Hello people,
I would like to write now the first chapter of Cyclus, but my head did not find a way to begin the story yet. And I need to read more and practice a bit my writing before writing something bigger than 5 pages long. I must finish Dracula, Terry Pratchet's Guards and Charles Dickens's Great Expectations.
Btw, Charles Dickens is the best writer I can think of. I was always averse to reading his books, but I overcame my aversion to my great satisfaction. If you like adventure or stories that really drag you into it, read it. Mostly because each character is realistic, you can feel them and they seem alive. Sometimes more alive than you wanted them to be.
Great Expectations is the first novel to feature 2 endings... I will not go into details, read it if you will!
Sometimes I am asked of how my time in Germany was and I give some random answer not really worth the question. I thought some of you might be interested in my deep and official answer to the question, hosted by the Universitaet Ulm:
http://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/io/INC_Exchange_Reports/Informatik/BR_Sao-Paulo_U-de-Sao-Paulo_2007_DV.pdf
Friday, December 4, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Cyclop's Disease
Long ago, was sometimes heard that someone got the Cyclop's disease. Some books relate about people being brought outside of cities and condemned to remain in exile.
But details about the circunstances had always been hidden since then. Some people used to believe that this disease appears very suddenly and brings its host to madness and that was also the cause of panic in cities by that time when someone was caught. People just thought it might be contagious.
With the time, people with that disease was painted with one big eye and a monstruous body, meaning that its host was indeed transformed in some strange creature. But although this interpretation got mainstream, it is not likely to be true, because books before that date had never cited any mention of a transformed body. And such ocurrences should not be possibly hidden from people that easy.
What was really interesting was that although different, the stories agreed that these people lived alone and that they were different from the most common ones, although they failed to provide a common justification for that fact.
This was when we found the book of Geneha, because it was not a normal book. It may have the same appearance, it may have the same materials and properties. For it was written in the same manner as the others, but its writer was different in all ways. Because he was a Cyclop himself.
And I should say my reader, that what lies in this book may have passed along generations and generations whithout notice. Not because the people did not know about it, but because the myth of a monstruous Cyclops with a big eye was much more interesting than the story of our exiled friend.
A friend that was by some night captured and taken to a montain far away from the city. Without explanations, but maybe not without reasons. Because the eyes may be the same of ours, but they can see much wider and far away.
His vision may be compared to the vision of kings, but people are not supposed to view with an eyes of a king, my reader. He writted that he could see every social mistake and could tell easily the future, his eye had the hability of seeing relations.
But his eye, he had written, was at the same time a curse. And he was not talking about his social situation, but about the power of a wild beast out of control. Because he saw the mistakes hidden in everything all the time, even when he does not want to. But nothing was more terrifying than being able to hide his own mistakes from himself. There is nowhere to run away from the eyes that sees everything.
And for one thing he agreed with all other histories, that is the fact of the disease being countagious. Because the Cyclop's Disease could be taught.
(this story is fictional for all purposes)
But details about the circunstances had always been hidden since then. Some people used to believe that this disease appears very suddenly and brings its host to madness and that was also the cause of panic in cities by that time when someone was caught. People just thought it might be contagious.
With the time, people with that disease was painted with one big eye and a monstruous body, meaning that its host was indeed transformed in some strange creature. But although this interpretation got mainstream, it is not likely to be true, because books before that date had never cited any mention of a transformed body. And such ocurrences should not be possibly hidden from people that easy.
What was really interesting was that although different, the stories agreed that these people lived alone and that they were different from the most common ones, although they failed to provide a common justification for that fact.
This was when we found the book of Geneha, because it was not a normal book. It may have the same appearance, it may have the same materials and properties. For it was written in the same manner as the others, but its writer was different in all ways. Because he was a Cyclop himself.
And I should say my reader, that what lies in this book may have passed along generations and generations whithout notice. Not because the people did not know about it, but because the myth of a monstruous Cyclops with a big eye was much more interesting than the story of our exiled friend.
A friend that was by some night captured and taken to a montain far away from the city. Without explanations, but maybe not without reasons. Because the eyes may be the same of ours, but they can see much wider and far away.
His vision may be compared to the vision of kings, but people are not supposed to view with an eyes of a king, my reader. He writted that he could see every social mistake and could tell easily the future, his eye had the hability of seeing relations.
