On Poli-blehh-tics.

The following is not meant to offend anyone, but is a critique of the underlying concepts of multi-party politics.

Currently the air is rife with politics. It is rife with politics the same way a garden of flowers may be rife with the stench of a corpse, or a perfumery may be rife with the odor of garbage.

Let me first say, before actually inspecting the merit of politics, that it disgusts me on a personal level.  Having people come up to me and pretend to like me as well as pretend to be likable irks me.  To be a bit more exact, it irks the fuck out of me.  Underneath their smiles and friendly talk I know that not only could they not care any less about me, but that they themselves would make no effort to actually be enjoyable to talk to if it wasn't for their wanting me to like them.  How can I - how could anyone - put up with that?  It's like an emotionless sack of potatoes suddenly springing to life and showering me with compliments until I grant it my approval, at which point it slumps back down and resumes potatoing its way through life.  Anyway, on to the next point.

I would like, very much, for anyone who has read this far to read on and please enlighten me as to where I am incorrect in the following points.  For any political election concerning two or more parties there can be only one of four outcomes - regardless of who wins ;

 a) The winning party sticks to its electoral campaign and the promises held within.
 b) The winning party uses good ideas from both its own electoral campaign as well as its opponent's/opponents'.
c) The winning party forgets all about the electoral campaign and goes ahead doing whatever it likes.
d) Some combination of the above.

Now, realistically, option c occurs the most, but that is not due to the fault of the system but rather to the politicians being downright dishonest.  Let us imagine that all four options are equally likely to occur.

If option a occurs the governing authority has ruled out all ideas proposed by its opponents, which realistically must hold some merit.  Therefore if option a occurs the ruling authority willfully discredits some good ideas simply because they are not theirs.  This would make any voter's vote quite inefficient towards selecting what is best for the country, for s/he has elected somebody who will only accept their own ideas, regardless of how good or bad they are, and will disregard good ideas when presented to them.

If option b occurs then all the good ideas presented by either party would occur, which is terrific.  When we reflect upon the voter's choice however, it would seem that his/her vote was useless, regardless of  their preference the voters got the best of both worlds (which, don't get me wrong, is splendid...but the voter's vote was definitely useless)

If option c occurs, the voters would have voted for something false, rendering heir vote useless.

If option d occurs then there is no suitable balance of the other three options which would make the voter's vote valuable...and if there was it wouldn't matter for this is the most unpredictable of all four options, making the voter's vote a shot in the dark.

Conclusively any voter's vote may be inefficient, useless or a wild guess when it comes to making the best choice.  And of course, nobody votes for a choice they believe not to be the best.

So who should you vote for?  In all honesty, it won't make too much difference...what you should ask is, should you vote?  Now there are two resolutions to this question, either replying "Yes" and going off to cast a useless/inefficient/wild vote or answering "No" and showing the world that you are not going to be duped into playing a game where you can only lose.

There's a lot of negativity associated with saying "No, I will not vote," and quite frankly it really gets under my skin.  The world has already set up a political system where you are bound to be cheated, and as a final insult towards all good sense goes ahead and looks down on - or at least strongly discourages against - those who don't vote.  Like by choosing not to be fucked over you are doing something wrong and that it is every citizen's solemn duty to drop their pants, bend over and silently tolerate the sodomy with a grin on their face and a ballot in their hand. (Excuse the graphic depiction...but I really need to get this point across.)

What might actually be worse, however, is the attitude some people take trying to justify voting after accepting it's all a sham.  "Well we're in this system so we might as well make the best of it."  Pray tell, kind neighbor, should I defaecate upon a silver platter and offer it unto you, shalt thou do your utmost to grace it by means of condiments and herbs? Of course not, you'd toss it away, to hell with condiments and herbs. As much as my dressed-up language made any difference to the meaning of my sentence, so much so does "making the best of this system" make it any better.

So what do I propose as an alternative?  I am not an authority in sociology or politics, and my opinion stands to be ridiculed as much as any other opinion stands to be ridiculed, but I do believe my suggestion holds some good merits.  What I suggest to remedy the situations is to fully delocalise political power and let it fall into the hands of the relevant professions, then having decisions made by these professions in small-scale referendums.  For example, the authority over urban planning is removed from the Ministry of urban planning and handed to urban planners and when a decision needs to be made it goes to a referendum held exclusively for urban planners, by urban planners.  The motions which pass to referendum would be suggestions made by the relevant professionals to a committee (possibly but not necessarily also exclusive to that particular profession, or possibly even exclusively employed to such a job)  which have no decisive authority and simply review the motion to ascertain its feasibility and then pass it to referendum.  The referendums need not be held once for every motion, but every two months (for example) the motions which have yet to be decided are put together in one bi-monthly referendum.  The choosing-committee can then apply any necessary changes and/or enforce the new motions.

To give a much clearer local example, instead of having all this fuss about SDM or Pulse in the KSU, I see it as a much more intelligent move to have one choosing-committee which takes all suggested motions, puts the relevant ones up to referendum once every two months and then applies/enforces those motions which pass.

