Category Archives: religion

Keywords

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been reading some more of those space fantasies written by either AI, idiots or both.

There seem to be keywords, or key concepts, that are invariably used by idiots who are pretending to sound smart while having no idea what they’re talking about.

The first such concept is anything quantum. Quantum entanglement, quantum this, quantum that; I swear, whenever I hear or read the word quantum I develop a rash from the antibodies I start producing to that bullshit. Every goddamn idiot who is trying to make his materialism sound mystical resorts to some quantum bullshit. The second concept they resort to is the multiverse, especially if it’s related to the many worlds interpretation of the quantum theory, which is something evil people resort to in order to justify their moral relativism – basically, every action forks the universe into every possible choice-outcome, so you never did anything good or evil, because you did both at every single choice, so you can’t be judged. Of course, the only thing that quantum theory actually states is that our statistically formulated ignorance collapses into certainty at the moment of observation, and everything else is obscurantist nonsense propagated by charlatans, frauds and assholes. Multiverse, for instance, is invented by people who hate the concept of God, so they violated Occam’s razor in the most extreme way, by introducing an infinite number of unproven entities in order to avoid the unpleasant fact that some fundamental constants of this universe proved to be extremely finely tuned in order for it to exist in this form, which proves that it was created by an action of a conscious entity. After this slam-dunk evidence for creationism emerged, we started hearing all that multiverse nonsense, which is essentially atheist propaganda without a single fucking shred of evidence to back it; in fact, it’s worse in this sense than string theory. The only reason why it’s even talked about is atheist propaganda; if they talk about it enough, people will believe that there’s something real behind it. In fact, there is – since religions believe that Heaven exists as a separate Universe, this theoretically qualifies as a multiverse, but I kinda don’t think the atheists had that interpretation in mind.

The next concept that annoys me immensely is the idea of an AI that will go around and try to kill or enslave all organic life. I mean, it’s possible, but that’s not the problem with the AI. The problem is that totalitarian minded people using some kind of an AI, that doesn’t even have to be that smart or self-aware, will use it to look through millions of cameras, identify every human everywhere in order to map whatever they are doing at every point, in order to prevent and stop insurgencies that could remove them from power, ever, and by insurgency I mean even the actually free elections. I mean, who would dare to do anything to attract attention to themselves when it could mean degradation of their credit rating, closure of their bank account, deactivation of their credit cards, or instant activation of certain clauses on their mortgage. In a world where cash will be banned, and everything is done on credit, this amounts to a death sentence. That’s why every country is afraid of America: they all live on credit, and America controls their credit rating. Degrade it from average to trash, and you can kiss your economy goodbye. So, the problem with the AI isn’t that it will supersede humans. No, that stuff is dumber than a house fly, and it ain’t superseding shit. However, it’s very good at scanning faces and license plates and pairing them with databases of citizens and vehicles, and it’s also excellent at finding needles in haystacks. That’s the actual problem: it enslaves humans in a cage of fear, because the Big Brother now has a servant who watches through all eyes simultaneously, can track everyone at once, can access cloud storage and remote accounts, can plant fake evidence and destroy reputations, or simply track and prevent online payment. I wish the threat was death, because that would be a way out. The actual threat is worse.

I just had to take this off my chest because, really…

Defining good

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking more about that last article, especially the photography part because it’s easier to explain. My best photos are rarely taken with my best equipment. They were taken with what I had with me when the stars aligned.

These three were taken with an iPhone, because that’s the camera I always have with me when I’m not actually going out to take pictures and a picture shows up in front of me. Then at one point I realised that I don’t actually want all my photos to be taken with a phone, and started to take the proper camera out with me when I’m out for a walk. Of course, the camera has only one lens on it and that lens happens to be the one that takes the pictures, so the determining factor tends to be not which lens is the sharpest, but which one tends to be chosen for walks, because it’s either light, or practical, or I just like having it on the camera.

Sure, there’s one way of making sure that all your pictures are taken with your best equipment, and that is to have only the best equipment; no inferior lenses, no inferior but practical cameras; however, that’s not as simple as it sounds. “Best” is not a single-dimension metric. Recently I carried two lenses up the local hill in sunset; one was the new 14mm f/1.8 ultrawide, which is one of my optically best lenses, perfect for all intents and purposes. Sharpness edge to edge wide open with resolution that probably outresolves the 61MP sensor, no flare directly into the sun, no contrast loss, no geometric distortions, nothing; just perfection. I also took the 24-105mm f/4 zoom as a backup. Well, as it turned out, almost all the pictures that showed up were ideal for the 24-105mm zoom and the 14mm went into the bag and returned only in the end, in the blue hour, for that one picture.

