1/30/2005

Lovecraft Mythos

Filed under: — Eternal @ 5:50 am
After reading my first H.P. Lovecraft book, I researched some of the occult and cult following of related ideas. I’ve found that Lovecraft has followings in the theological philosophy fields, biological, and geological, and of course Science Fiction communities as well. The Following is a sorted excerpt from Wikipedia.

When Lovecraft conceived his imaginary mythology, he apparently never laid out a definitive plan to follow. [Probably due to being paid as a pulp writer in the 1930’s] Instead, he simply launched into writing his stories, adding matter-of-fact references to the various deities and monsters of the mythos. Furthermore, Lovecraft often used these references capriciously, indicating that he probably favored drama over consistency (a noteworthy example is Lovecraft’s use of Old Ones, a term whose meaning varied from story to story). Lovecraft’s central deities are Azathoth and Yog-Sothoth, both representing opposing cosmic principles. Azathoth, the “blind and idiotic” ruler of the pantheon, occupies the literal center of the universe, whereas Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth’s co-ruler, embodies the infinite, existing in all places and in all times. Next in the hierarchy is Shub-Niggurath (whom Lovecraft mentions but never describes in his stories), representing a kind of pagan fertility god. Attending Azathoth at his court are the Other Gods, mysterious beings that dance mindlessly around Azathoth’s throne in cadence to the piping of a demonic flute, and Nyarlathotep, the avatar and messenger of Azathoth and the Other Gods. Nyarlathotep is the only being that can interact intelligently with human beings, though he often manifests himself in human form to disguise his true appearance. The topmost tier of deities is served by earthbound, non-human beings. Cthulu is regarded as the priest of the gods, while Dagon appears to be his subordinate. The lowest tier consists of the Elder Things and the Mi-go, both extraterrestrial races, and the Deep Ones, ocean-dwelling humanoids, which serve Cthulhu and Dagon. Because of the additions of later authors, the mythos pantheon has grown considerably and is now populated by deities and beings never conceived of by Lovecraft. Nevertheless, the original schema, which places Azathoth and Yog-Sothoth at the top of the pantheon, is still widely recognized by many mythos writers.

According to Robert M. Price [Pulp writer of Conan, and peer to Lovecraft] in his essay “Lovecraft’s ‘Artificial Mythology’", Lovecraft never intended his pantheon of beings—occasionally referred to as the Old Ones—to be supernatural creatures but instead powerful extraterrestrials. For naive humans to worship these beings as gods or to deride them as devils was to feebly attempt to anthropomorphize them and thus render them into mundane and explainable terms. What early humans could not understand they characterized as divine; thus, prescientific cultures deified incomprehensible entities like Azathoth. Though humans might try to placate or earn the favor of these beings by worshiping them, the Old Ones were not welcoming of such veneration and moreover were quick to exploit their gullible worshipers to further their own agenda.

Lovecraft’s inspiration was to tear humanity from its supposed vaunted place in the universe by forcing his characters to confront alien beings far older and wiser than humankind. Unfortunately, August Derleth, as well as other writers who followed after him, misinterpreted Lovecraft’s original conception and took the Old Ones to be literally supernatural and godlike. Derleth further distorted Lovecraft’s vision by concocting a parallel to the Christian narrative of Satan warring against Heaven, pairing the devils of Lovecraft’s mythos (the Old Ones) against a race of benevolent Elder Gods with humanity’s fate hanging in the balance. “Religious fiction” of this sort could not be further from Lovecraft’s fundamental notion of an indifferent, nihilistic universe.