In such a system, the people making the decisions are well-informed in their choices (for in the current system, lawyers make laws for doctors, which is banal as they know nothing about medicine, for example) and there is low risk of attendance to referendums dropping due to too many being held (provided of course that there aren't new motions proposed very regularly)  since people would only vote in the referendums relevant to their profession.  I realise of course that there are also responsibilities which a government currently handles which are not covered in such a system - such as the organizing of events.  For these I would propose that they are further re-allocated to other people in the profession to handle.  This might be quite a messy process and I recognize that it is probably the greatest defect in my suggestion. (Although it is not unsolvable.)

Thus ends my rant.

 
N.B.) It should also be said that by voting one is encouraging the debauchery to continue.  Only by dropping the number of voters will people begin looking for an alternate system.

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.

Excuse the interruption.

My absence over the last few months is an inexcusable failure to apply myself, and for that I apologize.  However you might sentence the crime less harshly if I were to say that during these months I have moved out of my parents' house and that I am now living (and fending for) myself.  No? Ok.

Many people ask me the same question; occasionally finding the creativity to try a different sentence structure from the interviewer prior yet never wandering from the same gist.  And that gist is as follows: "Why did you move out?"

My reply- equally lacking in sentence structure variety - marches along the same lines as the following paragaph.

At some point in life one needs to learn how to fend for oneself, not only in the sense of physical needs such as how to cook and clean etc. but also how to organize one's time and energy in such a way as to live as efficiently as possible.  Furthermore, how can one feel any measure of self-worth when all the basic needs such as cleaning and eating and washing clothes and so on are handled by another person?  Being nurtured past the point when one can take care of oneself is an act of egotism and is certainly detrimental to the development of one's character.  Some people might press on and say that I could fend for myself whilst still living with my parents, but that would just complicate matters as the family has only one cooker, fridge, washing machine and so forth - plus (speaking from experience) it's not the same experience at all.

That's the answer when I'm feeling up to it.  Sometimes I just shrug.

I will try to be consistent in my blogging pattern from now on, I promise.

He said, she said, we said, they said....

Previously, I mentioned that I would discuss the nature of argument and debate after the Maltese divorce referendum had passed - and as it has, so I shall.

What is the point of a debate?  Well, indubitably if a debate is handled correctly and both sides are capable of recognizing their own defeat then a debate would progress much like a mathematical proof, with one side's progression from an agreed point challenged by the other and possibly adjusted, until the progression is found to be valid by both parties and so the discussion moves unto the next point. This is repeated again and again from point to point until a conclusion is settled upon by both sides.

But of course, that is not what actually happens in reality, and the way Malta handled the divorce referendum is a sterling example of this.  Nowadays a vast majority of debates make no effort to reach a true conclusion.  Rather they try to make their side look better than the other.  And that's it.  There's no search for truth, there's no vigorous thought.  There's a complete lack of interest in actually getting things right.  The world is perfectly satisfied in choosing the conclusion which looks best, rather than the conclusion which is founded in solid and justifiable arguments.

For example, in Malta the religious side of the debate spent many a good euro in associating the pro-divorce side with unpopular and/or very scary (and in some cases, non-existent) things.  These 'things' include hell, abortion, adultery, social disruption and Satan; I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these fall under the 'very scary' 'unpopular' and 'imaginary' categories.

It's also good to note how all religions also play part in the charade of appearances, rather than the study of reality.  When was the last time a Catholic preacher showed a congregation how Hinduism is logically invalid by reversing the argument into nonsensical statements (reducto ad absurdum) ? Never happened - for the simple fact that the same method can be applied to any religion, including Catholicism as in the example, and hence disprove the preacher's own beliefs.  Hence religions revert to showing how their side is better than the opposition's by having a scarier hell, a better heaven, more (unproven) miracles etc. etc.  Alas, I digress, as my habit of lifting the veil on religious garbage has taken the best of me.  Back to the point.

Even in casual environments like bars and domestic settings, the same frame of mind of "who looks best" was overwhelming.  People spoke about how silly a representative of a side spoke, or of a representative's past or present personal life or this sort of irrelevant dribble. It was very rare that people actually spoke of what the representatives said, and even when they did, the representatives mostly spoke appearance-related sentences with no solid argumentative value.  So as you can imagine, walking into a bar and hearing an intelligent point being made about divorce was the equivalent of walking into a church and finding an intelli-  oops, almost slipped again.

I will refrain from giving my opinion on divorce here because I am exhausted and it isn't the point of this writing.  I will say however, that I was pro-divorce from the beginning and am happily surprised by the referendum's outcome.

Now I must go to bed, for my keyboard will surely make a poor pillow.

Oh gracious reader...

My first priority in this humble text is to snatch and hold hostage the attention of you, my dearest reader.  I shall do so by reminding you, my precious reader, that every word you read is a sure sign that present within your skull is a highly complex and truly fascinating neurological storm marking you as a wonder of the natural world.  Hence, my most noble reader, read on and know that with every word you read you honour your place within the infinite manifold of the cosmos as a miracle of consciousness.  Don't you feel special now?

