Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2006 June
2006 May
2005 September
2005 August
2005 May
2005 April
My Links
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Andart Blog
Jesus Reporting
Who cares...
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| I Have A Dream... |
| 06.11.06 (3:45 am) [edit] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Painful conclusion |
| 05.20.06 (1:47 am) [edit] |
I am feeling a little bit more cynical than usual after my latest confrontation with organised religion. Probably as a result of this, I came up with the following chain of thoughts. Rather painful and I could use some help in breaking it.
I was reading about the theory that the language would be a human instinct. It basically says that the structures of language are innate and the same for all humans. We are “hard-wired” to create a language but the final result is, of course, a product of culture. The forming of, and attachment to a group (society) would be another human instinct. It struck me that also organised religion could also fall into this category. This too is universal - wherever you find people, you are sure to find dogmata and a hierarchy of "holy" individuals. To suppress the human urge to form religion takes really drastic measures.
The language is of enormous benefit and importance for the individual. This would explain why the "hard-wiring" takes place (not being able to deliver the pick-up line in the bar would effectively take your genes out of the race for next generation). Organised religion, on the other hand, is very important for society: It establishes rules and authority that cannot be questioned. It makes the individual postpone the claim for reward to the after-life. It provides a purpose to fight the enemy. For the individual however, there seems to be very little upside (in extreme cases, it could even prevent you from “entering the bar”).
If you incorporate society's effect in your evolutionary model (could you choose not to?) it could make sense. If the group is successful, this provides an advantage for its members. The implications of this are horrific. For me, as a member of the species, is it more important to be able to say that I have all the answers than it is to have the freedom to actually look for them? Is it more important to have the ability to refer to an entity of supreme authority than it is to understand and have a say in how authority is distributed?
|
|
|
| |
| Cannes 2006 |
| 05.20.06 (1:42 am) [edit] |
I may not live in a town which can be called normal, by any definition of the word. I do not mind this too much. However, once a year Cannes goes crazy: 130.000 people come visiting, pyramids are built, streeeached limos are escorted by galactic empire troopers. All the stars make appearences. I am now referring to the really big stars. The picture below is taken of two people in the crowd, trying to get a glimpse and maybe even a photo:  ... and then there are those who seem to loose all perspective: 
|
|
|
| |
| Learning on the job |
| 09.03.05 (10:41 pm) [edit] |
I heard a statement from Mr Bush the other day. It was on the situation after the impact of Katrina. Something like this: "A horrible catastrophy has happend. In many aspects our response, in terms of rescue effort and providing support for the people effected has not been acceptable"
Think about what the man is saying: "not acceptable" - this cannot and should not be accepted. The twist is that Mr Bush is the person ultimately responsible for the way the situation has been handled. This is the way a person learning-on-the-job would handle it - OK, I made a mess but I learned something from it and the next time I will do better.
The problem is that we are talking about the most important and probably most difficult job in the world. A mistake can cost millions of lives and destroy other irreplaceable values. And this is Mr Bush's second term...
It feels like the Bush administration really is prone to oversimplyfying complex issues:
-Fighting global terrorism and handling middle-east politics are not questions of "just going there and kicking their ass".
-Balancing the US budget is not just a question of cutting government expences (barring the cost of organising a war) and the taxes for the rich.
-Allowing the oil companies to drill wherever they think there is oil will have an environmental impact.
In the (alleged) meritocracy of the US of A, the right thing for Mr Buch to do at this point would be to step down and say: "I gave it my best shot but it was too hard. Sorry for the mess". The american people (and everyone else for that matter) deserve better!
|
|
|
| |
| What NOT to do |
| 08.27.05 (1:21 am) [edit] |
It has been twenty years since I finished my military training. Thinking about it now, the things that I learned in the army were really what not to do :
-Do NOT make anyone so angry that you will have to fight him face-to-face with a knife - it is difficult AND dangerous (not only for the opponent).
-The camoflage paint you put on your face, do not heat it with a lighter before putting it on - it makes the application much easier but you will look like a fool when you have to go home over the weekend without having been able to get it off.