But his eye, he had written, was at the same time a curse. And he was not talking about his social situation, but about the power of a wild beast out of control. Because he saw the mistakes hidden in everything all the time, even when he does not want to. But nothing was more terrifying than being able to hide his own mistakes from himself. There is nowhere to run away from the eyes that sees everything.
And for one thing he agreed with all other histories, that is the fact of the disease being countagious. Because the Cyclop's Disease could be taught.
(this story is fictional for all purposes)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The big problem we are all solving and we do not know
Last week I was traveling to meet my coordinator in another city, well it was just another day of sun and I was kind of sleepy, but something interesting occurred to me.
No, it was not another idea, it was a perception. Maybe one of the simplest ones, and the one that you just ignore after some days. You know, it is simple, so it is also simple to forget. But it may be very interesting and outstanding if took to the limits...
So let me tell what it was... I was trying to solve a artificial intelligence puzzle, just like I do everyday, hehe. But the problem was about an area of optimization (In fact I can prove that optimization and learning are very similar, but I will not do it today, it is boring and most of you guys should also think it is obvious), so I was just thinking in this direction and so on. Trying to figure out how to improve the minimal functions that are supposed to deal with creating a model of dependencies of variables. Ok I should have lost you know, but do not care about the exact meaning of those words, try to think what it represents for you. Something like "how does it feel" instead of "how does it work".
But in a minute I noticed that a minimal function of the optimization algorithm was a clustering algorithm, ok. No, wait! Clustering of pixels of images? No, of variables.
Ah, well seems the same... and it is. But wait... I was talking about optimization, and that lead me to use dependency of variables , what on the other hand need to have a clustering algorithm, what we can guess needs a... ? optimization? no... deliciously yes! =D
A recursive solution, nice, but this goes much far away, much more than I can understand now. There are places on social sciences talking about clustering and interpreting probabilistic models. Sometimes I am talking with a guy and I just realize that everything we were talking could be transferred in some simple logic puzzles. I know someday I will look at this post and dislike my ingenuity, but I will post this here anyway.
How far away it goes? Well, phylogenetic networks try to create groups that are minimally distant, what does it mean? Clustering! Learning is just an optimization of the minimum of errors. And it goes on my friend, not just with these algorithms, but with others. We are using things here, others are using things there. We are not related, but the things we use are.
What I mean is that we might be confronting, not only with a big theory of everything of the physics, we might have also a big theory of everything of the logic world.
And this logic world could be composed of simpler functions that builds everything. If that is not the case, at least it would help us a lot having a better system of integrating logic in science than the article's system do. You know, it might just be the case that we are stucked in a local optimum of development. Nah, too drastic. With all these people around we might get enough samples and we are developing faster than ever! But better?
What does I mean, well we might all be thinking that we are making better solutions, but we are in fact just limited by a interpretation of our problems. And the things that we solve today could just never be solved at all in these space of solutions of the functions we are using. Yes I am talking about Space of functions, not solutions. Reminds you the computational complexity theory? But I am talking about other similarities of the functions in logical terms not their complexity.
Distance between functions? Well... yes! Maybe it is not possible, maybe it is... who knows? Wait I think I know how... shit this is gonna be difficult to justify...
See you in the next monthly post (it seems to be following this rhythm really strict, hehe)
No, it was not another idea, it was a perception. Maybe one of the simplest ones, and the one that you just ignore after some days. You know, it is simple, so it is also simple to forget. But it may be very interesting and outstanding if took to the limits...
So let me tell what it was... I was trying to solve a artificial intelligence puzzle, just like I do everyday, hehe. But the problem was about an area of optimization (In fact I can prove that optimization and learning are very similar, but I will not do it today, it is boring and most of you guys should also think it is obvious), so I was just thinking in this direction and so on. Trying to figure out how to improve the minimal functions that are supposed to deal with creating a model of dependencies of variables. Ok I should have lost you know, but do not care about the exact meaning of those words, try to think what it represents for you. Something like "how does it feel" instead of "how does it work".
But in a minute I noticed that a minimal function of the optimization algorithm was a clustering algorithm, ok. No, wait! Clustering of pixels of images? No, of variables.
