Medieval America

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

"An important principle widely accepted among magickal people is that there is no 'One True Right and Only Way!'" - Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, Grimoire for the Apprentice Wizard

-------

Recently, I feel as though an unsettling number of people - many of whom are politicians - have claimed that the United States is a Christian nation. [As a disclaimer, I am not a Christian myself, but I have a number of well-loved friends who are.] From my understanding, our country was founded partially on the belief that one's religious or spiritual choices would not be encroached upon. These are, by law, personal choices and not the government's business.

So why do we regularly hear ad hominem complaints of Barack Obama being a Muslim? (He's not, but his father was.) Who cares if a political leader practices Islam? It's not illegal, nor is it inherently immoral in any fashion. Then we have the scapegoat theories about Jewish bankers (upper-class frivolity couldn't possibly contribute to our shambling economy), and our charming Newt Gingrich's complaints about this country's being "surrounded by paganism".

Religion is a personal choice, it's all been said before, and I'd be preaching to the choir (pun intended) by sharing my principles of acceptance among all faiths as well as those without any.

What I am trying to convey here is that America is NOT legally rooted in religion. The public speakers who claim otherwise are only doing a disservice to those who do not know this, especially impressionable youths.

If we were to adopt an official religion and enforce it as law, then we'd only plunge into a new version of an old era. This is why I favor secularism.

Chasing Rabbits

"If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both." - Native American saying (via Goodreads)

I currently pursue multiple rabbits, but I do have a somewhat hierarchical order of bunnies arranged by priority. If I catch one, then I allow myself a second chase and continue in that fashion. Indeed, some of the beasts I bolt after are not rabbits at all, but horses to ride as I further the rabbit hunt.

Allow me to explain.

Horses, unlike rabbits, can be ridden by humans - as can ostriches - and will help in the long-term pursuit as a vehicular creature. It does one well to thank and nurture one's horses. I've never literally owned actual horses, but I have interacted with many. They're gorgeous animals, and they deserve our respect.... In fact, I not only respect horses, I revere them and hope to keep them one day. Possibly rabbits too, but I digress. (I'm not Radagast, after all!) The point, metaphorically speaking, is that one must often invest in one thing so as to achieve another.

For instance, I'm a writer and a blogger. I currently don't know much about computational workings beyond the basics, but knowing even the bare minimum about how computers function can help immensely in writing. In the blogosphere, it's essential. Now, if I were somehow not interested in how these things perform their duties (disclaimer: I actually find them fascinating), and hadn't the motivation to learn, I'd essentially be screwed. Computers can be a means to an end. As a side note, I have a book about computer basics, but it's Windows-oriented and I currently use a Mac. Perhaps I could use a simulator of some sort before I get my hands on an actual PC?

Another example might be acting. Bruce Miller's book, The Actor as Storyteller, argues that many effective film actors begin on stage. The transition to the screen is more rewarding than the opposite because those who perform in stage plays require more discipline. One cannot exactly cut or edit with a live audience! They must solidify not only their deep understanding of the script, but also their resolve for theatrical greatness. Personally, I like fantasy and science fiction. These are not always impossible in a traditional theatre, but my amounts of dragons and spaceships would be very expensive to pull off without video editing! Whether acting in plays or writing them, I am trying to think of more ideas that genuinely interest me that don't involve people shooting green lightning from their palms. These concepts do exist, and I'm trying to tap them in order to further my experience as both an actor and writer. I still write prose fiction and screenplays involving "big magic," and hopefully I will be able to perform in this sort of thing later on, but for now, I'm tinkering away at other things that also delight me. Hopefully, if Mistborn and The Dark Tower ever hit the silver screen, I will be involved in some way.

On the side, I chase a few other sorts of rabbit as well, but having said equine tends to assist the process. Classical and New Age music, acrylic painting, European broadsword fighting, Asian stir-frying, and Irish step dancing seem like fun, but are not absolutely paramount to my continued existence. Close, but not quite. These are "bonus bunnies" that I'd love to catch but will not despair without. Astrophysics and biochemistry are also vital, but not everyone needs to be the one doing either.

Of course, this is all a metaphor, however I may have exhausted its meaning. That's what I do - I plumb things for deeper possible meaning. I don't literally chase wild animals, for I wish no undue harm or stress to anything. That being said, I think I've made my point. Or at least, I hope that I have.

