any sufficiently advanced blogging is indistinguishable from blather

You belong to Universe

mastery

I’m reading Mastery, the latest book from author Robert Greene (author of the classic book The 48 Laws of Power).  On page 42, Greene writes about Buckminster Fuller.  A depressed Fuller was on his way to commit suicide when he heard a voice from within himself that said:

“From now on you need never await temporal attestation to your thought.  You think the truth.  You do not have the right to eliminate yourself.  You do not belong to you.  You belong to Universe.  Your significance will remain forever obscure to you, but you may assume that you are fulfilling your role if you apply yourself to converting your experiences to the highest advantage of others.”

I am not sure what the first line means.  What is “temporal attestation”?  From the context, I guess it means that you do not have to wait around to see whether or not your thought is true; whatever you think right now is true, based on your experiences.  It may not be true in the sense that it may not correlate with reality, but it is still valid in and of itself.  If you gain new experiences, as you inevitably will, you are obligated to form new thoughts based on them, not to refuse them in the name of pride or fear.  That’s my Karl Popper-ish guess, at least; it may be something both deeper and simpler than that.

“You do not have the right to eliminate yourself.  You do not belong to you.  You belong to Universe.”  This certainly struck me.  There are people who have had powerful conversions after suicide attempts who also mention learning that their life is not their own to eliminate.  And certainly much of today’s political and spiritual misery probably arises from the idea that each man belongs only to himself, and not to “Universe” (or God as we might say).

While a man’s significance in this life may forever be obscure to him, I don’t think it will remain that way forever.  I believe part of the comfort and joy of Heaven, that feeling of being “at home”, comes from being able to see oneself fully, and to see the connection between oneself and the rest of existence.  However, I cannot confirm this.  (Yet.)

The “advantage” of others seems a subjective thing.  I can easily imagine someone wanting from me something I cannot or will not give, claiming it would be to his advantage, whether it be my money, my approval of something I cannot approve, my time, my agreement, or my indifference to his words and actions.  That is, you do not get to decide for others or for the Universe (God) what would be to your advantage; it is not merely the fulfillment of your latest natural desire, such as money or the adoration of others.  To know what would be to the “advantage” of others is the wisdom we ask the Universe for, in the name of and for the sake of the Universe.

Anyway, the main principle I take away from this is that I am not living my life for the sake of itself.  While working on my novel or any of my projects, it’s easy to get sidetracked daydreaming of fame and fortune, wanting a piece of the power that the “big names” in the entertainment industry have.  And, on the business side of things, that’s how the world encourages one to think.  Money and power are the validators, and the foundations for getting anything done.  But that’s not where the fulfillment in a project comes from.

It also makes me that much more interested in the life and works of good old Bucky.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Some thoughts on Wreck-It Ralph

Not a review, just some thoughts. A few SPOILERS below, so don’t read if you plan on watching the movie and don’t want spoilers.

I saw Disney’s latest animated feature Wreck-It Ralph today. I was expecting good things from all the positive reviews I had heard about it.

But…

Perhaps I’m overanalyzing it (a favorite pastime of mine), but I didn’t quite connect with the story. I suppose what didn’t quite work for me was that the “be who you are” theme didn’t quite fit the main character’s real problem. That is, the main character’s problem wasn’t about accepting “who he was”; rather, it was about other characters not realizing that he wasn’t the same person as his “game character.”

At the beginning of the film, the other characters in his game (“Fix-it Felix”) treat him like dirt. Why? I have no idea. My best guess is that they believe he really wants to wreck everything just because he’s the villain, when really he just wants what all the characters want: to be loved and accepted as an equal. He doesn’t wreck things after the game is over, after all. He doesn’t go around trying to kill people. Wrecking isn’t what he wants to do in and of itself; it’s what he has to do as part of the game.

So, to me, it seems like the problem of the story centers around the other characters in Ralph’s game not understanding that Ralph is actually a nice guy who is simply “playing” the villain for the sake of the game. And yet it’s Ralph who, as the main character, has to go on an adventure to learn… to learn what? To “accept” who he is? To learn who he is? But that was never really the problem to begin with! The problem was that other people were treating him like dirt.