Ah, well seems the same... and it is. But wait... I was talking about optimization, and that lead me to use dependency of variables , what on the other hand need to have a clustering algorithm, what we can guess needs a... ? optimization? no... deliciously yes! =D
A recursive solution, nice, but this goes much far away, much more than I can understand now. There are places on social sciences talking about clustering and interpreting probabilistic models. Sometimes I am talking with a guy and I just realize that everything we were talking could be transferred in some simple logic puzzles. I know someday I will look at this post and dislike my ingenuity, but I will post this here anyway.
How far away it goes? Well, phylogenetic networks try to create groups that are minimally distant, what does it mean? Clustering! Learning is just an optimization of the minimum of errors. And it goes on my friend, not just with these algorithms, but with others. We are using things here, others are using things there. We are not related, but the things we use are.
What I mean is that we might be confronting, not only with a big theory of everything of the physics, we might have also a big theory of everything of the logic world.
And this logic world could be composed of simpler functions that builds everything. If that is not the case, at least it would help us a lot having a better system of integrating logic in science than the article's system do. You know, it might just be the case that we are stucked in a local optimum of development. Nah, too drastic. With all these people around we might get enough samples and we are developing faster than ever! But better?
What does I mean, well we might all be thinking that we are making better solutions, but we are in fact just limited by a interpretation of our problems. And the things that we solve today could just never be solved at all in these space of solutions of the functions we are using. Yes I am talking about Space of functions, not solutions. Reminds you the computational complexity theory? But I am talking about other similarities of the functions in logical terms not their complexity.
Distance between functions? Well... yes! Maybe it is not possible, maybe it is... who knows? Wait I think I know how... shit this is gonna be difficult to justify...
See you in the next monthly post (it seems to be following this rhythm really strict, hehe)
Friday, July 10, 2009
If people got high with Science...
If people got high with science, we would not have to build schools. Parties would be named and divided by their intellectual personality.
Hospitals would make campaigns to decrease overwork cases. Which indeed would not be named overwork, but overdose.
Well, all this would last until the next generation grow and think it is outdated to live this way. And so, science would be forgotten and school would have to be build to force people to learn.
And that is when nobody would ever learn anymore.
Hospitals would make campaigns to decrease overwork cases. Which indeed would not be named overwork, but overdose.
Well, all this would last until the next generation grow and think it is outdated to live this way. And so, science would be forgotten and school would have to be build to force people to learn.
And that is when nobody would ever learn anymore.
Friday, May 29, 2009
The rational World
The world is getting very interesting these days.
There are the social democratic countries with a more flat economy facing debt problems, mainly with pensions (Medicare, a federal health-care programme in USA, will run out of cash by 2017).
There is China showing what humans can do when they want development. China is supposed to be masking its growth index, so it could be growing faster than expected. The power of the government in China is similar to Venezuela, but one should not confuse the ancient dragon culture of kung fu with a newborn culture. The people in China give a strong power to the government, who did very well under the circunstances. But there are much poverty to face yet.
Brazil is dancing, not that it is a bad thing, but it ever was this way. A newborn culture built upon fear and desire, because most of the people came in the "promised land" running away from world war or wishing to get rich. But no matter what the people came here to do, even if it was a nice beautiful thing like building the "promised land", it would never be anything like a "promised land". Because there are much problems to solve, morals to develop and solutions to accept. And people are always wanting to have the best possible life without changing anything they believe. Do not ask me how did we prove that we are rationals, maybe it was an axiom.
Latin America, like most of the newborn countries, face strong social problems and solve these problems with something more simple that only makes the problems scale. The economy seems to be the unique saint (in the point that the enterprises mind the future and have a culture of development), but in a land of evil, the saint becomes evil.
People are facing the normal problems of a new capitalism in the 3rd world. And China will likely not be part of the 3rd world by 2050. But the government must solve the economic inequality there by this time and I do think less moral and intellectual barriers should be up (they will not need it, but I think it will be very difficult to dissolve or change this power structure, even if they want it).
Strong religous countries are walking slowly. They have something more than just the greed as a motivation for their lives and this at the same time that let them deal with their situation also makes everything difficult to change.
The most reasonable political country seems to be Netherland, but this could be just a consequence of being probably in an advanced stage of capitalism. Because by 17th century and 18th century, the Dutch were arguably the most economically wealthy and scientifically advanced of all European nations.
