Is the illusion of Maya a force, a being or is it something we generate?
I was thinking today on the idea that "all we see is illusion". Having studied philosophy you get this idea in Kant's phenomenon vs noumenon, Joseph Campbell you get excessive talk of Maya coming from Hinduist traditions. I am sure many different cultures and places have dealt with the idea that the thing you see isn't exactly what you think it is. And here I guess is my take.
In the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, maya is sorcery. it is something employed, a force used usually for "evil" intentions. It is not a state of nature. We are being purposely deceived and we allow ourselved to be decevied. It is a partnership of alientation from the object itself. The point is that it is active and it come from outside of the individual.
For Kant, a thousand years later, maya (my cross conception not his) is the natural state of being. Object obscure themselves from us. We cannot see the object in itself, only the phenomenon. Modern science might back this up with the idea that atoms are invisible, the essence of things, perhaps identical to all things, is obscured by the relationship between the sub-atomic particles.
What is interesting in both of these ideas is that maya only exists in relationships. The source of maya is really the individual observing the reality. But where does this illusion begin?
Next: Datapoints and relationships.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
I don't believe Obama is a socialist
But I also don't believe we aren't heading in that direction.
When the news came out last week about capping the salary of executives who receive bailout money, I, like most people, thought it was a good idea. But that only last a short while. Upon re-thinking the situation I have many concerns.
Aside form the fact that the bill has so many loopholes no cliche would even begin to decribe it, it is virtually unenforceable. Here is a quick run down:
Situation A: If exec gets more then 500k, they pull otu the money.
Result A: Well the exec still has the money and the only people who lose are the workers of the company an the citizens who rely on the company. As we have seen, these execs are quick to dismiss and throw overboard these people anyways. So what does this change?
Situation B:If exec gets more then 500k, they go to jail.
Result B:Do we even want to think about a country where people go to jail for making money? I mean if the shareholders vote on a salary, who is the government to stop them? We have ways and means to get the word out about abuse by execs. Using this law is just another way for americans to be lazy and uninformed. They hear that salaries will be capped and hug themselves happy, but they don't ever realize that this law means nothing.
Argument A:Well since they are taking our money, they hould have to follow some rules
Refutation A1:This is the first problem, we are nationalizing private industry. We are taking people who, it is taken for granted, understand their business better than anyone, and putting politicians in charge. People who have never been able to manage a budget. Even worse, it puts the companies indirectly in the control of the populous. The rabble.
Refutation A2:This is a backdoor, probably unconstitutional, way to indtroduce regulations. This might sound nice for banks. Right? We all want banks to have more transparency. But what happens when other industries begin to get bailout money? With one party in complete control, who is going to watch over the social activists who are getting money?
Argument B:Well they do not need to take the money
Refutation B1: So only companies who agree to play ball with the powers that be get money?I am sure there are clauses in the commerce sections of the law which prevent the government from giving unfair advantage to private industry
Argument C:Well they aren't really private anymore, they are getting tax money
Refutation C:See Russia, Cambodia, Cuba
When the news came out last week about capping the salary of executives who receive bailout money, I, like most people, thought it was a good idea. But that only last a short while. Upon re-thinking the situation I have many concerns.
Aside form the fact that the bill has so many loopholes no cliche would even begin to decribe it, it is virtually unenforceable. Here is a quick run down:
Situation A: If exec gets more then 500k, they pull otu the money.
Result A: Well the exec still has the money and the only people who lose are the workers of the company an the citizens who rely on the company. As we have seen, these execs are quick to dismiss and throw overboard these people anyways. So what does this change?
Situation B:If exec gets more then 500k, they go to jail.
Result B:Do we even want to think about a country where people go to jail for making money? I mean if the shareholders vote on a salary, who is the government to stop them? We have ways and means to get the word out about abuse by execs. Using this law is just another way for americans to be lazy and uninformed. They hear that salaries will be capped and hug themselves happy, but they don't ever realize that this law means nothing.