My second priority is to choose between the two topics which battle for prevalence within my own neurological storm.  The topic I will set aside for a later date will be the nature of argument and debate which I will leave for a time when the example I wish to make use of - the Maltese Divorce Crisis* of 2011 - is well behind us and hence we will be capable of 20/20 hindsight.

Hence the topic which I will be dragging on ab-- I mean, discussing, today is culture.  Not culture as in artworks and paintings and the sort, but culture as in the mentality of a society.

Recently I have thought quite a bit about the mentality of a people, and try as I might, I can't quite seem to find anything positive to say about it.  A society's culture prioritizes certain objects or ideals and then forces this prioritization unto all the members of a society, whether they like it or not.

This pre-programmed prioritization is astoundingly detrimental to the development of all individuals.  A tremendous part of life is finding out who you are.  Once you've done that you'll have a much, much clearer idea of what you want to do in life and where you want to go.  By pre-prioritizing all a person's thoughts, culture clouds one's mind from what s/he her/himself would have chosen given the chance.  A vast majority of people end up chasing what culture has idolized and never finding out what kind of person they themselves are.  They follow careers which are not suited for them, simply because they showed an aptitude in a particular school subject,  or because their family is full of a certain profession.

It's no wonder so many people log onto the internet everyday to complain how bored they are.  Of course they're bored, they're doing something unsuited for their personalities.  They spend their days wasting their time whilst opportunity after opportunity for happiness is washed away.

Culture places certain aspects of life in a box which it places on a pedestal, and sub-cultures follow suit - different aspects, but its the same old box and pedestal.

As time goes by I, personally, grow increasingly dissatisfied with culture.  It keeps on telling me to be who I'm not.  For a long time I've wanted to travel to a different country to get away, but I know it would be to no avail.  Another country will just have a different box and pedestal, and I will find myself in my position of dissatisfaction once again.  My best bet is to learn how to live peacefully alongside this social phenomenon without allowing it to suffocate my personality.  This is, I believe, true for anyone who finds him/herself desiring to develop a unique personality which is not suppressed by a society's culture.

(I plead, my cherished reader, that you do not see my comments about myself in the above paragraph as an act of egotism or self-righteousness.  I only use myself as an example because I am, or obvious reasons, the example with which I am most acquainted.)

You may have your attention back now.

*After writing this, the Divorce Movement won the referendum after all, thus partially restoring my faith in Malta.

Asymmetry of Truth.

I express - as I wish,
my thoughts on that
and that
and that
and this.

Now you ask "Why?"
As you scan with inquisitive eye.
And I begin the elaboration
Of my thoughts' own formulation.

Deeper and deeper we run the maze,
As I throw reason to questions' gaze.
Oh what a wasted melody
Of nature's structured symphony.

Neither stop as we waste
the splendid beauty of this place.
Neither of us care to see
the perfection of verifiability.

Every truth which we may think
rests upon a deeper link
But why don't we ever say.
"This is why the universe works this way" ?

To paraphrase the above; when we question one another and the responder begins taking steps "backwards" to elaborate what s/he means to say, we never stop to appreciate how true statements play off one another and allow some deductions to be true while others are false.

This elegant structure in nature allows for everything else to occur.  If the laws of nature weren't true they wouldn't influence existence, and all the structures of nature - from stars to trees to animals to blackholes, would never be.

This structure would never be if true and false weren't asymmetrical opposites.  By this I mean that the characteristics of a true statement are not the same as the characteristics of a false statement.

First of all, for any distinct piece of data there can only be one truth.  However, there may be an infinite amount falsehoods.  For example; the "true" statement for the weight of a given animal is, say, 50kg.  All other statements for the weight of this fictional animal are false...and there are far more false statements than there are true statements.

If we take the above and apply it to the famous paradox, "This statement is false," we can deduce that no piece of data can carry its own verification.  "This statement is false,"  cannot be said to be either true or false for it would be a contradiction.  However, we only assume that this statement is valid because "This statement is true," is not a contradiction.  As said before, true and false are not symmetrical, and so we cannot assume that "This statement is false," is a valid statement just because "This statement is true," is valid.  Hence, we can see how "This statement is false," is not a valid statement due to the contradiction it implies and so cannot be put forward.  To extend the argument further, no piece of data can claim itself to be false, due to the same argument given above.  Also, a piece of data claiming itself to be true is no better than a piece of data which makes no claim on its own truth-value, for obvious reasons.  Therefore we can go ahead and say no piece of data can carry its own verification and can only be proven true by other pieces of data.

Finally, from the above it can be seen how there can be no stand-alone piece of data as it must be verified by other pieces of data, which in turn must be verified by other pieces of data etc. etc.  Therefore the asymmetry of truth causes an endless stream of data, each one playing off the verification of the other - and this stream of data in turn shapes the laws of nature and allows them to form the universe.

If this asymmetry had to be shifted - say two truths to an infinitude of falsitudes - reality would be very different...perhaps an idea for computer science?