If you do not believe that the capitalism has stages of development, then take a look at the victorian time and compare it with Europe now. If you consider what was said by Marx about the capitalism, check that Marx have lived during the Victorian Era and have saw a capitalism in its puberty. Notice that the same problems seen by Marx happen now at the 3rd countries and check that the Economic Inequality of Europe (what generate the strong classisist divisions) is low.
The idea of capitalism stages came from a economic book, but when I asked about the development of capitalism once, the economists showed little to no interest.
Economists are reading too much math equations and less history these days. This is why people are getting all surprises from a natural emergent human phenomena. Some argue that Finance is blinding, but I do not think so. Finance is well developed and interesting, but people should not think with 10 years of experience and complex equations they would be able to solve an emergent complex human equation that is capitalism. This would be very boring.
The world is happily a changeling place and as rational beings, we could not help but eager for the next problem to solve.
There are the social democratic countries with a more flat economy facing debt problems, mainly with pensions (Medicare, a federal health-care programme in USA, will run out of cash by 2017).
There is China showing what humans can do when they want development. China is supposed to be masking its growth index, so it could be growing faster than expected. The power of the government in China is similar to Venezuela, but one should not confuse the ancient dragon culture of kung fu with a newborn culture. The people in China give a strong power to the government, who did very well under the circunstances. But there are much poverty to face yet.
Brazil is dancing, not that it is a bad thing, but it ever was this way. A newborn culture built upon fear and desire, because most of the people came in the "promised land" running away from world war or wishing to get rich. But no matter what the people came here to do, even if it was a nice beautiful thing like building the "promised land", it would never be anything like a "promised land". Because there are much problems to solve, morals to develop and solutions to accept. And people are always wanting to have the best possible life without changing anything they believe. Do not ask me how did we prove that we are rationals, maybe it was an axiom.
Latin America, like most of the newborn countries, face strong social problems and solve these problems with something more simple that only makes the problems scale. The economy seems to be the unique saint (in the point that the enterprises mind the future and have a culture of development), but in a land of evil, the saint becomes evil.
People are facing the normal problems of a new capitalism in the 3rd world. And China will likely not be part of the 3rd world by 2050. But the government must solve the economic inequality there by this time and I do think less moral and intellectual barriers should be up (they will not need it, but I think it will be very difficult to dissolve or change this power structure, even if they want it).
Strong religous countries are walking slowly. They have something more than just the greed as a motivation for their lives and this at the same time that let them deal with their situation also makes everything difficult to change.
The most reasonable political country seems to be Netherland, but this could be just a consequence of being probably in an advanced stage of capitalism. Because by 17th century and 18th century, the Dutch were arguably the most economically wealthy and scientifically advanced of all European nations.
If you do not believe that the capitalism has stages of development, then take a look at the victorian time and compare it with Europe now. If you consider what was said by Marx about the capitalism, check that Marx have lived during the Victorian Era and have saw a capitalism in its puberty. Notice that the same problems seen by Marx happen now at the 3rd countries and check that the Economic Inequality of Europe (what generate the strong classisist divisions) is low.
The idea of capitalism stages came from a economic book, but when I asked about the development of capitalism once, the economists showed little to no interest.
Economists are reading too much math equations and less history these days. This is why people are getting all surprises from a natural emergent human phenomena. Some argue that Finance is blinding, but I do not think so. Finance is well developed and interesting, but people should not think with 10 years of experience and complex equations they would be able to solve an emergent complex human equation that is capitalism. This would be very boring.
The world is happily a changeling place and as rational beings, we could not help but eager for the next problem to solve.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Languages inside languages
Nowadays it is really easy to hear "developing critical professionals". What this simple phrase means is that the world is trying to bring people with opinions. They are motivating the discussions.
But what should be the meaning of that? They are surely not trying to develop personal fights, but rather to increase the exchange of information and reasoning. Some times it does happens, but when people from different cultures (what does not mean they are from different countries) come to talk, they rarely exchange information or do some reasoning. And the reason for that is that there are a bunch of different communication ways out there, that we could not see, but we sure feel.
For example, when talking to a criminal, you may found that the most important thing in the speech is to find a hierarchical position and maintain that. Anything that could broke that hierarchy in speech after it is have been established will undoubtedly bring only a fight. But if you keep that hierarchy in the talk, it could be very reasonable.
In a executive talk, it is almost the same. And in both kinds there are words that should and should not be used.