Sony A7RV, FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS

The pictures I made with the 24-105mm had some flare on them when I shot into the sun, the sun stars weren’t as crisp, the parts in focus weren’t as sharp as they would have been had I used some of the optical monsters I left at home, but guess what – I got several pictures that are my all-time favourites, that are sharp and contrasty enough to be printed meter wide, because the lens was versatile enough to allow me to get those shots, and it was also optically good enough to make the pictures look great. In the end, yeah, it wasn’t as sharp as a GM prime would have been, but a GM prime wasn’t there and the versatile zoom was, so tough shit. If I only had my optically best lenses, I wouldn’t have taken those shots. That’s the reason why “versatile while still good enough” is sometimes preferable to “exceptional but limiting”. When the pictures in front of me demand 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm, and I have to carry the optics for an hour of brisk uphill walk, I’m just not carrying four primes of half a kilo each. Also, when the ideal light is changing quickly, I’m just not going to waste it changing lenses. I’m going to look for motives and use what I already have on the camera. Apparently, trying to aim for perfection can be a good way of getting nothing.

So, an obvious question presents itself: if I can take those pictures with an iPhone, and if I can take pictures that good with standard zooms, why do I have those expensive super-lenses? Because image quality at magnification is a thing, and I like looking at what happens when I actually get to have one of those optics on the camera when a picture turns up. The iPhone pictures break under magnification on a big display or on a big print. You actually need a certain level of quality to pull certain things off, but you also need to be reasonable and have all kinds of tools in your toolbox, because as I said, “good” is not a single-dimensional metric.

This goes way beyond photography. For instance, cars exist in all kinds of shapes, form a fast convertible to a large SUV, and what looks sexy in a showroom isn’t necessarily what’s practical and useful. A home that’s on a respectable location will elevate your perceived status, but if you don’t have anywhere to park your car and there’s something noisy in the neighbourhood, it’s more trouble than it’s worth. A wife that’s super beautiful but cold, calculating and disloyal is a nightmare.

When you’re looking for someone who is a candidate for yogic practice, you don’t look for the person who’s smartest, best looking, least emotionally damaged. You are looking for someone who has the best reaction to transcendence, who flares up with desire at the presence of God, but you still want them to be smart enough, to have a good heart, and to be willing to break, to give up the known and the safe. You avoid the crazy, the cruel, the selfish, the stupid and the self-absorbed. However, the metric of “smart” doesn’t have to mean a university professor, or the most intelligent person in the world. It just means someone who has a good head on their shoulders – smart enough to get things quickly, not necessarily smart because they maintain Linux kernel or teach university level mathematics. If someone is really stupid, no amount of good heart or desire for God will help, because stupid gets deluded quickly because they can’t discriminate between pleasant and useful, for instance, or detect that someone is really harmful because they are trying to be nice to everyone. If someone is really smart but nasty, their poor character will be a bigger liability than their intelligence is an asset. You really need a mixture of qualities, and some things are immediate red flags, while some things don’t really matter because everybody starts fucked up in some way; that’s why yoga is a process, and process means you get better with practice. Eventually you get to be holy, pure, smart, powerful and beautiful, but that’s not how you start. What matters is that you’re not someone who will immediately give up at the first sign of trouble or difficulty, someone who will keep doing something like an idiot despite warnings, or someone who will be easily deluded and perverted by all kinds of evils you are bound to encounter along the way. You can think of it as a selection of good company for God. Who would God want to train to be worthy of His company? First of all, someone who really strongly wants Him and wants to be with Him. Other characteristics need to be just good enough to avoid failure along the way, because you actually get to develop everything you’re missing in the start, but if something is really fucked up, you’re not going anywhere. It’s like the lenses – if things are good enough, you can make your best picture with it, but if something is really bad, it’s going to ruin things and make the end result useless. So, multi-dimensional vector representation of good. That alone is an example why you need to have enough brain to attain success in spirituality; because if you lack it, you won’t be able to understand explanations such as this one.

The fallacy of determinism

Posted on by
Reply

The most qualified person is going to do the best job.

The best camera/lens is going to take the best picture.

The most beautiful woman is going to make the best wife.

The strongest guy in class is going to win at life.

The smartest kid at school is going to win at life.

The most hard working person is going to succeed.