1/27/2005

Cthulu Mythos

Filed under: — Eternal @ 5:49 am
It’s interesting that I’ve seen the word Cthulu a lot, and finally decided to find out what the whole thing was about once reading about it in the book “At the Mountains of Madness” by H.P. Lovecraft. Since studying I have found that he was actually the creater of the cthulu as well as the necronomicon. Cthulu Mythos is also known as Lovecraft Mythos. Wikipediasays:

The mythos is centered on the Great Old Ones, a fearsome assortment of ancient, powerful deities that once ruled the Earth. They are presently quiescent, having fallen into a death-like sleep at some time in the distant past. The most well-known of these beings is Cthulhu, who currently lies “dead [but] dreaming” in the submerged city of R’lyeh somewhere in the Southeast Pacific Ocean. One day, “when the stars are right", R’lyeh will rise from beneath the sea, and Cthulhu will awaken and wreak havoc on the earth. Despite his notoriety, Cthulhu is not the most powerful of the deities nor is he the theological center of the mythos. Instead, this position is held by the demon-god Azathoth, an Outer God, ruling from his cosmically-centered court. Nonetheless, Nyarlathotep, who fulfills Azathoth’s random urges, has intervened more frequently and more directly in human affairs than any other Outer God. He has also displayed more blatant contempt for humanity, including his own worshipers, than almost any other Lovecraftian deity.

1/24/2005

Deus Ex Machina

Filed under: — Eternal @ 5:27 am
Wikipediasays:

Deus ex machina is Latin for “god from the machine.” It originated with Greek and Roman theater, when a mechane would lower actors playing a god or gods on stage to resolve a hopeless situation. Thus, “god comes from the machine". The phrase deus ex machina has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story’s internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted. In short, deus ex machina refers to a cop out plot device. In modern terms the Deus ex machina has also come to describe a person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in story telling this seems like cheating, in life, this type of figure might be welcome and heroic. The notion of Deus ex machina can also be applied to a revelation within a story experienced by a character, narrator, etc, which involves the individual realizing that the complicated, sometimes perilous or mundane and perhaps seemingly unrelated sequence of events leading up to this point in the story are joined together by some profound concept. Thus the unexpected and timely intervention is aimed at the meaning of the story rather than a physical event in the plot.

I love the phrase, and love what it means to me (which is other than its definition), but I think its a quite introspectively interesting critique when used by Donnie Darko.

1/21/2005

The Numbers Lady

Filed under: — Eternal @ 5:07 am
I heard of Glynis McCants, The Numbers Lady as a guest on a rerun of George Noory’s Coast-to-Coast am.
So, here are my numbers and what she says they stand for.
LifePath: 9

NINES are the natural leader. People assume they are in charge even if they are not. If in a department store, people think they work there. They take care of everyone else but need to learn to speak up when they need help, love, and hugs. 9s often feel unloved or abandoned by their mother or father, or they feel completely responsible for them. It’s hard for them to let go of the past.

Attitude: 7

The 7 Attitude. You don’t get to know what they’re thinking or feeling. They keep to themselves and are introspective. They must continue studying the quest of why they are here: The 7 Attitude asks the big questions.
They will reveal themselves slowly as they go. They can shut down and make you feel they are not remotely interested in what you are saying, but the joke is on you because they are the ultimate observers. They don’t miss anything.

Nick’s (my bro) Lifepath number is also 9, However his Attitude Number is 5:

The 5 Attitude is playful and fun. Here are examples of some clients. One of them sent me her picture sitting on an elephant in Sri Lanka. Another for her 40th birthday went down a raft in the Grand Canyon and on her 50″1 birthday was at the top of the Eiffel Tower. See how they need to go and look at this world? They can’t wait to go and experience other parts of the planet, and if they get stuck in a situation, it’s too dramatic and they wind up playing the martyr. So better a 5 get out there. It’s all about adventure and excitement. They love to flirt and they’re usually the life of the party.

Our Sister, Kelli has a 5 for a Lifepath Number, and a 9 for Attitude Number:

FIVES seek freedom, fun, adventure. If they do not live the adventure, their lives become way too dramatic. They are the natural detectives and celebrators of life (holidays are usually their specialty). 5s have a hard time settling down and have a fear of being trapped or smothered in a relationship.

The 9 Attitude: The 9 is the leader. At work they’ll not just do their job but everyone else’s. That’s the Attitude Number 9: show me what to do, I’ll do it. When it’s over, they’re exhausted and drained, but rarely allow them selves to tell the people responsible. They need to establish boundaries so that they will not feel depleted by the people in their life.The Attitude Number 9 may have old family pain that haunts them, and the 9 must work through these emotions in order to be happy today.