Why are people so judgmental?

"Bigotry and judgment are the height of insecurity." - Jasmine Guy (via BrainyQuote)

In a recent post to a Facebook page, a dual image depicting two girls claimed that one was more beautiful than the other on the basis of clothing. Aside from the possibility of their being the same girl (they looked similar), this neither makes sense nor is fair to the girls depicted.

The girl on the right's shirt was slightly pulled up, and I witnessed a slew of snide remarks about "wardrobe choices" and "sluttiness." Nor were these reserved for the one, as the left girl's "wholesomeness" was attacked on the grounds that her shorts were too, well, short. (Seriously?)

Can someone inform me of how attire could be harmful simply by leaving less to one's imagination? I intend to skewer the notion of anatomical "modesty" in later posts, but suffice it for now to say that dressing less (or none) does not inherently harm anyone. Anyone who claims to feel sickened by the image of another person's body (provided it's not covered in pus-filled scabs) has only his, her, or their own predispositions to blame. I wholeheartedly agree with the Rede followed by Wicca: "As it harm none, do as you will." What could be simpler? (This is my one umbrella principle.)

However, the elephant of body-shaming is in another room. Down the hall, I'd say, behind the opaque door installed to hide the room's contents. Its trumpet is muffled by the door. Or the media.

Anyhow, the pachyderm in this chamber goes by a broader title: judgment. So why do people care about things that have no negative impact on them? It's an excellent question, and I can only theorize for now. At the local grocer, I often see poorly-edited images of celebrities on the covers of gossip magazines with headlines such as "Rihanna's Nightmare" and "Will & Kate: Secrets of Their Royal Romance." While I usually do not deign to glance twice at these periodicals, I will here consider them because they feed into my wonderment at human nature. Why people care what famous individuals do puzzles me, and the amount of time people devote to gossip is downright baffling.

According to John Cleese, certain people feel better about themselves if the negative spotlight is pointed at someone else, which we see a great deal of in political straw-man arguments. If someone else's flaw is exposed, a less dignified person might be relieved at the shifted burden of shame or embarrassment. Perhaps this is why our lack of morale is blamed on the LGBT+ community, and economical crises are cited as being done by Jews.

I briefly studied the Japanese self-defense style known as Ninjutsu, and I plan on continuing my shinobi education soon. One thing I observed from my sensei and fellow students was the philosophy of defense without overly aggressive retaliation; in other words, instead of absorbing and brutally countering attacks, a shinobi (ninja) should be able to redirect a blow and restrain his, her, or their assailant. While I admire and agree with this kind of physical defense, I think conversational disputes should be handled differently. I don't suggest tactless spilling of heated emotion. Instead, an issue ought to be civilly and directly addressed, striking at the root rather than the branches (to paraphrase Henry David Thoreau). Redirection in ethics leads away from any hope of actual resolution.

So why do people judge? Some are bored, some are unhappy, some were simply brought up in a privileged and snobbish environment, and many simply wish to avoid their own guilt. But ultimately, I would posit that these factors often combine with idiotic societal norms to culminate in a greater lack of empathy for others.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201305/making-judgments-and-being-judgmental

Base Eight

As one who tends to question everything, I have wondered on several occasions why double-digit numbers begin with ten. Binary would be impractical due to both its written length and the time most human minds would take to comprehend it. A speed limit of 00100001 miles per hour would take a few moments to process, and it would endanger those on and around roads.

But why ten? Twelve would make a decent amount of sense, as it is divisible by one, two, three, four, and six. I think eight would be better, however, despite the forfeited perquisite of a clean decimal to represent one-third. This is because eight is so evenly divisible and so close to ten. It is two cubed, obviously! Picture the wheel of the Ninpo Bugei in ancient Japan, which is crossed by four diametrical beams, the measure between each adjacent pair of which is (by our strange arc-measuring system) 45 degrees. Clocks would also make more sense this way, but here we face the problem of a massive paradigm shift.

As I understand, the two-times-five philosophy derives from many ancient cultures, independent of one another in history, almost all of whom drew the idea from their own hands. Counting thumbs, all (well, most) of us have ten fingers. Stopping at a market stall and calculating the arithmetic of monetary cost is simpler with fingers! However, why not have our current "8" be written as "10" and therefore have "12" digits? Excluding thumbs for the sake of argument seems beneficial, seeing as we could still count to the new "10" (our current "8"), and have two to spare.