Can you imagine a executive talking like "fuck, do ya know what u've done boy?" or a criminal using difficult to understand words or too much politeness. But at a logical point of view their talks (criminal and executive), although opposites in some aspects have lot of equal characteristics, they are keeping the status in the speech.
An executive and a criminal will probably face problems while talking to each other, because they do not talk the same language.
A talk that would be very different is from a philosopher or from nerds. They also have some kind of fight inside their talk, but the essence of the talk is normally logical. The main point in the talk is the logical thought and everything is derived from it, even the status.
Aside from the cultural differences, there are also behavior characteristics. Some people like to talk loud, some get irritated with it. Some like to use flexible slangs others think it is too much inexact, some like to preserve a language pattern to show some status while others dislike status in speech, some like offensive charges in speech just like an army of arguments while others prefer to keep it calm, some get hurt personally others always consider talk a non personal thing.
With all these differences it is hard to imagine that people would have the same way of communicating, but the problem is, in what extent can they communicate and how this exchange takes place? Is it enough to discuss the subject?
Sometimes the answer is no. And in this world of languages inside languages there is just one way to talk, learn another language. And do not get me wrong, learning another language is not only memorizing words, it is more like understanding cultures and behaviors.
But what should be the meaning of that? They are surely not trying to develop personal fights, but rather to increase the exchange of information and reasoning. Some times it does happens, but when people from different cultures (what does not mean they are from different countries) come to talk, they rarely exchange information or do some reasoning. And the reason for that is that there are a bunch of different communication ways out there, that we could not see, but we sure feel.
For example, when talking to a criminal, you may found that the most important thing in the speech is to find a hierarchical position and maintain that. Anything that could broke that hierarchy in speech after it is have been established will undoubtedly bring only a fight. But if you keep that hierarchy in the talk, it could be very reasonable.
In a executive talk, it is almost the same. And in both kinds there are words that should and should not be used.
Can you imagine a executive talking like "fuck, do ya know what u've done boy?" or a criminal using difficult to understand words or too much politeness. But at a logical point of view their talks (criminal and executive), although opposites in some aspects have lot of equal characteristics, they are keeping the status in the speech.
An executive and a criminal will probably face problems while talking to each other, because they do not talk the same language.
A talk that would be very different is from a philosopher or from nerds. They also have some kind of fight inside their talk, but the essence of the talk is normally logical. The main point in the talk is the logical thought and everything is derived from it, even the status.
Aside from the cultural differences, there are also behavior characteristics. Some people like to talk loud, some get irritated with it. Some like to use flexible slangs others think it is too much inexact, some like to preserve a language pattern to show some status while others dislike status in speech, some like offensive charges in speech just like an army of arguments while others prefer to keep it calm, some get hurt personally others always consider talk a non personal thing.
With all these differences it is hard to imagine that people would have the same way of communicating, but the problem is, in what extent can they communicate and how this exchange takes place? Is it enough to discuss the subject?
Sometimes the answer is no. And in this world of languages inside languages there is just one way to talk, learn another language. And do not get me wrong, learning another language is not only memorizing words, it is more like understanding cultures and behaviors.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Identification
We begin our life by trying to imitate people, and soon enough we found ourselves in search for identification.
Which is quite straightforward (because it requires logically only classification and a heuristic judge system) and may be necessary for our existence as rational animals.
Identify in order to copy, to learn or to create an objective.
It seems to be a great tool for our understanding, but problems arisen when we use it to support ourselves. Because we are constantly unconsciously judging ourselves and others, but sometimes our heuristic judge system just use a social equation instead of an analytic one.
It is not in any way invalid to use a social equation, but it is very easily to fall false. For example, considering that a behavior done by most of the people is right could be acceptable, because it is faster than thinking analytically about the situation. But it is not always the case, for people behave not only scientifically and rationally, but culturally and socially.
And the cultural and social mean are susceptible to behaviors inclined to achieving a position socially or doing some other nuance that could be understandable and reasonable in a short period of time. But could be not exactly the best option and sometimes far from it.
The point is not that we should only act rationally, first because our human nature makes it nearly impossible to analytically solve all the situations present in our day to day activities. And second because we want to feel well (being happy because of a flower, game, job, sex, food, etc...). I will not enter into what does it means to feel happy, cause it is would demand more 2 pages at least, but rather only remember its necessity.