1/18/2005

The Sword of Damocles

Filed under: — Eternal @ 6:34 pm
A tale of Cicero. http://www.livius.org/sh-si/sicily/sicily_t11.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

1/15/2005

Happiness

Filed under: — Eternal @ 3:17 am
Many have said of Socrates, as is true of me, that he is a gunslinger. He is quick to shoot theories down, and his aim (reasoning) is superb. This is good and useful for exposing lies and fallacies, but ripping apart a bad idea without presenting a good idea is chaotic. It presents change, but not necessarily growth. Though i do not plan to prove Aristotle wrong, I do disagree with Aristotle whole heartedly.
Philosophy (masturbatory philosophy) plays at semantics in arguments and debates. A shame it is, that the face of philosophy is a man who taught speech and semantics in a world where winning the dialogue won reward and status in society. Thanks to Socrates’ example, it is argued even today that all philosophy should be done in a one on one dialogue. I think the benefit to writing, as opposed to speaking, is that one as much time to think (philosophize) as is needed. In a dialogue it is expected for a man to speak fast, cunningly and without thinking. Semantics takes the obvious and makes one question it. However, before one is ready to philosophize, he must have already questioned everything, and have come to conclusions here and there.
Happiness is the question in debate. Aristotle plays at the ability to measure happiness. Happiness, however, is as is obvious, relative. Carl Jung said, “The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.” “See with your eyes, hear with your ears. Nothing in the world is hidden; what would you have me say?” Zen Master Tenkei is quoted to have said. Happiness, like sadness is relative, and the two play off of each other, as do all other emotions. What the U.S. thinks of as impoverished, the Bushmen of the Kalahari may find reasonable, or even extravagant. Neither of the two groups is more correct. Each are views that stem from differing cultures ways of life and norms.
I agree with Aristotle that a man’s life cannot be simplified and summed up without having completed and played out the story. However, unlike the position Aristotle seems to take or seek, I do not believe we can look at a man’s life and say whether or not he led a life that was “happy.” However if one had asked the man how he felt in life, and about his life, his response would most likely be the most accurate. One cannot look at a man with steak on his plate and man across from him with chicken on his plate and say that one is happier than the other. One may guess that the man with steak on his plate is the happier man, because of what he is about to eat. But if we decided to remove our fetters of tunnel vision, we may find that the man with the steak has never had working taste buds. We might also find that the man with the chicken has been a P.O.W. and kept from eating for over a week. This chicken may be the best tasting, most fulfilling and happiest meal he’s ever eaten. Even after a man’s story is told, it can rarely be summed up in a word or two. One would say what a horrible life to have been in his position at some specific point in his life. We must also keep in mind that for mankind, the positives and negatives, and their extremities bring out the potency of each other as it affects a man.
It is my conclusion that Aristotle though coming up with interesting theories, has missed the obvious in his search for some complex method of discernment. In fact, I think that Aristotle knows he has distorted this view, much like I, and lawyers as well, argue cases and I ideas that they do not agree with.