Argument A:Well since they are taking our money, they hould have to follow some rules
Refutation A1:This is the first problem, we are nationalizing private industry. We are taking people who, it is taken for granted, understand their business better than anyone, and putting politicians in charge. People who have never been able to manage a budget. Even worse, it puts the companies indirectly in the control of the populous. The rabble.
Refutation A2:This is a backdoor, probably unconstitutional, way to indtroduce regulations. This might sound nice for banks. Right? We all want banks to have more transparency. But what happens when other industries begin to get bailout money? With one party in complete control, who is going to watch over the social activists who are getting money?
Argument B:Well they do not need to take the money
Refutation B1: So only companies who agree to play ball with the powers that be get money?I am sure there are clauses in the commerce sections of the law which prevent the government from giving unfair advantage to private industry
Argument C:Well they aren't really private anymore, they are getting tax money
Refutation C:See Russia, Cambodia, Cuba
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Thinking it through
Most people really seem to overestimate the value of their opinion. While experience and education can often raise the value of someone's opinion in a certain expertise, an opinion is still jsut an opinion and experienced gained in one realm does not necessarily translate across realms. More to come...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Moving on
What is perpetual beta?
I think the paradigm of working towards a release of software called alpha creates situations where someone is forced into what has been coined perpetual beta. People often refer to the google applications as perpetual beta. But really this is not the case.
Though it might be a very minute line, there is definitely a difference between continuous development with no clear picture in mind, and making small steps towards an ideal product, which though perhaps is unattainable, is striven for in small steps. Google is not bug free, but each release is complete. It testing is its existence.
You can contrast that to a product which has the title "Release Version" but is never quite complete. It may be bug ridden, or just "under-featured". Its purpose for life is unclear and the care of the product is left to those who have little emotional concern. The consumers of the product are unclear what it does which makes it difficult for them to communicate what they need the product to do.
People often need to be led or told what they need. This might sound strange, but when you think of general trends, people buy products, they don't invent them. Faced with a particular problem, especially an everyday one, it is easier to implement than to invent.
How do we begin?
I think the paradigm of working towards a release of software called alpha creates situations where someone is forced into what has been coined perpetual beta. People often refer to the google applications as perpetual beta. But really this is not the case.
Though it might be a very minute line, there is definitely a difference between continuous development with no clear picture in mind, and making small steps towards an ideal product, which though perhaps is unattainable, is striven for in small steps. Google is not bug free, but each release is complete. It testing is its existence.
You can contrast that to a product which has the title "Release Version" but is never quite complete. It may be bug ridden, or just "under-featured". Its purpose for life is unclear and the care of the product is left to those who have little emotional concern. The consumers of the product are unclear what it does which makes it difficult for them to communicate what they need the product to do.
People often need to be led or told what they need. This might sound strange, but when you think of general trends, people buy products, they don't invent them. Faced with a particular problem, especially an everyday one, it is easier to implement than to invent.
How do we begin?
Friday, September 26, 2008
What I have to contribute?
I am exchanging some messages with a co-worker. He asked me if I had checked out http://www.stakoverflow.com yet. I told him I did, but I feel like that for so many of these technical site, I don't have much to contribute.
In a way this is true. Sure, I have a lot of tricks I have accumulated over the years in IT, but I often wonder if they are worth actually putting down somewhere.
You need to start somwhere I guess.
So here's my question:
If string theory is correct and there exists simultaneous dimensions, why do we assume each dimension differs either spatially, temporally or in both manners? What if in fact each dimension is an exact replica of the dimension in which we exist?
In a way this is true. Sure, I have a lot of tricks I have accumulated over the years in IT, but I often wonder if they are worth actually putting down somewhere.
You need to start somwhere I guess.
So here's my question:
If string theory is correct and there exists simultaneous dimensions, why do we assume each dimension differs either spatially, temporally or in both manners? What if in fact each dimension is an exact replica of the dimension in which we exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)