The science could leads us toward not only in materials but also culturally and socially. Because it uses an analytical thinking way that encompasses the culture and society. But relying only in science seems unnatural to beings that needs motivation as a key factor in their lives (not that any other rational being would exist without motivation, which seems to be a subjective trade off, but I will not discuss further).
It is not about excluding cultural and social things, but it is more like aggregating science in our cultural and social things. Without forgetting our emotions.
It is a long process, and we still have an outdated model of school. Even with all the research in the education field. No wonder, guiding emotions is a hard skill to learn. And sometimes just the obligation of going to school creates a barrier for learning in some children.
We are just complicated.
Which is quite straightforward (because it requires logically only classification and a heuristic judge system) and may be necessary for our existence as rational animals.
Identify in order to copy, to learn or to create an objective.
It seems to be a great tool for our understanding, but problems arisen when we use it to support ourselves. Because we are constantly unconsciously judging ourselves and others, but sometimes our heuristic judge system just use a social equation instead of an analytic one.
It is not in any way invalid to use a social equation, but it is very easily to fall false. For example, considering that a behavior done by most of the people is right could be acceptable, because it is faster than thinking analytically about the situation. But it is not always the case, for people behave not only scientifically and rationally, but culturally and socially.
And the cultural and social mean are susceptible to behaviors inclined to achieving a position socially or doing some other nuance that could be understandable and reasonable in a short period of time. But could be not exactly the best option and sometimes far from it.
The point is not that we should only act rationally, first because our human nature makes it nearly impossible to analytically solve all the situations present in our day to day activities. And second because we want to feel well (being happy because of a flower, game, job, sex, food, etc...). I will not enter into what does it means to feel happy, cause it is would demand more 2 pages at least, but rather only remember its necessity.
The science could leads us toward not only in materials but also culturally and socially. Because it uses an analytical thinking way that encompasses the culture and society. But relying only in science seems unnatural to beings that needs motivation as a key factor in their lives (not that any other rational being would exist without motivation, which seems to be a subjective trade off, but I will not discuss further).
It is not about excluding cultural and social things, but it is more like aggregating science in our cultural and social things. Without forgetting our emotions.
It is a long process, and we still have an outdated model of school. Even with all the research in the education field. No wonder, guiding emotions is a hard skill to learn. And sometimes just the obligation of going to school creates a barrier for learning in some children.
We are just complicated.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Ugly Beautiful
Why do people give children books with "cute" animals drawn? They are not similar to most of the real animals alive, making children think that the real animals are ugly. But do they really? Or is just the opposite? As Wolf Erlbruch says, most of the animals, humans and other things are not classically beautiful, but they sure are fascinating in their unique way of being.
How many times do we see people talking about beautiful patterns? And how much time do we spend talking about the unique way of the beings around us (humans, animals and so on)? Nobody seems proud of being strange in his own way or beautiful in his own way. But are they really happy of pursuing the classical beautiful pattern? Did they really want to be what they are now, or have they forgotten themselves a long time ago?
Difficult to see happiness in the face of a fat woman these days. Gays are just killed socially as Nazis have done with them for real. I am sure that if a gay could become a hetero he would, because there are places for a hetero kiss but no place for a homo kiss. What a Sadness to see lot of women using a cloth done for people with 50kg. Or seeing women getting really ugly to feel beautiful. Would not they be more beautiful if they accept themselves?
And what about the books? Have you seen what people buys for children nowadays?
Books where the hero achieves the objective without sacrifice, where the princess is found by a beautiful man or even wait for some miracle to change their live to better. But my simple question is, how does it tastes to win something without struggle? Even if the prize is great, how much value does a Porsche t
hat you have yourself sacrificed for and one that you received from your father for your 18th birthday have? We have the temptation of answering the question with the easy alternative, but do this really change the best answer? This is how our society is today, people prefer to give money to lottery (miracle) instead of saving it for an objective. There are no punishment for actions in these books, no great idea that saves someone, no struggle. Just an easy (boring) way of winning. Well if this is what we really want, it would be sad, cause we would be kind of empty.
I do not think we are, maybe some of us have only happened to not see the world by their own eyes. Because they were forced to copy a world model from society. But they could start figuring their own world out.
There will be always a marvelous universe, it is not the same of an hour ago and it is not the same as the one seen by another person, and sadly its stars receive a look only when there are fireworks.
