Architects don't write fairy tales.

It's been a while since I touched on a topic which lies within the theistic area.  So I'll make my way over to that area and get right down to touching.

One of the strangest characteristics I find in any creator god which then sends a holy doctrine to mankind is how its thoughts on human behaviour reflect nothing of its mindframe as a creative being.

How does a god with an intellect so deep and magnificent as to design our universe with such intrinsic detail and sophisticated workings have such an unintellectual and downright braindead approach to ethical issues as to merely write down certain rules in stone (literally, in one famous case) and hand them out to the awaiting outstretched hands of certified prophets without so much as a measly elaboration?

Surely, the designer of such a splendid universe would not be so arbitrary in its ethos and have a full, well-designed proof for ever single one of its laws.  Why would a god withhold these proofs from us?  One cannot put it down to human ignorance - even if the entire manifesto was too complex for the human mind, a half-proof which derives the law from more basic principles could be given. 

Without a proper and deep analysis of these laws, several ethical issues remain unsolvable as they fall into grey areas which are unresolved due to unsophisticated way the laws were given out.  Knowledge of moral code is one thing, but an actual understanding allows for the solving of less ordinary problems, which are surely the most common type.

Furthermore, a proper elaboration would surely have been genius enough to shut - or at the very least leave ajar- the mouths of critics, skeptics and non-believers (like me).

So, without such an elaboration, it is a must that we investigate into ethical issues ourselves, and religious believers must not condemn other for this; rather they should join the investigations themselves, for if they truly believed they would think that in the long run their ethical codes would be proved, thus giving strong evidence to the existence of their god/s.

Alas, I fear that there are those who will read through all this intently, with the sole intention of not being affected by what I am saying.  And once they've done so, they will close the page without the slightest doubt of their beliefs, and feel this an accomplishment.

An Uptown Waltz in Harlem.

A while back I gave opinion about culture in the sense of a society's mentality (Oh gracious reader...)

This time round I intend to do the same, but rather than culture as a society's mentality I wish to speak about culture in much more aesthetic terms; from a perspective of art in different media.

I shall summarize the entirety of this reflection with a simple question about "classical art" - that is to say the high-profile art from the Renaissance era which is regurgitated unto classroom desks around the world as well Shakespearean quotations used as appropriately and nonchalantly as a 1980's Boombox in a library for the blind.  

And this question is, "So fucking what?"  By the eloquently chosen phrase "So fucking what?" I mean to say, "Why should these so-called classics be given any higher value than any other piece of art, irrespective of whether one is an enthusiast of the genre or not?"  In higher detail I mean to say;

"Many people from around the world consider 'classical' art to be of a higher aesthetic value for no other reason than that of being 'classical'.  This arbitrary reason to evaluate art in such a manner is nonsensical.  I appreciate that some people genuinely enjoy these samples of art, and for them I hold no criticism, but masses of people just mindlessly acknowledge these classics as being wondrous.  What's so special about Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo, Leonardo de Vinci, Chopin etc. if one simply does not like their style?  Absolutely and utterly nothing.  One may hold up a feeble opposition and say "but they are the origins of bla bla bla without whom bla bla bla...." to whom I reply with a few words about The Past and why it's not important.

What kind of art we enjoy is up to us and not the preferences of audiences from ages ago.  If one enjoys these classics, all's well and good, if one does not, all's well and good anyway.  Even the fact that these samples of art are labelled as 'classic' shows how a society prefers them from the rest, despite the fact that a vast majority of the members of that society do not."

But in short I just ask "So fucking what?"

I am not trying to say I myself don't enjoy all the works of art mentioned above.  The names mentioned were simply examples.  I have my own opinion on Art.