As I hinted at a few moments ago, the main issue here seems to be akin to the one that plagues me as an American-born living in my country of birth - the English measurement system, which is even worse than a tens-based metric system. The cause for both is stubbornness. Virtually all of our media would need to be rewritten, and no one would know what was meant by one-zero in which context! Madness would ensue, all because of a strange judgment repeated across history.

Therefore, I say that although base eight makes more sense, remaining with our current base ten seems more practical for the time being. Perhaps one day, regardless of whether I still live, an official shift will take place, but at the moment, I think learning both would bamboozle most individuals. Performing even the most elementary of calculations would be a tedious process, like reading an older form of one's own language (such as Old English or Shakespeare) without prior knowledge. Glancing at translations or explanations every few seconds interrupts the flow of a piece of literature (at least in my case). And although I know a number of Shakespearean terms and a handful of ancient words used in Beowulf, not everyone can be expected to do likewise...especially these days!

Ignorance is (almost) never bliss!

The phrase "Ignorance is bliss" is frequently disputed, but I see no reason for argument in its defense. Why would ignorance be considered bliss? What personal calamity could possibly come about from knowing something? (Granted, the corrupt needn't know certain forms of science or means of persuasion, but here I will focus on the good of oneself - and not society at large - for argument's sake.)

Some would argue that happiness is more important than knowledge. Admirable as this idea is, it is not guaranteed to last long. For as a good friend of mine said, "[Ignorance is] far easier to break than the possession of knowledge." Being disillusioned of a false notion may not always be pleasant, but information can help to avert future harm. For instance, I would not relish knowing that an assassin was stalking me, but I would rather be scared into action than be temporarily content.

Aforesaid friend also alludes to characters in Orwell's Animal Farm as an example of this heavily and dangerously flawed form of thought. I agree, for the most part, with this comparison. But even if one lives to be very old and dies without ever discovering an appalling truth, others around one suffer endlessly. If one argues that being blind to the strifes of one's neighbors for the sake of one's own peace, then one is simply egocentric. The metaphor I often picture here is of a drunk driver who may retain no immediate bodily damage, but causes plenty of physical harm to fellow drivers. Ethics aside, I must emphasize that for safety reasons, one cannot rely on other drivers to swerve away, because if more than one party is intoxicated, the likelihood of a twisted highway wreck increases. It is imprudent and unsafe to assume or hope that others in any scenario will watch out for one, because they just might possess that same demented idea.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something along the lines of "I cannot think of a single time when not knowing something is better than knowing it." (Paraphrased from memory.) Kudos, Dr. Tyson, for your attempts to dispel so many people's stubbornly clinging to unenlightened and selfish elation. However, I can think of a few examples for when ignorance could be better than knowledge; however, all of them are temporary.

Coming to a conclusion in many fields - including mathematics - requires a deductive process. Being told in the beginning that the "x" equals five is generally useless because giving away the final answer tends to spoil the learning of an experimental approach. The same applies to watching a film or a play, or reading a novel: knowing the ending - particularly if there is a plot twist - can ruin the anticipation of the storyline's buildup. (The latter is subjective; I don't particularly mind spoilers at this point, but I understand why people do.)

But as I said, these are both temporary ignorances. In the long run, so I'd say that Dr. Tyson's statement still holds true for this reason.

When one relates to another a description of something unsavory such as a bodily function, the second person is likely to respond with "T.M.I.!" (too much information) or "I don't want to know." I can usually get over gross-outs fairly quickly, but I don't condone them if they are merely relayed for the sake of reactions. Medical professionals are one thing, but in general, these details provide no use in advancing society.

That brings me to my final point: While knowledge is not bad, it is not always good, either. Some things are just irrelevant. Admittedly, I am a glutton for enlightenment, but I do not expect all to share my same passions. Due to the mortality of our species, it sometimes behooves one to learn particular things over others before dying. While I cannot picture myself studying something too narrow for half a century before retiring, neither do I wish to aimlessly skip stones across the surface every edification I see while delving into none. It's all about time management in my case, but ultimately, I believe that everyone should be able to make his, her, or their own choices regarding knowledge, though I sincerely hope that those choices do not hinder others.