Wolf Erlbruch, that I mentioned above, is a German illustrator that draws and writes books for children. Some of his illustrations are presented overall the text. There is also an article about him here (in German).
First Talk
Hello readers!
I know there are not much of you, if there are at all. But that does not matter for me, cause it is a space , as the tittle says, for the life's will. Thus, the fact of not having a public target, or readers does not matter to me.
What does not mean that the presence of readers will not make me happy. Because although I accept that this space is priceless (in the meaning of being so cheap or too expensive that I could not sell at all. The remaining unique logic way for me in this case is to give.) it is also very satisfying that are people out there interested in the things written here.
For these people, I am here writing this message and inviting them for a talk! Comment posts when you think you should, it does not matter for me the language. Since I can understand only portuguese, german and english. I would suggest these 3 languages, but if anyone would like to express himself/herself in his/her mother language, it will be very interesting to hear you all. Although I could not understand, I will be happy even if you write a "fuck you!" for me in your language.
Do not be afraid to say to me that I am wrong, that I am partial. I like to discuss and I do think a good discussion with lot of arguments is beautiful, interesting and useful. I pity the ones that think there is no reason to discuss when we have different meanings, when it is the opposite.
Well, this was meant to be a small post and I've already gotten carried away in some justifications and reasonings. :)
Pardon me, when I write too much agressive, because I know I am at times. It is not mean to hurt anybody. Although a little shaking will not hurt.
I tend to prepare some texts when I think they have to be well written, but I also write some texts without cleaning and post them raw. It is this mixture that makes my life and so it is here.
A good night for you all,
zweifel
I know there are not much of you, if there are at all. But that does not matter for me, cause it is a space , as the tittle says, for the life's will. Thus, the fact of not having a public target, or readers does not matter to me.
What does not mean that the presence of readers will not make me happy. Because although I accept that this space is priceless (in the meaning of being so cheap or too expensive that I could not sell at all. The remaining unique logic way for me in this case is to give.) it is also very satisfying that are people out there interested in the things written here.
For these people, I am here writing this message and inviting them for a talk! Comment posts when you think you should, it does not matter for me the language. Since I can understand only portuguese, german and english. I would suggest these 3 languages, but if anyone would like to express himself/herself in his/her mother language, it will be very interesting to hear you all. Although I could not understand, I will be happy even if you write a "fuck you!" for me in your language.
Do not be afraid to say to me that I am wrong, that I am partial. I like to discuss and I do think a good discussion with lot of arguments is beautiful, interesting and useful. I pity the ones that think there is no reason to discuss when we have different meanings, when it is the opposite.
Well, this was meant to be a small post and I've already gotten carried away in some justifications and reasonings. :)
Pardon me, when I write too much agressive, because I know I am at times. It is not mean to hurt anybody. Although a little shaking will not hurt.
I tend to prepare some texts when I think they have to be well written, but I also write some texts without cleaning and post them raw. It is this mixture that makes my life and so it is here.
A good night for you all,
zweifel
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Power's Nature
As anyone amazed by supernatural animes, mangas, marvel comics and the like. I came upon the the question about the nature of power.
Sometimes seen as a difficult thing to adquire in which the personage should fight and resist in a sequence of ideosincratic challenging events. A path, a process... of power!
Sometimes it is not really a path, but a gene, or money. Something brought by luck and not capacity, not even something to be proud of. A curse? A pact.
Superficially analyzing it, seems to be an easy and a difficult path to it. But, if you permit me, this is where the children's book stops. And it is nowhere near to grasp the real nature of power. The power that consumes so much the rich is the same as the one that consumes the hard worker. There is no good or evil in it. It is just the way it is, or in other words, it's the power's nature.
It constructs so much as it destroy, in a consuming cycle leading people to disgrace as much as it builds a peaceful fantasy realm.
There are nothing that it can not possess. In another words, it cannot possess the emptyness. But I assume, though there are little in there to possess.
The subtleties of power should not be forgotten, it is as illusory as it is misleading. Growing cities to be consumed by a disease, or as a empiror should have proven at the end of its life, being killed by a human when he always controlled armies. Ironic indeed.
The fairness is sometimes put in question, but there is nothing more fair than a change of power to bring an equilibrium. Wrong considerations lead people to think in power as a thing they own, cause it is often the other way around. And it seems to have the possibility to leave them when it well please.