-Do NOT use too much explosives when blowing stuff up - for obvious reasons
And most importantly:
-Do NOT obey authority without questioning - I think that a lot of the problems we have in society is due to us making the same mistake ... over and over again. Civil disobedience is the ticket - the "men in charge" seldom have a clue.
|
|
|
| |
| Personal Random Facts Listed for No Apparent Reason |
| 05.07.05 (8:02 am) [edit] |
-Someone collected royalty for a song that person wrote about me. "Ode to the way Micke makes gingerbread" is the title.
-My mothers best childhood friend was at one point (and probably still is) the only professor in parapsychology in the world.
-The most I have run in one week is 142 km (almost a half-marathon per day).
-I have a mental block against doing homework in any form. This is strange since I really like to study. But actually sitting down with a book to read to prepare for a test is impossible.
-Three of my friends and I had an a capella quartet called "The four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse)". When we performed and one of us could not make it, we use to say: "Death called in sick today!".
-My parents had to force me to learn how to ride a bike.
-The biggest shark I have seen when diving is 2.5 meters (at 10 m, off the coast of Malaysia - scary!)
|
|
|
| |
| Proof of God's Existence |
| 05.03.05 (6:20 am) [edit] |
One day, a friend and I decided that we had to settle this definition-of-God-busines s once and for all. We were making good progress, I felt. In fact, at one point we had only to finish off the proof of God's existence. Feeling quite happy, we suddenly realised that a detail rendered the chain-of-thoughts worthless.
We had destroyed an almost perfect proof of God's existence! As it happened, the same night, we were both invited to a masquerade. We decided to mark the event by both coming to the party posing as anti-christ (first and second coming, of course). We did this by not wearing a fancy costume (one would not recognise anti-christ), by getting in the back door, eating too much, lying constantly during the party and having vodka for dessert.
|
|
|
| |
| Quantifiable Reality |
| 04.27.05 (11:01 pm) [edit] |
Every day I am exposed the same amount of information that a person, living in the 18th century, would see in his whole lifetime. It is strange that we, with our viking-spec brains, can handle this - evolution simply does not happen that quickly. This means that we, as a species, were equipped with a tool that we did yet not have the use for. This is not the way evolution works but this is a different story.
How do we handle this vast amount of data? In the flood of information, we need to be able to find the significant and take the correct action based on that. In order to do so, we have to perform heavy filtering. The criteria for this are classification and quantification.
As a consequence, we have become really fond of all things we can value in a concrete way. If you can put a number on it, it must be significant and important. Climb the 8000 meter mountain. Buy the 250 hp car. Save as much as possible on your bank account - this is the way you can prove that you are successful.
Sometimes this urge to trust what is quantifiable takes almost humoristic forms. If you dive, you need a diving watch. This so that you can keep track of how deep under water you are. The popular brands will work to 250 meters depth and this is a major selling point. The thing is that you cannot go deeper that 40 - 50 meter because the human body cannot handle it. You will die but your watch will still be working...
|
|
|
| |
| Ownership of Money |
| 04.22.05 (6:18 am) [edit] |
It is strange to find that you, as a person, seem to become more limited the more mature and privileged you get. When you are in university, most of us, do not have much money. At this stage, you do not have any experience, few possessions and no position in society. Yet, there is very little that you cannot do, with the help of your friends and creative solutions.
This is paradoxical since the common view is that money delivers freedom! The pursuit of wealth is central and encouraged in western society. So, first you give up some of your freedom in the very pursuit; "I can do this job for a few years because it looks good on my CV and it pays well". In the process, you sell a few ideals and a little more of your freedom. And after that - one of the of the normal ways of showing that you are successful is to display wealth. You can hear the trap slamming shut behind you.
And then, if you manage to accumulate a significal amount of resources, you have it made? In my opinion - no. It seems to me that the lives or rich people are very complicated and at the same time, just a bit ... dull. It could be the fact that the obvious goal is no longer there or that you cannot trust who your real friends are. It could be that you have had to get sacrifice too many ideals or that you have become too lazy.
I read a report based on the experience of people who had won a lot of money. The interesting thing was that the longer time went by, the less the members of the group felt that the money had made them happier than before.
Is there a point to this or is this only nihilistic whining? Well, what can you do? You can live as a student even if you earn money. You will not impress anyone but this way you do not get use to an expensive lifestyle.