1/12/2005

Free Your Mind

Filed under: — Eternal @ 3:15 am
I believe in a sort of enlightenment. This is an enlightenment that I may or may not be close to, but it seems obvious that I am closer than some. I agree with Plato, that most people are prisoners. I don’t agree that a philosopher is necessarily enlightened. I also do not agree that there is such a duty of the enlightened to free others.
All men are bound, slaves, prisoners, and/or blind. I believe there are seemingly limitless variations of freedom. Every possible notion that could enslave a mind, hold it down, or force its perception, is another chain that binds a man. While some are free from alcoholism, others are bound by it. Seemingly, anything can be a chain: pride, fairness, loyalty, honor, hate, love, beliefs, convictions, family, law, work, life, and perhaps even knowledge. I think that because I can believe in a man being free from one strand of chains, that one day he can be free from all of them. I am not sure, however, that upon that day, this man will continue to live on this earth. Or, if a man did continue to live on this earth, would he seem to have gone crazy? I don’t think philosophers are enlightened, but that they are merely enlightened to the fact that they are not enlightened. They have been chained down for some time. Knowledge of one’s bondage, and being totally set free, are two totally different scenarios. As ‘G.I. Joe’ once said, “Knowing is half the battle.” Many mistake knowing for being the whole battle. I think the rest of the battle is wisdom. The awakening to one’s faults is not the purging of them.
If there is an enlightened man, I think that he understands that one can’t teach enlightenment, nor can he give a recipe, equation, or checklist for this attainment. He can however inspire, or give teachings that may help a chained man see things from different perspectives, or even spur him on to free himself. Conversion tactics are not the tactics to use with enlightenment. This is a quick means to telling whether someone has enlightenment or whether he has bliss. If a man comes to you trying to get you to believe what he believes, you will know that he isn’t enlightened, because the enlightened one knows he cannot give it to you or teach it to you. Second, one might want to determine whether this man has something that is truly blissful, or whether he has been taught to teach it to others despite pain and suffering that come with his beliefs.
In The Matrix movie, they can physically free a man. Here they have rules. One rule is not to free them after a certain age. Another rule is not to free them against their will. Both of these rules are for the safety of the individual. Even if, as Plato views it, one could free another Plato insists you do it against his own will. However, if it kills or mentally destroys a man to release him from his bondage, then perhaps time would be better spent on freeing the mind a of a willing participant. Plus, the man that might die due to being freed against his will, might at a later time in his life be willing to be freed. Due to my belief that one cannot free another, one must live and let live, or live and let die, que sera, sera.
I often speak my opinion in papers like these, on my views within a box, or given constraints, but given the freedom to speak my views as they are, no holds barred, they are much different. I believe no man achieves full enlightenment without expiring physically at the time of, or shortly after attainment. Also, I choose to look at enlightenment as having a free mind, despite one’s chains (having conquered and broken free from more than most men do). I believe this second one to be enlightenment (but more of a pre-enlightenment) because the enlightened are all dead. I believe that no matter my status of enlightenment or not, who I am, character, personality, and mind is gone once I die. Though I believe all these things, it is funny to me that one, even that I, would seek to be enlightened if it meant the end of his existence. But perhaps I am wrong about the necessity of expiration or even ascension of the enlightened, but perhaps there is a sort of afterlife, or perhaps there is a choice of whether to remain on earth or not.

1/9/2005

The Unexamined Midwife

Filed under: — Eternal @ 3:10 am
I don’t think that Socrates’ view on being the midwife to pre existing knowledge was incorrect or correct. I think it is simply another way of looking at the same thing. His way of thinking about teaching may totally change one’s outlook, however, I can’t see that we have the ability to understand and test the properties of knowledge. I personally believe that knowledge is not inherently within us. However, I believe a lot of people think they lack, or pretend to lack, much more than they really do in understanding and accumulating knowledge.
I’m an artist, and when people look at my art, they almost always tell me, “Wow! I can’t even draw stick men!” Though I know they’re exaggerating, they do know how to draw. If you teach them a few techniques that will help them draw more effectively, they will show you that they knew how to draw. They just needed to try it, and then perhaps obtain the knowledge of some techniques. Another example, I have no musical talent. This isn’t because I don’t know how to play any instruments, but because I have never really practiced or tried. In this way, someone may be right in saying that I am not untalented in music, just undeveloped. Just like with art, one can teach himself through trial and error and acquiring new knowledge through that scientific method. But, if that person was taught useful techniques by a draftsman, he would probably obtain the knowledge much faster, and more thoroughly. I see math and science in those same ways. History however, for the most part, is a form of knowledge that must be taught. It is too vast and fragile to be self-taught efficiently. Philosophy, I have noticed, lends itself very well to the midwife theory.
I also believe the unexamined life is not worth living. I think without examining our lives, we are simply animals. And though I still believe we are animals, with simply a higher capacity for thinking, we have the ability to become much more. Our brains and imaginations allow us to think abstractly, develop theories, and more. To simply droll to the hum-drum tune of everyday life seems like a sin (Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.) to one’s self and one’s species. I believe that a man who has never examined his own life will at many times begin to feel depressed or think that life is not worth living. Though a man who has examined his life may also feel this way, because he has examined it, he may be able to find a way to discount, discredit, or even change that view.