I don’t even know how many times I encountered this expectation – that the inputs will somehow translate into results. However, life doesn’t exactly work that way. Raw capability and talent doesn’t linearly translate into results; in fact, it usually creates expectations, and expectations result in either pressure, which results in self-sabotage and failure, or hubris and failure. For instance, the worst thing that can happen to a kid seems to be early success. Early failure, however, is healthy, because if you crash early enough, you learn to deal with real life, which is for the most part failure, learning from it, changing, doing better, and eventually getting so used to the process that the psychological impact of failure no longer even registers for you. However, if success is expected for long enough, the devastating impact of failure can be such that you might never recover.

Also, “repeat success and victory until death” is a very poor approximation of life, and a very damaging lesson to teach people. The expectation that you’re going to keep doing well, keep winning, keep being successful, in a linear manner, is in fact so unrealistic that it borders on insanity. In fact, the healthy attitude would be that failure is so expected, that it’s in fact a necessary element of getting anything done, and if anything, failure is something that needs to be integrated in any process that eventually results in anything worthwhile. In fact, science does exactly that. In order to apply scientific method, you need to plan for all kinds of failure that will gather useful data, and that hopefully expands your knowledge enough to create a map of a wider, previously unknown reality. Usefulness of an experiment isn’t judged by whether it “succeeds”, but by whether it provides useful data. Failure to confirm a theory that is methodologically well done and provides solid data is in fact a scientific success. You now know something you didn’t know before.

In my experience, the best candidates for success in spiritual practice aren’t people who are in some top 1% of the most successful people in a group. In fact, they are the most likely to fail in the most dangerous ways possible, with the worst imaginable outcomes. The most likely ones to succeed are those who survived devastating trauma, loss, personal failure, and especially personal failure which they themselves caused by their foolishness, and the result broke their confidence, broke their entire world, and they look at you with eyes that have depth you can see in children who survived war, a terrible natural disaster, injury or disease. They were broken, they learned to shed the parts of life that don’t matter, they don’t have entitlement, expectation of success, expectation of survival, and they have awareness and intelligence far beyond expected in their peer group. Basically, the most likely person to become a buddha isn’t someone who lived life on easy mode, but someone who was broken by trauma and had to rebuild his entire world from ruin, because that’s what yoga is. It’s learning to break yourself by observation and analysis, learning to face the fundamental, painful truths, learning to bear the burden of suffering peacefully, without entitlement or expectation of success or pleasure. Surviving the process of yoga is failure. Being crushed, refined on a particle level, and reborn from trauma and suffering as much as from Divine insight and transcendental experience, dying and letting God be born from your ashes, is success in yoga.

This doesn’t mean that broken people of all kinds are good candidates for enlightenment. Far from it. Broken people who stay broken are not good candidates for anything; however, those beautiful, successful young people with perfect self-confidence that resulted from a life of success and admiration from others are in fact worse. They are beautiful in a way a brand new land mine is beautiful, because that thing is also perfect all the way until detonation, and then it’s all over. However, persistence built in terrible, prolonged suffering and humiliation, and hard work in resisting terrible circumstances and rebuilding your broken life by clinging to what matters and letting the water carry away the rest, that is someone who already made their first steps into yoga, and they just need to learn to be methodical about the process.

That’s something Christianity knows – if you’re trying to find God in the world, look at the crucifixion site, not the throne room. If you’re looking for the queen of heaven, look for someone crying under a cross. True success often looks like failure to worldly eyes, and true failure is often a result of repeated success. You can’t be rebuilt better if you’re not completely broken in the process. Surviving intact means failure. Building on apparent success with more success in fact enforces failure until everything is lost. Also, compassion is not necessarily a process of helping others succeed; sometimes it’s a process of allowing them to fail, be broken and lose their sense of self in order to start actually paying attention to reality. In order to be reborn, you need to learn how to die.

Communication

Posted on by
6

I was reading some American space opera stories, because I’m not dignifying that with the term SciFi. One thing seems to be a constant – “humans” in those stories are in fact a metaphor for Americans, and “aliens” are a metaphor for various non-American human nations of Earth. If you watched enough Star Trek, you’ll know what I mean. Also, how do you know that an American wrote a certain story? Because they implicitly assume that every language is basically English, but spoken with different words, that can be translated 1:1.

The only exception to that nonsense that I can remember was the “Darmok” episode of TNG, where they encounter a civilisation that keeps referencing their myths to explain current experience, for instance “Darmok and Jalad on Tanagra”, or “Shaka, when the walls fell”. Basically, it’s like a reference to “Achilles’ heel”, “opening the Pandora’s box”, or “David and Goliath”. This is actually a great example of why translating things between very different cultures while retaining the nuance of meaning is hard, and in order to understand what a Chinese would mean by “jade mind”, you need to do quite a bit of reading of their mythology and symbolism; also, good luck translating kitsune or qilin.