It is really just a change-of-perspective exercise. For example, I do NOT drive an old BMW. I drive a vintage quality convertible with a roof (I have tried - driving a convertible car in a warm climate is really uncomfortable).
|
|
|
| |
| Just A Small Step Back |
| 04.12.05 (8:07 am) [edit] |
Imagine the set made up from Really Important Things You Believe In. World Peace and Madonna releasing another record would not make it (I do not belive in it and it is not important, respectively).
Now create a confidence-scale from zero to ten where zero would be Gravity and Fanatic Hockey would be ten. Gravity is very important (it keeps me attached to the planet) and I believe in it. I have quite some experience with Gravity. I know how it works to the extent that I can use it every day for useful things and for playing. In my own mind, I never question the existence of Gravity. I can be cool about my belief because I am confident.
Fanatic Hockey on the other hand: It is something that is important (assuming now that I am a fan) and I do believe in the success of the team. This however is something that I question to myself all the time; the top players get hurt, the coach does not know what he is doing, the other teams are better than last season.
What can I do in this situation? Well, I can define myself as a fan of the team. I can buy team-shirts and a nice hat in the colors of my team. I can hang out with other fans. That way I will be among people that will assure me that the team will win and comfort me when the team looses. I can paint my face in the team colors, chant for the team at games. I can even beat up anyone saying that my team will not win with the help of my friends (more in Europe than in the US).
So, where would organised religion rate on this confidence scale of Really Important Things You Believe In?
(Note that I do make a distinction between religion and organised religion)
|
|
|
| |
| The upside of being uprooted |
| 04.11.05 (3:47 am) [edit] |
There are a lot of things that are difficult about leaving your home to live in another country. You have to travel to meet your friends and family. It takes a lot of effort to learn the ins and outs of a new culture. Often this is pleasant and fun, sometimes not so much and rarely; not at all.
I have also come to realise that I do not have a perfect command of any language:
German - I studied at school and now I forgot most of it
Italian - I never learned it properly during my year in Genoa
French - I still speak far from perfect french
English - It was not perfect to begin with and now it has been "latinized"
Swedish - This is the horrible one. I recently discovered that there are
new words and phrases that I have never heard.
The really good thing however is that I now can be "legitimately odd". If I want to get up at five in the morning to go for a run or swim (happens rarely!) or eat fermented fish (Swedes are known to do this), the french will shrug their sholders and refer to the fact that I am "un etranger". I have come to appreciate this addition to my personal freedom and I apply this, my special status, as often as I can.
|
|
|
| |
| What annoys me about Hollywood movies... |
| 04.09.05 (9:38 pm) [edit] |
... is the following:
1. Often one is able to guess the plot from the casting. a) A "bad guy" is almost always playing a bad guy. b) 25 minutes left of the movie. Who is the Culprit? One of the characters played by a really famous actor has only appeared in two scenes so far...
2. Too much time and resources is spent on making sure that I understand just how rich/evil/beautiful/stupi d one of the characters is. Long camera shots of the luxurious car/house/lawn/wife/view.
3. Everything is explained. No random act or behavior out-of-character is allowed. In the reviews of the movie you will read that the story is "delivered in an efficient way"! To me, this makes the characters completely two-dimensional.
4. Extreme violence is allowed. The hint of a female nipple is unthinkable. I know, this is a cultural thing.
5. Characters are very seldom allowed to change/evolve.
6. People acting in the background do not react to what the main characters are doing. The heroine's handbag explodes at the same time as she is attached by a pack of dobermans - people 40 feet away calmly continue walking past without even looking.
7. At the end of the movie, no open questions can remain.
Having said this, there are Hollywood movies like: Million Dollar Baby, K-Pax, American Beauty ...
|
|
|
| |
| IKEA - the new church |
| 04.09.05 (12:42 am) [edit] |
When talking to foreign people, my expectation was that the swedish things they would know about would be: Volvo, Ericsson, Nobel (the man, the prize and dynamite), Pippi Longstocking (Astrid Lindgren), Music. This has proven to be totally wrong. The famous swedish thing is IKEA!
Were we live, it is approximately 130 km to go to the closest IKEA store. It is quite a drive - a lot of my friends go there on a regular basis. When you ask them specifically why they do this, they will answer vaguely that they "need to go there".
