I had lots on my table in the recent weeks so I decided to disconnect, go somewhere with Biljana for a few days, take pictures, walk, rest, have a change of scenery.
Offline
Reply
Luck
You can have equipment, you can have skill, but in order for it all to come together, you sometimes need a dumbass bird to knock itself out cold at your glass door, and then pose for you half conscious. đ
Also, sometimes having your subject shit itself in front of the camera actually makes things better:
You just can’t make this up. đ
Dissatisfaction
Iâve been thinking about something recently, how âbetterâ isnât really a simple metric; as mathematicians would say, it isnât a scalar, where 5 is bigger than 2. For instance, I have a 50mm f/1.8 lens that I like a lot because itâs small and light and itâs something I can take for a walk when I have no expectations to get usable pictures, but it still has good minimum focusing distance, excellent sharpness and so on. It has issues â focusing motor is loud and slow, and it has lots of chromatic aberrations wide open on contrasty areas. Also, it doesnât have a MF/AF switch to turn AF off quickly when it starts struggling. So, I thought about upgrading it, getting a better 50mm lens.
Thatâs where we encounter a problem, you see, because optically speaking nothing is that much better. If a lens is ergonomically better, itâs also bigger and heavier, not to say much more expensive, and that removes most of the reasons why I like a 50mm. So, I could get a 50mm lens thatâs slightly faster, has better focusing and more mechanical switches and controls on the lens itself, but is half a kilo heavier and costs a really significant chunk of money, and letâs say I bought it. Would I carry that to a walk when I want to carry the lightest possible camera? No, of course; Iâd still take the 50mm f/1.8, because itâs light and small, itâs sharp enough, versatile enough, and looks unassuming. I can get a 50mm f/2.5 G, or a similar thing from Sigma, which has better controls and itâs still small and light, but Iâm actually losing aperture and therefore photographic versatility. So, basically, something thatâs technically not the best lens is actually exceedingly hard to upgrade, because gains and losses donât come in simple packages; essentially, âbetterâ is not a simple scalar.
This creates a silly situation where my cheapest lens is apparently here to stay because it almost perfectly fits the role I have for it. It needs to be cheap, light, small and good. Itâs not something I use for stuff where I need absolute image quality; I just need it to be very good, and still small enough that I still decide to take it when I go out and there doesnât seem to be much to take pictures of. It also needs to be versatile because I have no plan and no idea what Iâll see, if anything. I want something thatâs better than the iPhone, and not much more hassle to carry around. I could get some small compact camera, which is another thing to charge batteries for and with different menus I have to learn, or I could just take my old Sony, which is as small and light as a micro four thirds camera, and put the light 50mm lens on it. The image quality of that setup is honestly stellar. Versatility, with its close focusing distance and aperture, is also pretty amazing. Itâs just that it focuses like shit and has no AF/MF switch on the lens, and has strong CA when I shoot into the light, which I tend to do. Slightly annoying, as flaws go, but they are soon forgotten when I open the images in Lightroom.
I already had situations where something like that would annoy me, and then I would âupgradeâ to something that solved one problem by introducing five bigger ones; for instance, I upgraded the old 13â Macbook Air to a 15â Macbook Pro somewhere in 2015/2016. It was faster, had more power and memory, had much better screen, but it was bigger and heavier, and actually less usable for writing than the old Air. I actually had to get a second ultralight laptop for that, the Asus Zenbook, because the âbetterâ machine was so much âbetterâ that it was less functional for the main task I actually used it for. I also âupgradedâ from a Mondeo to a huge Audi A6 estate once; bigger is better, right, and also the kids were small so I wanted a bigger car to carry their stuff. I got rid of that car as soon as it was practical and got something smaller and more suitable. Also, a bigger house is better until itâs so big it becomes a hassle to maintain and you actually spend time looking for family members around the place because you donât know where they are.
If your shoes are too small, bigger is better, until they become too big, which is when bigger is worse. When you drive a car thatâs a bit too small, bigger is better until you feel like youâre driving a bus.
Recently Biljana and I were buying new laptops; she got a 16â Macbook Pro, and I thought about just getting one of those for myself, and then I remembered how that ended the last time I âupgradedâ, and said âfuck noâ. What I got for myself is the 15â Macbook Air; I just loaded it with enough RAM and that was it. Why did I get a âworseâ computer for myself? I actually didnât, I got a better computer for what I need it for, and I got her the better computer for what she needs it for. Itâs like multiplying two matrices, one of requirements and one of actual hardware specs; what you use it for, how you use it, what matters, and then multiply this with actual hardware properties of mass, size and performance.
