Featured Post

Sava Gromov on the scene

You may wonder who the heck is the unknown Mr. Gromov?  To put it bluntly, he is the main character of Sovereign, the new emerging spa...

Friday, February 11, 2022

Matrix debunked or Why Neo was an idiot

People do desire change. No rational being can conclude otherwise that life is a meaningless journey, intended to lead nowhere from the cradle to the grave.

Still, since we are not as rational as we love to believe, we became masters in finding artificial excuses for our futile existences.

One of these excuses, called beliefs or morality or philosophy, looks for the happiness in freedom of making our own choices.

Despite the sad truth that our choices are not always the best course of action (children learn this in kindergarten), certain people feel obliged to pursue freedom. They are under the impression that only free creatures are happy and meaningful.

Such a notion is nonsense. For the impartial Mother Nature, we are only products of evolution, and she doesn't care what we do with our dedicated times, nor does she push on us some great expectations.

As for happiness, we can achieve satisfaction by abusing chemical substances. Yet, such kind of happiness seems too straightforward to be true.

Instead of embracing the simple fact that there is no absolute fulfillment (since our living is pointless), we believe in the almighty change.

The change is always good because we do not like the current state of affairs. Revolutions were started on this premise, and Matrix is a mere example of how people misjudge their petty presence.

To put it simply, the protagonist of Matrix wanted to change his life, and in the process, he took down the whole society with himself, without proper analysis of whether the change is desired or not.

If anything, the movie should be a grave warning for those who cannot think at least several decades ahead. The change itself is not a plan, no matter how noble it may sound.

From this perspective, the hailed Neo was an obnoxious and irresponsible idiot.

Thursday, February 10, 2022

Is writing an underrated skill?

Writing is a skill learned at primary school. Nothing to be too thrilled about. It is like appreciating someone who knows how to sum two numbers. Does one plus one equal two impress you?

Now worry not. It is not about trolling or misinterpreting the question; the first paragraph is supposed to demonstrate that an unspecified writing skill does need any deep reverence. It is just commonplace.

Even a superior writing skill is not necessarily something to admire if the person who wields it has nothing substantial to write about.

The purpose of writing lies in delivering a message. For instance, one doesn't need greater literary education to inform one's auntie about an oncoming wedding in the family.

Sometimes even the fanciest text can be replaced by a less elaborate picture that makes the addressee more informed about the problem. Many manuals are better off with simple pictograms.

Thus, writing itself is a mere tool, and it depends solely on the authors how they put it in use. There are writers who became famous for being diligent even though their writing proficiency is hardly on par with truly talented people, and conversely, there are writers who achieved mastery of the highest level, yet the general audience has never heard of them.

Moreover, after inspecting outlines of modern writing courses, one has to realize that contemporary writing does not promote outstanding writing skills — on the contrary, they are trying to reduce the creative writing into a telegraphic, laconic SMS imposed on the fools who pay for them.

There is no essence in such a style. One can obtain proficiency in it just by using proper software like Grammarly or Hemingway app. These will guide their users in adopting the uniformity of texts that present no challenge to people with a finished high school.

But there is a reason to do so. With greater mastery comes the inevitable shortcoming, the number of readers will diminish as rich vocabulary and unusual sentence construction exercise a higher burden on the reader's ability. Concluded, with literary mastery comes loneliness. 

On the Internet, one hardly encounters a comment praising the excellency of the style. People usually appreciate the informative value of the post or the sentiment that complies with their personal perspective. 

Writing proficiency is very seldomly mentioned or appreciated. For most folk, the minimum they require is being able to understand the text vaguely, and if they approve it, they will upvote. 

Asking masses to change their attitude toward writing content is similar to asking them to listen to classical music instead of monotonous pop. Not likely at all.