Inside feelings, it blows and in a matter of seconds, it builds up. Where feeling capable is just the same as being capable, it ascend immensely in the hands of teenagers. There is nothing solid in it, you could be sure about it. But there is no doubt about his presence, cause everyone knows what people can do when they realize they can.
It is the brick with which the dreams are build. There is no need to fear it.
Rather ubiquitous matter, but it seeks merely to change.
Sometimes seen as a difficult thing to adquire in which the personage should fight and resist in a sequence of ideosincratic challenging events. A path, a process... of power!
Sometimes it is not really a path, but a gene, or money. Something brought by luck and not capacity, not even something to be proud of. A curse? A pact.
Superficially analyzing it, seems to be an easy and a difficult path to it. But, if you permit me, this is where the children's book stops. And it is nowhere near to grasp the real nature of power. The power that consumes so much the rich is the same as the one that consumes the hard worker. There is no good or evil in it. It is just the way it is, or in other words, it's the power's nature.
It constructs so much as it destroy, in a consuming cycle leading people to disgrace as much as it builds a peaceful fantasy realm.
There are nothing that it can not possess. In another words, it cannot possess the emptyness. But I assume, though there are little in there to possess.
The subtleties of power should not be forgotten, it is as illusory as it is misleading. Growing cities to be consumed by a disease, or as a empiror should have proven at the end of its life, being killed by a human when he always controlled armies. Ironic indeed.
The fairness is sometimes put in question, but there is nothing more fair than a change of power to bring an equilibrium. Wrong considerations lead people to think in power as a thing they own, cause it is often the other way around. And it seems to have the possibility to leave them when it well please.
Inside feelings, it blows and in a matter of seconds, it builds up. Where feeling capable is just the same as being capable, it ascend immensely in the hands of teenagers. There is nothing solid in it, you could be sure about it. But there is no doubt about his presence, cause everyone knows what people can do when they realize they can.
It is the brick with which the dreams are build. There is no need to fear it.
Rather ubiquitous matter, but it seeks merely to change.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Bought Idea
One day I brought something home, something not really palpable. It is one of that things that you buy, but you do not see, but you sure feel. And sometimes, feeling is just enough.
I have bought an idea. Nothing really strange, but simple and nice. Just the way I like it and I was very happy at first. But this was when I felt really alone with it, because I could not show anybody, though I could tell, but... then everybody would just have my idea. And that was really bad, because it is mine, I've bought it and I am very jealous about my things. I am not willing to give for free what I paid for.
And after thinking too much about it, I realized that it was not really mine, because some other person had thought it and I just had bought it. Is it right for me to keep this as if it is mine? What merit do I have, since I've only bought it? And does it make me feel really better for having it? Not quite.
Lot of questions have appeared and in this storm of thoughts I've noticed my insatisfaction. Not the insatisfaction caused by the thoughts and worries brought by the idea, but the one that made me buy the idea in first place. And so, there was in some hidden place inside myself a tiny spot of unreasonable life insatisfaction.
This was when I heard something coming from inside. I could not tell that it was right or wrong. It was quite simple although not genial, but it was mine. Not in the sense of possession, but in the sense of identity. Do not take me wrong, cause I won't tell you my ideia. But believe me, even if you could've buy it, it would only make things worse for you.
I have bought an idea. Nothing really strange, but simple and nice. Just the way I like it and I was very happy at first. But this was when I felt really alone with it, because I could not show anybody, though I could tell, but... then everybody would just have my idea. And that was really bad, because it is mine, I've bought it and I am very jealous about my things. I am not willing to give for free what I paid for.
And after thinking too much about it, I realized that it was not really mine, because some other person had thought it and I just had bought it. Is it right for me to keep this as if it is mine? What merit do I have, since I've only bought it? And does it make me feel really better for having it? Not quite.
Lot of questions have appeared and in this storm of thoughts I've noticed my insatisfaction. Not the insatisfaction caused by the thoughts and worries brought by the idea, but the one that made me buy the idea in first place. And so, there was in some hidden place inside myself a tiny spot of unreasonable life insatisfaction.
This was when I heard something coming from inside. I could not tell that it was right or wrong. It was quite simple although not genial, but it was mine. Not in the sense of possession, but in the sense of identity. Do not take me wrong, cause I won't tell you my ideia. But believe me, even if you could've buy it, it would only make things worse for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)