get healthcare.
Me : Slaves didn't build the Pyramids. Egyptians built the Pyramids. Funerary structures like the Pyramids were very sacred and were the means for the living to commune and interact with the dead, the afterlife, immortality, salvation, and Eternity itself. Why would they let slaves touch those? No, Egyptians built the Pyramids.

I left shortly after. And I realize that this is not the first time I have encountered people believing something to be common knowledge because it is stated in some parable, analogy, phrase, or metaphor. And I just wonder, when will we stop passing on bad information? When we all start taking the time to find out if something is fact or fiction, instead of just accepting what is said as fact. For instance, the rumor that Mona Lisa was a prostitute because she has no eyebrows. When, in fact, she has no eyebrows because during a restoration of the painting in the 1950s the eyebrows were wiped off with a watercolor solvent.

The thing is, some people so readily accept anything as fact when it sounds convincing, which is so easy to take advantage of. I once told someone that the word woman comes from "woe to man", which he then took me seriously and passed on the information. I had to inform him later that that was an etymology joke in the 19th Century. Women comes from wymen, an alteration of wyfman, which was a contraction of wyf of man or "wife of man". This probably why most a lot of people ask me for citations for everything I say.

The truth is out there. Don't listen to me.

Women Rule The World... Get Used To It

Women rule the world, so get used to it. Now When I say "get used to it", I mean women need to get used to it. Men are getting used to it, if not completely so.

I don't think women understand the amount of influence and power they hold today. Seriously. Women hold high positions in the workplace, receive higher wages than ever, and have an immense influence in politics. And even with wages, women complain they don't receive equal pay. Of course, there are some excuses men can come up with why that is so, such as maternity leave, supposed "sick days" on a monthly cycle, and so forth. But female CEOs and bosses will make the same excuses for why they don't give equal pay to women.

The fact of the matter is that the world we live in today was built by men. I'll say it again, men built this world. Commerce, economy, politics, religion, science, any kind of -ology, art, architecture, written language, mathematics, school, the workplace environment, factories, et cetera... all built by men. That is because men are biologically the most useless creatures, save for about five seconds out of their whole lives (i.e. when men plant their seed into the womb, to put it nicely). Women raise, nurse, feed, accompany, and support the children, not mention hauling another human life form around for nine months, followed by painful labor. Men don't really do much else. So, in order to contribute men built a world full of biologically useless things for them to fill their time with (like philosophy, art, politics) in order to "contribute" to the rearing of a child.

But of course women wanted in on this action as well. Consider Cleopatra always trying to weasel her way into the Roman Empire's imperial ruling of the Caesars. Or just think about the old proverb "Behind every great man there's a great woman." Women ran the household, so of course women dictated a part of every man's life.

Socrates once said : "If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." True to speak. Men had to find a way to get away from their wives every once in a while. So they invent things like philosophy, so they can say "Don't bother me. I'm thinking." And if that wasn't enough, men created fraternal secret societies, which, of course, women want in on now (even though they have the Eastern Star).

Women don't even have to obey their husbands anymore, which was a sort of rule that has been so ingrained in our culture that it deserves mentioning. There is a lot of fuse over the fact that Kate Middleton didn't make a vow to Prince William to obey him. What did you expect? This is is the 1850's anymore! Female senators, female governors, female presidential candidates (and future presidents), female Speakers of the House... There is a silly post-it note pack at my work that says : "If men rule the world, then why do they wear ties?" Well it's a damn good question considering men don't rule the world anymore. Maybe a woman could answer that one for us men.

And yet the feminists rant on, claim oppression and mistreatment, which, of course, exists; but women beating their husbands exists as well. Women just need to get used to the fact that they rule the world (and if not totally, then totally in a few decades). Get used to it, then shut up.

"We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really what we need."
~Tyler Durden

 

Jesus : Lost In Space

Recently a friend sent me proof of Hell's existence (and therefore Heaven's existence) via a thermodynamic proof given by a student. Albeit this is an urban legend (see Snopes), it does raise some interesting aspects about religion and proof of the unknown.

It seems that ever since Copernicus we have been trying to justify religious text as actual fact, when, point in fact, they are not. How could they be? I'll give that fictitious student's "proof" some credit, as it is a rather ingenious fallacy that left me speechless. But really, there can be no Hell, at least not in the three-layered universe of the Bible. Of course, we know that the center of the earth is very hot; hot as hell. But religious fanatics try to use suspicious evidence like the legendary well dug in Siberia, that unveiled ("apocalypse"?) the screams of thousands of souls. Later Satan himself popped out of the hole to challenge someone to a fiddle match. Of course, this hoax is widely credited as literal proof of Hell's existence.

And just as a side note : aren't Christians being rather Pagan by using the name "hell"? The term "hell" comes from the Norse "Hel", who was the daughter of Loki and the Giantess, and is Queen of the Underworld (equivalent of the Greek Hecate and Persephone). She is half dead, and half alive, and very, very evil. Why didn't they just keep calling it Sheol like the Jews had been?