Itâs not just about equipment. Most things in life require balance, where you think you need more of something until you see what it actually means. All those ideologies that feed on resentment are a good example. Communism wanted âmore equalityâ, and produced universal misery. Feminism wanted power for women, and broke civilization to the point where it would now be easier to burn it all down than to fix it. Inclusivity sounds great until you understand that it destroys criteria.
You see flaws and you think something has to change. Then you change it and see itâs actually worse.
Satan seems to have started this resentment thing first â oh, itâs not right that some souls are so incredibly large while the others like himself are pipsqueaks. Something should be done to make everybody equal. So he made a world that limits everybody to the same playing ground, and that obviously worked great for eliminating inequality. Oh waitâŚ
The answer to his âSome souls are so much larger than everybody elseâ should have been âGood; that means we have someone to admire and strive towards.â
Womenâs answer to âWe live in a patriarchyâ should have been âGreat, we love powerful men.â
The problem with resentment is that itâs a problem that presents itself as a solution. Itâs not. You can point at a laptop and say âoh, itâs so smallâ, as if thatâs a problem, and the right answer is âof course itâs small, thatâs the pointâ. The answer to arguments that try to foment dissatisfaction is to think whether something is actually problem, or a set of features you actually prefer. Everything comes with drawbacks. You think you could always use a few inches more of penis size, but your wife might say âplease noâ. She might think she could do with bigger boobs, until they start jiggling around while sheâs running or exercising, at which point sheâll start complaining about that. We seem to be incredibly sensitive to dissatisfaction and inclined to think change must be an improvement, but in reality, it seems that the only thing we actually need to change in most cases is perspective.
Hell
I need to write this down.
I talked to Romana again, and she said she finally saw what Hell looks like, as a level.
I answered this: âI know; itâs a place like any other, just without God.
There are protectors of family virtues, national or whatever identity, without God.
There are protectors of religious principles and regulations, without God.
There are Pandits who can recite all four Vedas, without God.
There are Muslims who can recite the entire Kurâan, without God.
There are Christians who cite Jesus and threaten infidels with hell, also without God.â
Be worth keeping
I was just talking to Romana about how one of the fundamental misapprehensions of my students in the early years was caused by their completely wrong understanding of the reality in general and reality of their situation specifically.
They assumed this is the real world â part of the âmultiverseâ that also contains Heaven and Hell â created by the actual One God, who is good and to whom they all matter to the point where all of Creation is their playground, and of course they will get second chances because thatâs the purpose of Creation, to give them as much chances and opportunities as they need to basically run out of bullshit to try, and they are essentially the main characters in this play, where everything else, including me and other beings, is a mere prop whose purpose is to serve their needs. Basically, if I donât serve their needs well, God will punish me, so Iâd better behave.
I donât know where people get this idea, but it seems to be ubiquitous and implicit. I know Felix helped convince them of this bullshit behind my back, telling them something along the lines of âif not in this incarnation, then in the nextâ. I was absolutely appalled when I heard this statement, because itâs not just completely wrong, itâs an absolute abomination, the worst possible thing you can think or believe. Considering the amount of damage he created, that guy must have been Satanâs pet, if not an outright avatar.
Their understanding of their situation couldnât have been more wrong, because trying out bullshit is actually a choice. If they make a strong enough choice, why would they ever get a second chance? Why would there be a next incarnation? Why would their fate not be determined in a final judgment, because they had a choice between me and bullshit, they chose bullshit and thatâs it? Why do they think people who choose against God get a second chance, as if God is stupid and doesnât get it, or as if they have no agency and their choice will somehow be seen as not final? If anything, second chances are for people who chose God and only God, and they ran out of time to become their own âfinal formâ along this choice-vector. Second chances for people who chose against God; what purpose would that serve, exactly? You think thereâs a shit eating competition, and those, who didnât eat all the shit there is, need to get a second chance? Why?
I think the fundamental mistake of religious philosophies is that they always assume that this world matters, in a sense that itâs an important place made by God and they derive all kinds of assumptions from this starting thesis, and none of that might even be remotely close to reality. For instance, if you play a complex video game, Witcher III for instance, and you are completely immersed to the point of thinking itâs the real world, and if you derive assumptions about theology based on your experience within the game, youâll get all kinds of conclusions except the right one: that it was designed and made by a few Poles who had a blast doing it, and itâs loosely based on some aspects of this world, but mostly on a made up story from a book series. Itâs not a real world made by a real God. Itâs a nth order reality, where nâN might actually be quite a bit bigger than 2, but no less than.
