Antoni Tapies

Antoni Tapies

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Thoughts on Religion

The question of the existence of a supreme being does seem to involve the structure of the brain. How can one person be so convinced of something so intrinsic and another not be? Another factor is that humans need autonomy, otherwise functionality is jeopardized. I've read enough occult literature to think that religious thought is more or less on a need to know basis. Personally I've had augury experiences that suggest to me a pervading consciousness. Just my natural inquisitiveness has inspired them. I daresay that religious thought is romantic at root. This characteristic is a key to perception. I've thought of the analogy of radio and antennas. If your 'antenna' is not configured or adjusted properly you will not receive that desired signal. That said, it is obvious that religious thought is not required for functionality. And often, as attests the religious conflicts over the ages, it is a hindrance.

So a question is if there is a supreme being why is there so much destruction in the world? I think you just need to look at nature, predators and prey, blossoming and decay, 'natural disasters' and so on....  I'm not the first one to theorize that this world is some sort of testing ground. It seems a sort of soul refinery, crucible if you will. Every action is challenged. I think this principle is personified by humans as some sort of spirit, the entity Satan in the Christian pantheon. There are parallels in other religious systems. Actually this being is explicated in the Bible book Job,among other places. In the Buddhist liturgy the first Noble Truth is that all life is suffering. Their system attempts to find ways to address this factor. I feel as if Buddhism is more or less a psychological therapy system. Actually thinking about a supreme being is discouraged.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Tuesday

'Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee' John Donne

Music and Society

Did you ever wonder how people can hear the same song or melody and either love it, hate it or be indifferent? It sure says a lot about perception. I'm sure avid audiophiles are accutely aware of the phenomenon, the 'value' of recordings. Robert Wyatt pointed out that he doesn't care about the who or when of music, just the notes, rhythms and chord changes. I also sense that people have ideas in mind about the composer and judge subsequent music on that, disregarding  changes the artists themselves have gone through. When music was composed is also curiously regarded by people. That is the social function, sort of a group language. I bet people who read music have quite different views about it. They see it unadorned and purely in musical terms.

Zeno of Elea

Zeno of Elea (/ˈziːnoʊ əv ˈɛliə/; Greek: Ζήνων ὁ Ἐλεάτης; c. 490 – c. 430 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher of Magna Graecia and a member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides. Aristotle called him the inventor of the dialectic. He is best known for his paradoxes, which Bertrand Russell has described as "immeasurably subtle and profound".
wikipedia.org

"You cannot traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time. You must traverse half of the given distance before you traverse the whole, and half of that before you can traverse it. This goes on ad infinitum, so that (if space is made up of points) there are an infinite number in any given space; it cannot be traversed in a finite time. "