Nevertheless, it seems that in an age of science that religions need actual proof of things that are supposed to be based on faith anyway. Since the universe has become more and more understood in the past couple century, there really is no place left for God to hide, now is there? Now we start to say that God and Heaven (and Hell) are in another dimension... really? (Or with the Mormons God lives on another planet called Kolob). Where does it talk about parallel dimensions in the Bible / Koran / Torah? Enoch (great-grandfather of Noah) claimed Heaven was just beyond the Fixed Stars (being the celestial dome in which the stars revolve on). And since the Book of Enoch is non-canonical, we have to rely on Genesis, which gives a very brief and highly vague image of the universe. I can only imagine what Galileo was thinking when arguing with some Biblical scholars over these few vague sentences.

Well what if Heaven is just outside the confines of this universe-fish bowl we live in? Well, if that's true, then we have other problems. Two-thousand years ago Jesus died, went to Hell (wherever that is), then came back, danced around for a while, then ascended into Heaven. Since we are relying on evidence (which is often twisted to suit the purpose of whoever), nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. NOTHING. And note, this was a physical ascension, i.e. his body went with him. That must have been incredibly painful (more so than being crucified) if he was going the speed of light. If he was going the speed of light, then he is only about 1500 light years outside the Milky Way (assuming he went outwards perpendicular to the galactic disc. If not, then he is still in the galaxy), which means he is still in proximity of the galaxy. And the universe is about 18.4 billions old, and expands faster than the speed of light (which is not particle travel, and therefore does not violate relativity). The edge of the observable universe is about 47 billions light years away from us. 47,000,000,000 ly - 2,000 ly = 46,999,998,078 ly... Jesus has some distance to cover. Especially since it is still expanding, which means it will take longer than 47 billion years.

Quite frankly, if Jesus was going the speed of light, no one in the Bible ever gave any description indicating redshift. Which means he couldn't have been going that fast.

And you can't argue that Jesus is special and break laws of relativity because he is divine. If he was divine, then you cannot use your silly proof of some cloth with blood from Mary that got there from when the Holy Spirit impregnated her (see Bill Maher's Religuous). If there was proof, it wouldn't be divine.

"The Virgin Birth has nothing to do with biology. The Promise Land has nothing to do with real estate. The apocalypse is not a physical event. They are states of conscious being."
~Joseph Campbell

The Apocalypse : Death By Technical Error

What a sick day and age we live in, where we find life so dull and miserable that we want everything to just die. Although, I conjecture that the origins of the idea of the apocalypse was derived from a mystical understanding of cosmogonic causality, that seems to no longer be the case. The ancients understood patterns in the heavens, as well as on earth, and found a correlation between the two. In addition they realized that all things have a beginning, and with that, all things have an end. Therefore, an end must come for all of existence at some point. Since the end of all of existence would be a very grand thing, there might be signs of it in the heavens, just as we can predict the coming of a comet or the rise of the Nile from certain aspects in the skies.

Today, sadly, we assume the end must be nigh on account of a technical error. Y2K was thought to be the end of everything because of how computer clocks were programmed. Essentially, to save byte space the first two digits of the year were negated. So when 2000 rolled around the computers would think it was 1900, and vast quantities of data would be erased and credit cards would be screwed, and a bunch of other stuff. Wow, two missing digits could cause the end of all things. I don't know what chaos theory has to say about that, but somehow the butterfly simply created a hurricane on its own. The same is true for the an upcoming apocalypse date in the year 2038, because the UTC in Unix will run out of digits and revert back to 0, and will be much like Y2K.

The same can be said for the Mayan calendar, which simply ends December 23, 2012. Though it never occurs to anyone that the Mayan calendar begins something like 3000 years before the calendar was actually created. It seems that they would make the calendar last for sometime, and if they last long enough to see it end, then they probably would have made a new one (just like how every year we make a new calendar). But no! They ran out of digits, that means it's the end of all life and existence as we know it! O, that this too too solid flesh would melt! Woe is me!

Technical errors do not indicate the end of anything. Considering time and space can swap places within the second event horizon of a black hole, it seems pretty solid that the end of time would not have a causal relation to humans forgetting to put in a few extra digits.

It's a bit like the Witch King of Angmar (lead of the Nazgul) in Lord of the Rings, who dies by a technicality. He says no man can kill him. But, of course, Eowyn is a woman, which means she can kill him. Perfect! Problem solved! Find a loop hole in causality and duration and abolish everything! (Of course, I think the Witch King was just pompous so that no man would actually attempt to kill him, which is another matter).

Technology won't save us. Much less kill us. Technical errors won't do the trick either. I suppose we'll just have to see if the Nemesis Theory is correct in about 12,000 years. That, or wait until 4,500,000,000 CE when then sun swells and swallows Mercury, Venus, more than likely Earth, and possibly Mars.