Wednesday, February 09, 2022

The difference between love and attraction

Both are temporary, but love lasts longer. Falling in love is accompanied by changes in human metabolism, similar to the effect of certain drugs. Those alterations in our biochemistry give us an illusion of being happy, and similarly to drugs, the impact cannot soothe us forever.

And similar to drugs, the feeling may be addictive, so this is why we encounter many people who are getting high in a neverending cycle of falling in love, getting disappointed, and making the same mistake again.

As for the attraction, there is nothing mysterious about it. Our brains are programmed on a very low level to appreciate certain features in the opposite sex that can be interpreted in the following manner: We perceive a person, evaluate the person according to hardwired criteria, and if the person is approved by the brain, the body starts the secretion of hormones that we interpret like an attraction.

And since we want to enjoy the pleasant feeling as often as possible, we start to seek the company of such a person.

If the relationship brings us more joy than sorrow, the brain enforces its stimulation to the state we call love. All of this helps us and makes us reproduce with the best possible partner available, no matter how irrational it may seem for an independent observer.

Unfortunately, our brains, on their basic level, do not calculate the attraction in the way we would want them to do, so their very primitive algorithm forces us to follow attributes we tend to dismiss on a higher level of our conscience, such as physical build or length of hair.

The problem, as you should understand by now, comes with our inability to reprogram our brains, so even if we scold ourselves for having the urge to watch an attractive specimen, the brain thinks otherwise (pun intended) and keep shooting the happy juice into our veins.

And conversely, if the brain doesn't like the object, it perceives even though our rationality vehemently disagrees, we simply cannot and will not feel anything. Translated to our speech, the brain says: "Yes, she or he may be nice, caring, and wonderful, but no - there will be no babies because his or her eyebrows are too thick."

Monday, February 07, 2022

Why are love potions not illegal in the Harry Potter world?

I see no particular reason why they should be illegal. So many people claim to understand the universe of wizards, but they fail to accept one thing.

No matter how many times they read the books, they were born muddles, they have lived as such, and bringing their social norms into an alien world of magical beings is completely useless.

So what that love potions are not illegal? In the Harry Potter series, we can find too many potentially harmful devices, behaviors, and standards not compatible with ours that pointing only one is ridiculous.

I wonder what makes those complaining pussies so sure about them being right? There are countries eating cows and countries deeming cows as sacred, yet nobody seems to complain about this stark difference in approaches, but love potions in worlds of wizards should be banned because they may lead to nasty consequences, similar to throwing a sleeping pill to someone's wine.

I would like to point out a few things for you. As muddles, we have no idea how wizards think. The books indicate that wizards don't care about us at all, so why should they care about muddles' opinions on abusing magic remains a mystery.

Moreover, J. K. Rowling used the scenes with love potions to entertain her readers, and thankfully, she disregarded the lot obsessed with the urge to dig up something deeper, which never existed in books for children.

And yes, her famous series is completely asexual, so we may conclude that wizards do procreate (similar to as I saw in one old British sketch) by drinking hot cocoa and keep themselves nice and warm, waiting for the house elves to deliver a tiny wizard baby for them.

The case may be the wizards would find our muddles' nasty insinuations disgusting and inappropriate. Murder and torture? Why not? Sexuality? Despicable! If I am not mistaken, the US film movie rating system has been based on similar principles.

Or perhaps, given the diminishing number of wizards, they would even encourage using love potions if it guarantees the birth of another small pinky wand-waving piglet, I mean an adorable little magician, sent promptly away to Hogwarts.

Anyway, there is a real-world waiting to be corrected, so why lose your time questioning the fictional one?

What is the main benefit of two-party political system?

From a certain perspective, having two parties is a fantastic idea. First of all, China has only one so China is a dictatorship. Add one more party and voila - democracy has been born.

Add one or more to the equation, and you get the ugly mess found in Europe, where the governments and parliament are so torn by infights that their politicians can't even find an agreement on when to go to have lunch, much less to decide which direction they should lead their respective states.