And then, at the end of the film, they come to love him. Problem solved. Why do they love him at the end of the film? How did he prove himself? Why did he ever have to prove himself to begin with?

All that said, it was a fun movie. Wonderful animation, wonderful look and feel, wonderful use of 3D, wonderful references written in graffiti, and wonderful pixelations.  I just had trouble understanding the overall theme.

Also, have you noticed that, similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Toy Story, Disney can somehow get a bunch of other franchises to participate in their movie, even while they’re actually just helping Disney build their own franchise, with Disney’s original characters at the center? Clever Disney.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Thoughts on Disney and Star Wars

I am a bit late to today’s news of geeks and I don’t really have anything interesting or intelligent to say. But I do have some boring mundane things to say.

1. I’m cautiously optimistic about more Star Wars movies. I don’t know why George Lucas didn’t make more movies sooner with how much money the prequel trilogy made. In middle school, I enjoyed reading some of the Star Wars novels (only have five still sitting on my bookshelf), so I imagined there were plenty of possibilities. It will be interesting to see Star Wars in the hands of different writers and directors, because, with the prequel trilogy, George Lucas proved to be rather lacking in certain areas.

2. It will be weird to see a Star Wars movie not scored by John Williams.

3. It would be awful to see a Star Wars poster with that childish curly Disney logo degrading the coolness of the rest of it. (I have no idea how they’re going to brand it.)

4. After buying Marvel not too long ago, it’s weird to see Disney gobble up another proven money-making franchise. It’s so fat.

5. With the deal, Disney owns LucasArts, which means they own Monkey Island. Ick. But seeing as how Monkey Island was inspired by the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, perhaps it’s strangely appropriate. Still, I don’t like the thought.

6. The Star Wars Holiday Special would fit right in with the rest of the Disney Channel’s programming! It even already has singers! Maybe just add a laugh track.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Martin Gardner

I came across this blatant copyright infringement on YouTube this morning, an episode from the 90’s of The Nature of Things, an educational Canadian TV series, this one about the late Martin Gardner. (I don’t know why the video title says John Conway. While Conway’s in it, the show is about Gardner.)

Though I can’t claim to have a great stock of Gardner’s books, the ones I read had a great influence on me when I guess I was around 10 to 12 years old. He makes mathematics fun and fascinating in a way that no teacher who wants to give you a grade ever can. Whereas a teacher may say, “Learn these rules because the board of education has deemed them necessary,” Gardner’s approach is more exploratory, playful, and welcoming, as if to say, “Here’s an idea that’s interesting and peculiar, let’s see what we can do with it.” (If you’re a teacher and want to make any subject more fun, stop grading students for starters. Oh, you can’t do that? Then your methods will always fail, because your philosophy of education is wrong.)

With Gardner’s approach, it’s easy to see how mathematics naturally blends with so many other subjects, such as science, art, magic, and games. While this episode only touches the surface of many of the ideas Gardner helped popularize, it’s still a fun refresher.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Miscellaneous confusions

I find it curious to consider the nature of three-dimensional space as an experience of physical interaction more than some physical reality in and of itself. Spacial dimensions do not exist in the experience of thought, after all. If one thinks of a chicken, then thinks of a brick wall, one does not have to travel any sort of distance through other thoughts to get from one to the other. The change in the experience of the two thoughts is instantaneous. (We may even combine them to form the thought of a chicken in front of a brick wall.)

What concerns me, however, is: where is the chicken when I’m not thinking about it? From what do I create the thought of a chicken?

One may say: “Well, it’s in your memory.” But then from what do I create the mental instructions to fetch the memory?

I’m not asking why I desire to form the thought of a chicken, whether it’s because I saw the word “chicken” or because I was asked to think of an animal that goes “cluck-cluck” or because I’m hungry. It doesn’t matter why I’m persuaded to form the thought. I’m wondering how I have the ability to conjure the appropriate thought in the first place.

It’s a puzzling mystery to me.

By S P Hannifin, ago