Itâs interesting how my early students never actually thought they could catastrophically fail. They thought their options consisted of good and better, of safe and risky, where they had âsafeâ and I offered âriskyâ, and risky was also hard and demanding. They thought that saying âno, weâre good as we are, thanksâ is a safe option, while in fact it was a decisive ânoâ to God, after which there would be no reason for further questions. They thought I was merely an option to upgrade the level of satisfaction in their personal playground of a life. They didnât understand that they were here because Gods had enough of their shit and wanted a decisive answer whether they want to evolve towards God, or are they dry branches to be pruned. They didnât understand that I, myself, didnât live in the cozy world they thought they inhabited. I knew I could fail. I already had terrible experiences that showed me how hard I can get wrecked. I had no illusions that God will help me; in fact, I knew I was expected to be someone who helps others; I was the ice breaker that had to cut a line through thick ice, for others to follow quickly before it freezes over again. I myself knew that I was always one wrong important choice away from perdition. I was taking this incredibly seriously, and I was so not fucking around. I told them they donât have much time, that itâs important that they get their shit together quickly, because the window is going to close. They chose to believe nicer tales narrated by idiots. We know how that ended.
Letâs assume God actually does care about you. You think that love is unconditional? He will love you regardless of what you do, regardless of what you choose? What evidence is that belief based on? God personally told you that it doesnât matter what you choose because itâs all the same? I donât think so. The Bible, where every âblessed are thoseâŚâ is followed by a âwoe toâŚâ? Also, I donât think so. An idea that God is a good and slightly dumb guy who just loves everybody and whose job is to forgive because he canât help it? Yeah, probably. I never met that guy, however. I think he, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny might have a blast over a beer somewhere, but I never met either of them so I canât say.
People, you should get your shit together and take this seriously. This is not your personal fuckaroundery. Itâs a trap designed by Satan for idiots whose virtue and spiritual allegiance were already questionable when they believed his bullshit, and the fact that youâre in doesnât say great things about you, unless you are by some chance Biljana, who was conceived without any participation of sin of any kind and is here for me. Even she could fuck up if she made wrong choices here, and the result would have been bad. What does that say about you? If youâre here, and if youâre not taking it extremely seriously, youâre an idiot.
Why do you think God cares about someone? Because youâre super likeable and irresistible? Or because God has a character feature that makes him like everybody, but somehow Hell still exists? How about, he likes you if thereâs something Divine in you that reacts to him? Basically, God is simply God, and that aspect of Divinity within you makes you attracted to God and makes you want it, and you interpret that as God loving and wanting you, the way children think that the Sun loves them because they feel good under it, and they draw it with a smile, because it makes them smile? But what if you decide against that Divinity, if you reject God because something felt more attractive? What if that Divinity in you simply discards you as a failed path back to God, and you just wither in your illusions and nonsense? What if choice for and against God are merely physics, like the path water takes from the mountain to the ocean? Basically, seek the point of least gravitational potential; fill lake; then continue falling to the next point of lower gravitational potential, until thereâs no lower point to fall? What if failures to reach God merely evaporate and stop being recognizable souls, and their constituent particles continue circulating in nature until they attach to something with greater potential of bringing them to God? You think failures to reach God have endless right to exist? Think again, because not really. Also, donât think itâs all about you. God also has free will. In fact, only Gods have free will, because unlike yours, their will is not conditioned with attachments, misapprehensions and nonsense. They have their freedom, and preferences, and you can have all kinds of wishes and nobody is really obliged to give a shit. If you didnât give a God reasons to like you, they donât have to. Itâs not that anyone is under any obligation to help you, or guide you, or teach you, or save you. Every single Divine being does only what they feel like doing. You think my wife is under some obligation to love me? No. Sheâs a God-person of unrestricted, unconditional freedom. She feels what she chooses to feel out of complete freedom, and nobody has any right to try to influence her. If you are not someone who makes a God feel that way about you, why do you even think youâd be worth saving? Give God a reason to care about you, and start by being a person other people will care about, because you make them feel appreciated, loved and important. If you can be a presence of God in lives of other people, chances are the Gods will love you and open doors for you. If you can only be hell to other people, chances are the Gods will give you what you worked for.
Everything matters. What you do matters, how you see things matters, how you choose to act matters, how you choose to treat other beings matters, what you accept matters and what you reject matters. It matters who your friends are, and who your enemies are. Whatever you do, someone will always hate you, unless you became such an inconsequential person that absolutely nobody cares about you enough to hate you. You want to make friends of angels and enemies of demons. Of course satanists will hate you if you made good choices and they can smell God on you. Of course good people will feel good in your company if you are a good person. If good people donât feel good in your company, why would God love you or want to be with you?
If God has no reason to love you or want to be with you, why would you exist in Eternity and not just wither and die in Time? Instead of thinking God must have a reason to keep saving you, try being someone God will want to be with.