The only way to truly understand the following words by Khalil Gibran in one of his poems from The Prophet, is to really have lived this in some way…

Then said Almitra, “Speak to us of Love.”
And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them.
And with a great voice he said:
When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you, yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.
For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.
Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God’s sacred feast.
All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life’s heart.
But if in your fear you would seek only love’s peace and love’s pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love’s threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.

Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, “God is in my heart,” but rather, I am in the heart of God.”
And think not you can direct the course of love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love’s ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.

The topic is brought by a significant debate formulated by Ken Robinson: Is the modern academic system undermining  human creativity? It seems to be a fair realization that the majority of academic institutions, encompassing all educational levels, from elementary schools to post-secondary faculties, prioritize mathematics and linguistic studies over the arts and sports. I most definitely relate with Robinson’s statement that human knowledge is distinct and complementary, that is, the development of each of these capacities is of equal importance and, therefore, should not be hierarchically structured.

Almost immediately it appears that the emphasis should be placed on refocusing the way children are educated in most academic systems around the world, for they bear that very crucial cognitive absorbance that adults seem to rapidly loose, and carry, at the same time, that inherent creativity ready to be stimulated in different activities. Let us not forget that scientific and linguistic studies also promote a degree of creativity but they do not fully dimensionalize it. This can be personally accounted during my engineering studies at university, where the academics solely focused on the very technical aspect of it, completely neglecting the social, artistic, emotional, physical and linguistic capabilities. The only reason why I nonetheless kept studying that, was simply because I love the subject and find it almost necessary for our future. But also because I found my own ways to complement my education in the other realm, by learning a new language and keeping musically involved, even if if was not within “academic standards”. I remember that even as a kid, I would undermine the importance of art classes myself despite my great interest in drawing. This was clearly a culturally-learned misconception of the hierarchical nature of human knowledge. 

I always come to think about the great minds of the Renaissance when talking about the interrelationship of human abilities. Without the modern technological distractions, most of the remarkable individuals of the time, such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael,  were not artists, or engineers, or doctors, but to some extend, all of which at the same time. Their interests and creativity were not bound by the standards of academic institutions, but activated by the very interdisciplinary dynamics of their abilities. I believe we have to really look back in time and attempt to shake the foundations of our current uni-dimensional educational systems and, as Robinson stated, “reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity”.

A fundamental statement that might complement the last two posts: “There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true because, with every opportunity of contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.” -John Stuart Mill

Analogous to Manilowski’s functional approach about rituals, I believe that people’s great affinity with their religious beliefs arises from an attempt to reduce anxiety and uncertainty about what cannot be explained. Ever since humans started developing their cognitive reasoning, a need for understanding the world around seemed to be of ever greater importance. It is therefore no wonder how primitive people starting worshiping natural entities and phenomena, such as the sun, the moon, the rain, among others, for they could not truly explain nor understand their relationship with their actual existence. For this reason, they were thought of as almost divine entities or deities, which ultimately brought a social meaning for a group of people by creating symbols and rituals to interact with these “supreme” entities.

In the same context, the development religions as one knows them, can be analogously compared to the previous case of early human ancestors. However, there is a significant distinction among both scenarios. Most world religions have developed into a complex set of practices and values that are to be followed by the believers to attain a righteous relationship with god (or many gods) as well as with other human beings and nature. In other words, they deliver a message of how people should live and what they ought not do. And even though religions developed in different parts of the world and at different time frames, they created a common consensus in the lifestyle and beliefs of their followers. Moreover, charismatic individuals such as Jesus or Muhammad, have had a tremendous impact in Christianity and Islam. In both cases, these historical characters were seen by followers, as either God’s messiah or prophet to deliver or fulfill God’s prophesies. Now, many centuries after their respective deaths, people still belief in their divinity through narrative documents such as the Bible and Koran, but most particularly due to their spiritual apprehension or faith. It is this faith that makes people very serious about their beliefs, for it does not require any prove to verify the validity of a given event or truth in history. It is a very efficient and “conformistic” method to validate what is uncertain. Nonetheless, it hinders the possibility for open debate in a rational context and it is easily transmissible through the masses. It is not surprising why Kant argued that “religion is the opiate of the masses”.

A final argument as to why people are so passionate about their religious beliefs is that most people around the world are born into a family that already has a spiritual mindset, which is culturally learned, just like language. It is therefore very likely that if one is born into a Jewish family, that one will carry the religious beliefs of Judaism and not the ones of Hinduism. Obviously, it is not always the case, since certain individuals that were raised under the values of a particular religion can stop believing or can adopt the spiritual beliefs of another religion. The point, however, is that the majority of the population is born into a religious environment that most likely will condition any individual’s spiritual apprehension and beliefs.

Science is a source of human knowledge and constructive criticism, for which it depends on the public’s acceptance or rejection to attain its rational purpose. It is therefore always intertwined with advocacy. Science has been created by humans in the attempt to describe the nature of the universe by relying on our reasoning through hypothetical theories and observation, which ultimately will contribute to knowledge. However, it is virtually impossible to establish science as a completely unbiased practice since it has been developed by humans that will always possess certain affinities in their beliefs, objectives and methodologies. For this reason, science can become even more beneficial for humanity when accepting its vulnerability and limitations, to thus allow scientific discourse to reach a larger spectrum of experts and the public and not just rely on a reduced number of people to validate their theories or findings. Obviously scientific research should be conducted objectively and responsible to avoid drawing early deductions that would compromise its validity. To exemplify this further an analogy can be used, namely, Franz Boas’ cultural relativism. One can say that he provided a means to study a particular culture in the most objective and unbiased way possible by not relying on the standards of another culture. This was clearly a noble attempt to liberate a scientific study in cultural anthropology from subjective bias as in the times of armchair anthropology. Thus, Boas can be used as an example of using knowledge for a good cause, as it should always be. To conclude, science should be linked with advocacy for it is a source of human knowledge that ultimately should be used for humanitarian objectives and to solve social problems, while allowing the possibility of scientific debate open.