The rich and powerful people who control the USA from behind (they do not exist, of course, just a speculation) would never allow such chaos since it would make bribery more difficult to do right.

Two parties mean one needs to make decent lobbying with a limited number of politicians while having too many parties bring unnecessary complexity to the process.

As for the differences between them, the main agenda of the US parties is to keep their country properly divided, never allowing the US citizens to get united under the flag of the shared interest.

The US parties do a proper job in keeping the society split vertically because the moment the poor (hypothetically controlled majority) begin to fight the rich (hypothetically controlling minority), the system will collapse or evolve into something friendlier to 90 percent of the US citizens while harming the benefits of the remaining happy few.

To give an example of how it works:

  • The MeeToo movement divides men and women.
  • The BlackLivesMatter movement puts different races against each other.

And so on.

The pattern is quite obvious and easily recognizable. The US political system is based on the artificial controversy that creates a distracting, endless show for the masses.

The trend is so hard to ignore that even Hollywood made “Dont look up” movie that parodies the great scheme of things. Not that Hollywood itself has no role in that division, mentioned above.

How to stay calm when books are banned?

 

In my country, we had our share of banned books before 1989, and they were extremely popular.

They were popular not because of their intrinsic quality, but because they were banned by the socialistic government and promoted by western intelligence agencies.

Unfortunately for them, the instant the ban had ended, Czech people immediately lost their interest in banned books and writers, and now those appear only on the official agenda while nobody is, in general, willing to read them just for the ordinary reasons why to read books - for fun or education.

To be on the safe side, not all of those books were terrible, but the immense popularity among people was drawn upon the fact they were banned.

Today’s world is literally plagued by countless books, and trying to ban any of them will lead to promoting them as they get a hint of attraction, very likely undeserved.

If I were a writer craving popularity, I would beg the authorities to ban me. If I had copyright to a book, I would bribe the authorities to put this book on the blacklist. Then, I would start complaining about my book being banned, bursting into crocodile tears and screaming: "Free speech in danger! Banned books here! Buy before it is too late!" Just business as usual.

Anyway, I strongly advocate against reading banned books just because someone considered them harmful. The Internet offers a plethora of contradictional opinions, similarly as bookstores offer different perspectives on anything, so taking books out of libraries (especially with the Internet available) and burning them down seems like a fool’s errand.

With regards to the intellectual capacities of people governing this world, I wish they were not losing taxpayer money to indulge themselves in a futile book hunt as they have a very urgent duty to educate themselves above the level of a stumbling donkey, raising so beyond the stage of mollusks which is the highest accomplished grade of education they wield graciously.

Free speech, if anything, is the best way how to mix facts, lies, and conspiracy theories in the most elaborate system in the world that serves only one purpose, and this is to make signals blurred with noise.

People only believe what they want to believe. Some will believe that banned books hide truths coming from our alien overlords (as I do) and some will believe that those books were banned for a good reason.

Some may even argue that people should make their judgments by themselves, which feels like utter sci-fi to me because people, including my insignificant self, do not have time to examine and evaluate every piece of writing to decide what those blacklisted treasures are about.

To make it as concrete as possible, what about the latest hysteria with Covid? After reading so many seemingly educated articles fighting for both sides of the conflict, I can only express my deepest admiration for those who think they can navigate their boats in this bloody mess.

The moment one would ban a book about Covid (no matter its standpoint), I can guarantee there will be three groups of people:

  1. The first who would campaign for the book because the book is filled with truths the official places want to hide.
  2. The second who would dismiss the book as a pile of crappy superstitions and bad science.
  3. And finally, the third mildly interested majority who would discuss the book leisurely and forget the topic after a new beefy affair is exposed.

I have to repeat. If someone bothers to ban a book, it doesn't mean you have to bother to read it. It is unlikely that our world can monopolize any information; the superior strategy is to give ammunition to deluded masses and watch them quarreling while nobody minds our shady business.