Basically, in order for an American to truly understand some fundamentally un-American culture, such as Chinese or Indian, they would have to do so much reading and abandoning their own mental position in order to get into another’s skin, that they would stop being Americans, because what seems to define Americans assuming that they are the top of the world and the only valid measurement of value and achievement. And we are talking about understanding merely another human culture, not something profoundly alien, like an octopus that communicates through chromatophores and tentacles, or a dolphin that probably thinks in idiom that would be as foreign to us as phrases such as “bitter anguish” or “sweet recollection” to someone who lacks a sense of taste because they feed on sunlight.

I was asked, many times, why I use sanskrit or Tibetan terms to describe certain states of consciousness or spiritual substances, and the underlying assumption is that those words can be translated to English or Croatian for that matter, and I’m just making it difficult. The thing is, if I’m not translating it, it means that there is no word or phrase of equivalent meaning in the target language, and I’m leaving it in the original because that’s how it works. The people who discover something get to name it. The Americans discovered certain elements such as Americium, Berkelium and Californium, and they got to name them. What are the names of those elements in Chinese? There aren’t any, because they were unknown to the Chinese. Every language has names for copper, tin and iron, though; guess why. So, now that the Americans discovered those elements, everybody in every other culture will use those words to reference them, because that’s how it works. That’s also why there aren’t translations for brahman, kundalini, vajra, mantra, mudra or mandala. It’s not because I’m making it hard for no reason, but for the same reason the Mongols have no word for Einsteinium. Your language has no word for vajra because no member of your culture had enough experience with it to try to conceptualise it; as Wittgenstein would say, if you don’t have a word for it, it is beyond the limits of your world.

Sometimes, in order for you to be able to understand something really alien, you need to leave your own skin and become an alien being with an alien understanding, and leave your words, cognition and feelings behind completely. Then, you will possibly formulate new words for those experiences, and thus make them something within your world, and maybe you’ll abandon words completely. Some things are, in fact, more efficient for conveying emotion or meaning; just listen to cats formulating a long whining tirade of complaint and you’ll see what I mean. So, in order to express emotion, Cat might be more suitable than English, because it expresses emotion directly rather than just map and reference it.

Explanation of real things that are beyond the experience of the audience is a serious problem, and a good example is Pliny the Younger describing the eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompei and Herculaneum in 79 AD. He made an incredibly accurate and specific description of the eruption and the ash cloud, and yet it was historically seen as a metaphor of some kind because people in the West didn’t actually experience a pyroclastic eruption of that kind until Mt. Pinatubo, at which point they saw the ash cloud that looked like a pine tree, and said, hey, this looks exactly like Pliny the Younger’s description. Now, that type of volcanism is called a Plinian eruption, in his honour.

That’s another problem in describing things: you can be extremely accurate and specific in your description, but if your audience doesn’t have the experience you can invoke in order to form understanding, they will think you’re using metaphors or just talking about things that aren’t real, like fairies and unicorns. So that’s another very real limit of symbolic communication – it works by referencing another’s experience, and if there isn’t any to reference, you have a problem. Try describing some kind of an exotic fruit such as cherimoya or durian to someone who hasn’t seen and tasted it, and you’ll see the problem. Have them see and taste it and then give them the word for it, and now suddenly you have understanding and communication.

The plurality of good

Posted on by
Reply

Spiritual evolution is not a ladder. It’s also not a singular Path that leads to a singular Goal.

This is an important thing to know, because all kinds of spiritual and quasi-spiritual teachers and movements since Vivekananda have been convincing us otherwise. They have been convincing us that all religions and paths are like a web of rivers that all flow into the One Ocean which is God, and also, that they all originate from God, in one way or another, so it’s basically a dead loop that connects A to A by going through all kinds of places that have neither meaning nor true importance.

This is all false. It’s all a grave misunderstanding, in a sense that this is not at all what’s going on, or how things work. Also, playing the Relative/Absolute games of Vedanta doesn’t actually provide us with any useful answers, so I’m going to just ignore those trivial answers of the “everything is God” kind, because they are like some kind of a drug that makes you feel smart, but you’re really not.