To Save Them All From The Nothing

Mythology just so happens to be a subject I enjoy dearly. And even if one doesn't enjoy reading the tales of Orpheus, or the Mysteries of Eleusis, or Marduk and Tiamat, the Bhagavad Gita, or Poem Edda... none the less many of us are still familiar with these stories. It is something similar to knowing Roman myths, but not knowing Greek myths. Essentially, Roman myths are Greek with the names changed. In fact, Joseph Campbell claims that all myths are the same myth (what James Joyce called "monomyth") with "different costumes". This is much the same idea Jung had in mind with the Collective Unconscious.

Since we live in another time with different social norms, not many people today are familiar with a lot of history's rich mythologies across the globe. I would simply like to give some examples of how ancient myths are still alive today in our movies. In fact, it is a bit difficult to determine if any movies or stories today (characters, places, and plot alike) are not based on some mythological archetype.

One of my favorite examples is the movie Donnie Darko, which is heavily rooted in the tale of Faust (specifically Goethe's Faust). Of course, the story of Faust is based on the Book of Job, where Satan (meaning "Adversary") acts as God's right hand and prosecutes Job, as Mephistopheles does with Faust. Faust ultimately receives special powers from Mephistopheles, wins the heart of a woman he falls in love with, Gretchen, by selling his soul. Faust often blasphemes, as Donnie Darko does. Donnie also receives special powers (superhuman strength, control over water and fire, and telekinesis - see the director's cut), and wins the heart of a girl he falls for named Gretchen. In both cases Gretchen is not her real name. Donnie must follow Frank as Faust followed Mephisto. Both Faust and Donnie's deal with the devil leads to the death of their Gretchens. Both Gretchens eventually are redeemed, while Faust and Donnie are not saved.

Jaws is another fine example, as it parallels Marduk's battle with Tiamat. In the Enuma Elish Marduk battles with the evil creator Tiamat for dominion over the world (which was nothing but an ocean of chaos). Marduk uses the many winds to slay Tiamat by throwing a wind into her mouth, which renders her unable to close her maw. Then throws another wind into her mouth to slay her. Jaws parallels this when the Sheriff puts an oxygen tank in the shark's mouth, causing the shark to not be able to close its mouth. Then he shoots the tank to blow it up. One may consider this to be a stretch, but I can assure you that Stephen Spielberg is a very well read director, and heavily influenced by mythology. I would not doubt the Enuma Elish inspired him.

A more recent example is the TV show Lost, which amongst drawing from myths of Mesopotamia, Ilium, Greece, Japan, and Germania, considerably relies on the Bible, primarily the Old Testament. In my experience Christians don't know their own holy book very well, and yet the same stories appeared on a major television show, which they are not aware of. I'll focus on one part (as there are many archetypes in Lost). In the last season Jacob is revealed as the heir and protector of the Island. Jacob has a younger twin brother, whom he slays and is later turned into a monstrous entity, which takes the form of black smoke. This twin brother of Jacob is never named, but is simply called the Monster. The Biblical Jacob also had a twin brother, named Esau (which is the name I use for the black smoke in Lost). In the Bible Esau was the firstborn, but traded his birthright to Jacob for some red pottage to sell. In doing so Jacob was entitled to the inheritance of the firstborn. Jacob and his mother, Rebekah, plotted to cheat Esau even further. And so there was a lot bitter rivalry between the twins. Esau declared that one day he would kill Jacob. This, of course, parallels considerably with Lost, as Esau claims he will kill Jacob, Jacob and his adopted mother plot to deceive Esau, and such. Furthermore is the characteristics of the Biblical twins to the show. Esau is Hebrew for "hairy" or "rough", as the character in Lost has facial hair, is a bit haggard, and dark haired. Jacob on the other hand is blond and never has facial hair. It may also be important to note that the Island is a kind of earthly paradise where miracles occur. A Promise Land, if you will. Jacob in the Bible is later named Israel once he makes peace with his brother (you can make the inference from here).

Certainly there are many more examples, which I could spend the rest of my life searching for. I have probably already written a post on this subject before. But I would like to illustrate a little something about the Nothing. One of my favorite songs by Blind Guardian is "Imaginations From The Other Side", which is often considered a ballad to all the great myths and fairy tales. I believe it is about The Neverending Story. The plot of The Neverending Story is to save all the fairy tales and myths from The Nothing, because no one is interested in imagination and fantasy anymore. Point in fact, in our day and age all these stories are saved from the Nothing, but in the disguise of another story. This may only be another variation of the Collective Unconscious, or simply the result of educated storytellers who retell Romeo and Juliet in a contemporary setting, or Marduk through a battle with a shark, or the story of Ezekiel through a repo man and the Chariots of Fire as a radioactive flying car, or the tale of Adam and Eve with the Fruit of Knowledge through a bunch of primitive apes and a black monolith.

Times change, people die, but our stories will always remain.