The tragicomedy of making music according to Quino.

Spent a day at the MoMA and among the incredible things that I saw, the work of a particular artist caught my eye. William Kentridge, a South African artist that uses an amazing technique in his animations. Using charcoal, pastel and pencil in some of his work, he films a drawing and continues modifying it little by little, each time making a new frame in what later becomes a short and meticulously prepared animation. Of course, once the sound and music are added, the effect becomes even more empowering. Such a simple concept, yet beautifully achieved. “Drawing from Stereoscope” is one of the animations that I watched. Voila.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYWHhYGENic

In the last couple of weeks I came across different topics, which gave rise to a million questions and makes me feel that what is considered to be the “official” truth is far away from the actual facts. First of all, I watched certain documentaries on the food industry and how manufactures use preservatives, additives, colorants and what not, to obtain the desired product and boost their standings in the nutritional facts. For generations now, people have been ingesting all types of foods that resemble more the characteristics of a polymer than the ones of an actual organic food, exposing themselves to long-term side effects that lie far from our understanding due to the improper amount of research that should have been done before these products reach any supermarket. A new trend in alienating natural components of our diet, like sugar for instance, while replacing it with artificial solutions, has already  been part of our eating habits for some time. I really wish we could have an easier access to organic foods and at the same time know what are really the effects of all the added ingredients of processed and high dense foods. Is it not obvious to see a correlation between the large number of new diseases, like diabetes and obesity, that have developed rapidly in the last century with the dietary habits of our current processed-food culture?

The second subject I came across is the huge mystery of 9/11. In short, everything that the media and the government claims to be what really happened doesn’t fit in the actual puzzle. There is no doubt that I can not come up with what actually happened, but I believe I can at least have some idea of what did not happen. More than eight years have passed since the incident and yet I think that the majority of people have bought the story told by the official report as if it were the medicine that one conceals in a piece of bread which is given to a sick dog. There is no question to me that the claim that an actual airliner hit the Pentagon is completely bogus. From my knowledge in engineering so far I know that  a jet engine will not vaporize upon a crash, nor disappear as it seemed to have been the case! Besides, the extent of the damage would have been far greater (debris from the aircraft would have been completely visible around the supposable crash area)  than what resembles more accurately to have been some sort of military weapon or missile. All the footage was rapidly confiscated leaving the public completely vulnerable against the facts. This leads to another question: given that there was no such airplane crash in the Pentagon, what happened to that flight? Are we supposed to believe what was told as the truth from the crashes in the World Trade Center AFTER one event proves to be far from the facts?? Even the available footage from the Towers is dubious and does not really fit in the whole picture. And the collapse of both buildings is another topic of discussion that I will not enter for now. At this point I cannot rule out any possibilities.

Today I want to remind people that exactly 40 years ago, mankind set foot on the moon. Quite amazing, isn’t it?  I am not sure if this day has already acquired a specific name or not, but I will just call it Moon Day, for its obvious reasons (when we get to Mars we can talk about something else…). For whatever reason, people seem to sometimes forget about the implications and tremendous difficulty that was involved in accomplishing such objective. Despite the fact that a political race might have catapulted humans to reach the moon faster than ever thought at the time, it really fascinates me to think that someone like me (homo sapiens; not necessarily qualified as an astronaut) was looking at the Earth from about a quarter of a million miles away! It is truly an immediate reaction whenever I notice it up there, both day and night.

There are some people who do not believe that such event ever happened. As in any other topic that involves a degree of complexity, there can be certain debate with the validity of the factual accounts, which in this case seems absolutely legitimate. I have myself attempted to evaluate all possible available facts, limited and sometimes unreliable, while leaving that very possibility open, but the truth seems to still converge to an actual moon landing. What people normally forget is the actual extend of the lunar program. The landing on the moon the 20th of July, 1969, was merely a culmination of all the minds and determination  put behind the Mercury, Gemini and later Apollo program, from the first orbit rendezvous to the final testings of the Lunar Module on the actual moon’s orbit, in which it got as close as 15.6 km from the lunar surface in the Apollo 10 mission! The little knowledge about the Apollo 11 mission that is sometimes used to deny its very accomplishment is similar to our knowledge of how human language developed by only focusing on the last 12,000 years of history and yet overlooking another 200,000 years. 

Under this scenario and for the first time in history, the Earth became the moon and the moon the Earth.

Funny enough, today I got to realize something that happened to me twice: Why do they give us such an exaggerated amount of paper in the receipts when we purchase something? First, I recharged my metro card at one station and the screen of the machine clearly displayed “Do you want a receipt for your transaction?”, and obviously, I pressed “No” thinking that I didn’t want my pockets full of disposable information, you know? But then what happened? The ticket machine still printed a receipt for me! This is as though it was just giving me the illusion of getting rid of paper this time, but not for long. 

Next, I went to a music store to buy some strings for my guitar. This time I was quite sure I was not going to avoid the evil receipt, but then again, I figured that since I was just getting one single item, that it was going to be small. Of course not. I measured about 5 cm by 20 cm!! That is like 100 square centimeters of disposable information in the form of paper that nobody cares or wants to frame. Wouldn’t it be better to at least have the option of not having the receipt printed at all? I say this because when they ask you “Sir, do you want a receipt?” (and they have already printed the 100 square centimeters of …), they just throw it in the garbage. Very inefficient waste of paper, right? (Not that there is an efficient waste of paper but you get the idea) So, you can do the math of how big your evil receipt is going to be when you go grocery shopping!