1/6/2005

Socrates: Computer Hacker of the Ancients

Filed under: — Eternal @ 2:54 am
Socrates was to Athens as computer hackers are to the Internet. Essentially, what a computer hacker does is search, explore, and push/try the boundaries of his worlds, the computer/internet. Socrates, a philosopher, essentially searches, explores, and pushes/tries the boundaries and limitations of his worlds: Athens and the human life. The computer hacker’s tools are his mind, his keyboard, and his many encrypted languages. The philosopher’s tools are his mind, his pen, and his dialogues. The reasons for the search (for many philosophers and hackers) may be to see how far they can go in their world, and see how much they can learn doing it. (Socrates does this as well, but he sees that this is part of the pathway to Eudaimonia). Both Socrates (philosophers) and computer hackers seem to share a similar goal in trying to understand more about their worlds; to attain some sort of greater knowledge/truth/wisdom in doing so.
Sure, many “immature” hackers are just trying to have fun and bother people, but this has often been the case with many “immature” philosophers, who may be better labeled, Sophists–who merely play semantics and rhetoric. Despite the “mature” motives of Socrates (assuming that believe that Socrates’ search for understanding was sincere, and not just aimed at attaining fame), and hackers, society–relative to each of them–has shunned them for revealing faults within their systems, without always offering answers (rarely offering the answers).
As the young and rebellious looked up to Socrates for fighting the system, so too do children today look up to hackers, and wish that they could also defy the authorities through finding their weaknesses. In both cases, they look up to the ways that their idols defy the structure in which they live (a Confucianistic society despite the mask of democracy).
While Socrates tries people’s minds and the security of their beliefs and religions, hackers try people’s minds and the security of their beliefs and web-sites/businesses. *
Hackers want to see if these companies are really as tight as they claim to be, or possibly as tight as they need to be. Socrates also presses down on those who say that *their understandings are tight and solid (by claiming to know what Virtue Etc… are), to see if they truly do have a knowledge/truth/wisdom/understanding that he does not have.
When hackers who are more experienced in understanding their world are introduced to new programs or ideas, they test them to see how well these programs/ideas hold up(or to see if they hold up at all). Once a hacker has entered someone’s system, and found it to have holes or flaws, they usually leave a sign or message, or do something to let the company know that someone has broken through. This leaves the company stunned (Torpedo Fish attack) when all along they thought their “system” was quite solid. Socrates enters peoples’ belief systems, which they claimed had no flaws, and seemed to work. However, Socrates found them to be quite faulty.
Both are looking for an improvement in their worlds, and are looking to open the eyes of those around them. Socrates wishes them to understand that they don’t know Piety, Justice, Truth, Moderation, Courage, or wisdom. Because of the fact that they do not seem to know what virtue is, they don’t really know if their examples/lists of virtues are truly virtuous.
Once the people/companies know there are holes in the system, which have the possibility to be a danger to them, they must seek to find better answers that can hopefully hold up. Socrates–while on his search for this understanding as well–hopes to give the Athenians a hole/desire to be filled. It is then in his best interest that they might fill these holes with actually seeking out what virtue is, so that they too might achieve this philosopher’s joy called Eudaimonia, and if they find it, they too might be able to share with him what these things truly are.
Socrates offers a hope for a greater happiness in the deeper understanding of their world, as well as possibly the same sort of security that religions hope to serve. Hackers offer a hope for greater security and safety (of money and of privacy), as well as a greater understanding of their world. Neither offers a direct path/answer to fill the hole–as they might not have the answers to give–instead they show us the dangers and faults with the “answers” we currently use. (Socrates and hackers still have an affect not only on companies, and on Athens, but on us as well, since we can learn from them) This is meant to inspire us to seek to achieve excellence on setting our goals higher all the time, settling for nothing less.