I have started to look at interior decoration as a new religion, IKEA as the new church and Mr. Kamprad as the prophet. It is very difficult to explain the crowd dynamics at the opening of new stores otherwise. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
IKEA will even distribute their holy book once a year, if you are a believer (=customer).
|
|
|
| |
| Mountain-Fox Extreme Marathon |
| 04.06.05 (2:44 am) [edit] |
Since I currently have some time on my hands, I was looking for some new projects. A friend suggested that we should form a team to do one of the mountain marathons back home. I said yes and after some reasearch I realise that this is the real deal: 60 km running with backpack (4-8 kg), 4000 meter climb, spending one night on the mountain.
I guess that I am reasonably fit. I run 10 km in 40 minutes and that is decent (at best). This competition is something completely different and I am starting to get slightly worried.
http://www.fjallraven.se/fem" title="http://www.fjallraven.se/fem" target="_blank"http://www.fjallraven.se/fem
|
|
|
| |
| The Perfect Drug |
| 04.05.05 (6:28 am) [edit] |
There is something very strange in the way different drugs are handled in culture. Thinking about alcohol, it does not seem to be a very good alternative. Even if the majority of people have had quite a lot of experience, using it for intoxication purposes, is very tricky and sometime hazardous.
Alcohol makes you moody, stupid, aggressive, slow, over-confident, loud and you might experience problems with balance. It will stimulate your libido but make your performance worse, if you are a man (think about that!). If you do it seriously one night, you will feel very bad the morning after (for chemical/biological reasons and because you remember what happened that night before) . Regular use will hurt your body and brain.
Even so, alcohol is not only the only drug legally allowed in western culture, to an extent it is compulsory. I have members of my family and friends who do not use alcohol in any form. In social contexts, they are often "interrogated" about why they do not drink and if it is not time for them to reconsider. This often in a quite "animated" way (the interrogators are often drunk). In some scandinavian countries, the government has even taken it upon itself to distribute the drug (Alko - Finland, Systembolaget - Sweden).
So, why is this drug so incredibly popular? Would a perfect drug be legal (With perfect I mean: No side-effects. It would make you creative, happy and relaxed)?
|
|
|
| |
| Neo-Nazi Workout |
| 04.04.05 (8:26 am) [edit] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| A Dream Come True |
| 04.03.05 (4:22 am) [edit] |
Ever since I was a kid, I always wanted to be more fit than Arnold Schwarzenegger. I remember that it started after I saw the movie "Pumping Iron". Today I think I got what I wanted (but not in the way I wanted it).
![]() =http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyh...
|
|
|
| |
| The pope |
| 04.03.05 (3:18 am) [edit] |
The pope John II is dead. I cannot say why but I liked the man. To me he seemed to have a healthy perspective on things.
Right now, they are debating in the vatican, who will be the new pope. Seeing that the catholic church is probably the most conservative organisation on this planet, the next pope will not be a black woman.
I wonder what life would be like now if the church had kept its influence from medieval time. On one hand, I think we would have to say goodbye to: MTV (In its present form. However, we might have Missionary TV - less naked skin), Ozzy Osborne as a media personality, Women Rights, The Matrix Movie, Gore-Tex (no space program to begin with) and the Internet. On the other hand we might not have developed the atomic bomb...
|
|
|
| |
| Significance of Hair |
| 04.02.05 (12:09 am) [edit] |
In the Reform-Reality-So-That-It -Suits-ME series:
On Significance of Hair:
The "proof" that men with less hair are more attractive to women:
Assume Darwinistic (or Neo-Darwinistic) evolution model. We believe that we can observe that, over time, the amount of hair has gone down (...habilis-erectus-sapiens...). Natural selection is driving this change. In what way can that happen?
1. Men with more hair die before they have a chance to reproduce. No: fatal hair-tripping accidents involving young men are not nearly frequent enough.
2. The hair itself prevents reproduction. No!
3. Women are more likely to choose men with little hair as a partner.
Ergo: Men with no or very little hair are more attractive to women.
Other available titles in the same series:
"Money makes you miserable"
"10 reasons why the concept of aging does not apply to me"
|
|
|
| |
|
|