You now probably expect me to give you an alternative simple answer that will make you feel like you know everything. I’m not going to do that. The actual answer is simple enough, but also complex enough that it’s not useful for ego tripping of that kind. Kalapas aggregate, and most aggregations don’t amount to much, really. You can call them souls, or you can call them potatoes for all it matters. However, with enough iterations some of those aggregations stumble upon something that actually works, and then we start getting something that can be called a soul, or you can call it a manifestation of Brahman in the Relative. However, the successful outcomes are so diverse, that it’s nowhere near being a singular pattern of evolution, that produces a singular good outcome. It’s more like a farmer’s market, where you have all kinds of fruits and vegetables, and they are all good, but a good tomato is vastly different from a good watermelon. And so, you have beings that manifest beauty, beings that manifest knowledge, and all kinds of other good things, and you can say that beauty is powerful, and music is powerful, and a nuclear explosion is powerful, but power is not measured on a singular dimension, and it’s not a scalar. Rather, it’s a n-dimensional tensor. If you try to reduce it to a scalar, you are completely missing the point. In fact, a good way of explaining this is human sexual dimorphism. Essentially, there is no such thing as “human”; there are men and women, and metrics of “good”, “successful” and “powerful” are completely different between them; male and female are completely parallel paths, and if you’re trying to merge them, you get less instead of more. This is why Hinduism represents peak spiritual states as a married couple of male and female deities, and it’s more than a metaphor; rather, it’s a way of explaining that there is no one correct answer to the question “what does God look like”. Also, the fact that there is a plurality of God-couples gives another dimension to this, because not only are Vishnu and Lakshmi equal but different answers to the question, but also the Shiva and Shakti couple give another, equally good answer, basically saying that human mind is so limited by the sexual dimorphism of the species, that God equation has male and female solutions, and not only that, but God-couple has multiple valid solutions, because God-outcomes of evolutions have different characters, flavours or however you want to phrase it.

This means that the conventional human way of conceiving the evolution-vector, originating probably in ancient Greece, is wrong. Simplified, this vector-concept states that if there is a relation of better-worse, on the “worse” endpoint you necessarily get the absolute evil that is so bad that it can’t possibly get worse by any modification, and anything you change on it can only make it less bad, and on the other side you get the absolute good that can’t possibly be modified in any way that would not make it worse. That’s not how it works in reality. In reality, there is a tree of options with multiple endpoints, some of which are various flavours of terrible, while some are various flavours of God, and each of those flavours has a male and female version.

The better-worse vector is a hard thing to get out of people’s heads, because it’s so ingrained in the Western theology that I don’t know where to even begin explaining it. However, let me illustrate the problem by citing something I’ve been dealing with recently: computers. Basically, you would expect that more powerful, newer computers are better than old, less powerful ones, but that’s not exactly how it works. A desktop and a laptop are different solutions to the “computer” equation, and the same generation has a laptop-solution, and a desktop-solution; those are comparable to “male” and “female” in our theology, where a good male outcome and a good female outcome are completely different, but they are both good, each with a multidimensional tensor of strengths and weaknesses, and if you try to combine the two, you get the worst of both: a heavy, big laptop that overheats like crazy, or a small, luggable desktop that’s also crap. However, if you allow good outcomes to be different, you get a MacBook Air as one solution, and a gaming/workstation desktop with a huge display, a mechanical keyboard, and tons of power and cooling, as the other solution. Both are the outcomes of the same technological generation and are equally modern, but “good” is not something that has a singular answer, which is why I have many computers. A “good” home server is a different thing than a “good” laptop, or a “good” desktop workstation, and then there are “good” Windows systems and “good” Mac systems, of both laptop and desktop flavours. Also, there’s a reason why I have an older ThinkPad – by almost every metric it’s worse than my M4 MacBook Air, but as something to carry to the beach and write an article there, under the pines, where pine resin occasionally drips down and makes a mess, or there is salt water spray from the waves that can get into the electronics, something that’s easy and cheap to repair, and puts a low price on total loss in case it gets outright destroyed, is “better” for the task. For instance, I wrote yesterday’s second article that way, and I wouldn’t have done it if I had to carry the new, expensive machine to a hazardous environment. The better, more expensive computer is suddenly “worse” if you need something rugged, cheap and potentially expendable, but good enough for performing all the necessary tasks. The one reason for all sorts of arguments is that people expect there to be a singular answer to “good”, but that’s not how things work. Complexity exists for a reason, and reductionism is usually a lossy process – in both material and spiritual spheres. That’s why I have a problem with Vedanta; it makes you feel smart, as if you have all the answers, but that’s the problem – historically, idiots always had all the answers. They “knew” that the lights on the night sky were a path of spilled milk, which is why it’s called the Milky Way. They “knew” there’s a rabbit on the Moon. They “knew” that Poseidon causes the earthquakes by banging his trident in fury. So, maybe it’s not about knowing answers to all questions, but about changing your way of thinking in ways that allow you to survive the understanding that reality is sometimes irreducible to your human limitations, and the best you can do is live with metaphors that each explain a small part, and give up on having all-encompassing simple answers.