* A hacker may or may not (may, might be the case of a personal vendetta) be attacking the belief of the company, but that programmer, whose mind he infiltrated, and stunned in a manner much like the torpedo fish. He doesn’t attack the Emerald City, or even the Wonderful Wizard of OZ, he attacks the faultiness of the thinking done by the man behind the curtain. Socrates may not necessarily be attacking a person’s beliefs, but rather the structure of the religion (or whoever is feeding them their rhetoric) that they had bought into.(This is my theory, because it seems to me that Socrates did not truly believe in the supremacy of the gods, based on his argument that they could not all be pleased, and that truth is above the gods).

1/3/2005

The Book of Acts

Filed under: — Eternal @ 2:49 am
Who wrote the book of Acts? We don’t have proof as to the author of Act, but we do have evidence, which supports that Luke is our best candidate. From this, we assume that Luke was indeed the writer, because it appears this way. “The Acts of the Apostles”, appears to be a continuation of the gospel of Luke, which was indeed written by Luke. The evidences from the earliest known traditions of the church, from about 175 A.D. to about 200 A.D., say that Luke wrote the book of Acts. Another form of evidence that we have is the similarity in writing styles the gospel of Acts and Luke share. Longenecker points out how closely related the two books are stylistically and structurally.
When was the book of Acts written? Though my Bible indicates that the book of Acts was written in 63 A.D., historically this has not been proven. Some sources believe that it was written around 60 A.D., and others still believe that it was written around 70A.D. I will make a safe and some what broad estimation, to include percent error; 65 A.D. plus or minus 5 years.
For whom was Acts written? Many of my sources support that although Acts was addressed to Theophilus, which is undeniably found in what is referenced Acts 1:1, that the author intended to have this work published and foresaw an audience much broader than one man. The prologue written in both Luke and Acts emulate the ancient historians’ prefaces in that it is quite evident that he wanted this writing to be published. Under the educated assumption that Luke is indeed the author, it is probable such as in the Gospel of Luke, that the intended audience is once again, the Roman Gentiles. What it is more difficult to determine is whether the audience here were believers or not. Luke 1:4 uses a term, which when it is translated means, things which you were taught. It seems that this can be used to refer to either “Christian instruction (Acts 18:25; Gal. 6:6) or simply information, even a negative report (Acts 21:21, 24).” Theophilus was a high-ranking Roman official who is reported to have been a Christian. This assumption is primarily based on the meaning of his name, which may or may not be an accurate assumption. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to one Theophilus. He is called “most excellent” (kravtiste). This term usually indicates he is some sort of government official, or at least maintains high social rank. Some view this name as symbolic for “lover of God,” or “loved by God”, as if the real addressee needed to be incognito for some reason. But since this name was well attested up to three centuries before Luke wrote, it may have been his real name. If Theophilus was a Roman official, then it is most probable that he was a Gentile, and the contents of Acts “bear eloquent testimony of a Gentile readership.” If the author was indeed Luke, which we have no reason not to believe, then we do know that he was present and a part of many of the events of Acts, but was not an eye-witness to every part of it. He was present in the community, in which there was a widespread and prevalent message of Christ’s resurrection being proclaimed.
Why was Acts written, and why is Paul the Hero? The theme of Acts seems clear: “The Universal gospel becomes Universal in application.” (Dollar,1996 p.8.) The gospel shatters the cultural barrier and goes out to all the nations, both Jews and Gentiles alike in the Gospel of Acts. Paul seems to be made into the “hero” of the story of Acts rather than Jesus or because Jesus wasn’t on earth anymore during the time of Acts. Paul is the most prominent character of all the apostles in Acts due to the fact that he was a great example of a leader who followed Christ. He was an encourager to all the Churches, he was imprisoned for spreading the good news, as Christ instructed, and even when imprisoned, he continued fellowship and guidance to the churches to lead them toward Christ in their lifestyles. Above all this, Paul seems a likely candidate to show that God can use anyone even the “worst” of us, for his glory. It was so amazing for Christ’s disciples then, and still is for us now, to see the change Christ had in Paul’s life. He was once Saul of Tarsus, the man whom believers and Jews alike feared for their lives. Saul hated Christians, and sought to kill them all. He persecuted the church, and had the power to crush any who stood in his way. He was granted this power by the power of the Roman Empire. Paul’s entire life changed when Jesus appeared to him on the road. In his life to come, he became an encouragement to believers throughout time.