This guy has proposed a new unified field theory based on information. Now, I kind of understand the basics of information theory, where literally everything is information (even spacetime), it is not just a mental construct we use to understand our surroundings (as most people may see it). However, articles like these always bring to light my shortcomings in scientific knowledge, specifically physics. I can barely understand what he is proposing, I think it is that at the smallest possible measurable level there is information that is the same in all sampled instances, and that would in turn unify all of the Standard Model and gravity and essentially everything. I could be wrong, but that’s what it seems like to me.

Anyway, its pretty awesome that we have another theory to go along with string theory, superstring theory, M theory, and the holographic principle. Someone’s going to get it right. Eventually.

Axess nr 9/09

Nu har det nya numret (nr 9) av Axess Magasin kommit ut. Numret heter “I väntan på framtiden” och handlar om “modernitetens komplicerade förhållande till den klassiska traditionen och demokratin”. Min krönika “Grunt om värdegrund” finns på sidan 60. År 2008 initierade regeringen som bekant en tre år lång värdegrundsdialog för att ”skapa en förstärkt gemensam värdegrund” eftersom diskussionen “inte gått i takt med samhällets utveckling” (här Sabunis anförande på temat 2008).  Dialogen ska handla om vilka de universella värdena och de mänskliga rättigheterna är och lyfta fram hur dessa ibland krockar. Det är tveksamt om det går att sätta sig vid skrivbordet och snickra ihop en gemensam värdegrund som alla förväntas omfamna utan invändning, men syftet är gott – att stärka demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter. Läser man diverse styrdokument som exempelvis det obligatoriska skolväsendets läroplan får man intrycket att den demokratiska värdegrunden innebär att man ska respektera olikheter i människors uppfattningar, synsätt och värderingar  – dvs människors olika värdegrunder. Så en konkretisering av innebörden av såväl den demokratiska som den gemensamma värdegrunden med de grundläggande värderingar som det är skolans demokratiska uppdrag att förmedla är välkommen. Tills vidare tolkar jag den demokratiska värdegrunden som att man ska acceptera att människor har skilda värdegrunder. Kommer förresten inte projektet med en gemensam värdegrund att krocka med den demokratiska värdegrunden?

Arbetet med den gemensamma värdegrunden pågår 2008-2010

År 2010 ska man sammanställa alla erfarenheter och möjliggöra för involverade parter (representanter från riksdag, kommuner, landsting, organisationer, fackföreningar och forskare) att arbeta fram rekommendationer för det fortsatta arbetet. I pressmeddelandet från regeringen underskrivet Sabuni ovan uppges att “Vi kommer också att genomföra en ny studie där svenska folket får ta ställning till ett antal dilemmafrågor om exempelvis yttrandefrihet, jämställdhet och politisk jämlikhet”. Ska dessa ställningstaganden utgöra ett aktivt bidrag till konkretiseringen av värdegrunden eller bara hanteras som en opinionsundersökning för att kunna bedöma hur pass långt avståndet är mellan befolkningen och visionen om en (redan inofficiellt antagen?) gemensam värdegrund? På tal om att stärka demokratin, som ju är en uttalad del i arbetet med den gemensamma värdegrunden – kommer vi att få folkomrösta om denna värdegrund och blir det i så fall innan eller efter valet 2010? Hur hade man tänkt förankra värdegrunden en gång för alla, och kommer en eventuell ny regering att börja snickra ihop en ny och annorlunda värdegrund? Jag vill helst redan nu veta hur jag ska tolka demokratibegreppet och vilka värderingar som kommer att vara universella under nästa och helst också nästnästa mandatperiod. Och kommer det att ingå i yttrandefriheten att få kritisera värdegrunden?

Detta kan vara ännu viktigare för forskare inom humaniora och samhällsvetenskap att få veta. Mina matematiska bevis kan inte krocka med någon värdegrund och gör de det så är det fel på värdegrunden och inte på matematiken. Då den logiska förmåga jag förvärvat genom matematiken råkat smitta av sig även på andra områden i min hjärna så föreslår jag mig själv som konsult åt regeringen för att utarbeta ett logiskt motsägelsefritt värdegrundssystem för att förhindra sådana här problem i framtiden. Frågan varför just jag ska få utarbeta den gemensamma värdegrunden är inte konstigare än frågan om varför någon annan ska göra det. Jag kan initiera en dialog här på bloggen och sammanställa detta som underlag. För någon ursvensk värdegrund finns ju inte och i den mån den finns är den som vår käre statsminister påpekat barbarisk. Därför borde värdegrunden, likt allt annat gott, komma utifrån, och inte inifrån Regeringskansliet. Vad sägs om att hämta in värdegrunden från Saudiarabien? Själv skulle jag iofs föredra Bulgarien om jag måste välja utifrån. Vad menas för övrigt med utifrån?

Bor vi på ett Möbiusband?

Finns det verkligen någon skarp gräns mellan in- och utsida eller ska jag tolka regeringens allmänna hållning som att jordklotet är ett Möbiusband? Med stöd i ett citat från en annan insiktsfull politiker: “Det var faktiskt inte vi svenskar som byggde Sverige. Det var människor som kom utifrån.” (Maud Olofsson, 2007 sid 6 här) så föreslår jag att vi fortsätter denna uråldriga tradition och i toleransens namn låter någon annan komma hit och bygga värdegrunden. Och då gälls inte att svenska politiker åker på konferens till Teneriffa och sedan kommer tillbaka över gränsen, tio kilo tyngre och en erfarenhet klokare, där den senare innebär att de insett hur smart det var att bli politiker så att man kan åka på semester för skattebetalarnas pengar. Eller semester och semester, det var antagligen en seriös genuskonferens, och de tio kilona är tyngden av de härskartekniker de fått med sig hem, som boken: “Den andra och femte härskartekniken – metoder för förlöljligande och påförande av skuld och skam som metod för att gender-mainstreama och legitimera sin extrema hållning och få den cementerad som ett faktum i samhällsdebatten för all överskådlig framtid.” Bara den boken väger tre kilo och resten väger sju – det är tufft att vara svensk politiker.

För att återgå till verkligheten, eller jag var ju i verkligheten, men för att återgå till värdegrundsdialogen då. Jag har personligen fortfarande inte blivit tillfrågad om något, och jag antar att om medborgarna tillåts ta ställning i exempelvis genusfrågan så kommer flertalet inte att instämma i att “den nordiska synen är dock att könet är en konstruktion” eller att svensk förskola ska representera “såväl ett barnpedagogiskt som könspolitiskt projekt” (såsom fastslagits i SOU 2006:75 sid 55 resp 19). Genusfrågan visar hur svårt det är att få alla medborgare i ett land att enas kring en enda uppifrån pådyvlad åsikt som snickrats ihop vid våra lärosäten och sedan basunerats ut via statens megafoner i decennier nu utan att man lyckats ena befolkningen i frågan. Där kan man tala om social konstruktion och enkelriktad “dialog”.

Detta förfarande är för övrigt ett utmärkt exempel på utövandet av den första härskartekniken “Osynliggörande” vilket som ni ser innebär “Att tysta eller marginalisera oppositionella personer genom att ignorera dem.” Det leder mig förresten till frågan om hur de “involverade parterna” är utvalda. För värdegrunsdialogens webbplattform som är framtagen av regeringen ser mest ut som en enkelriktad kommunikationskanal för redan befintliga organisationer. Pågår själva dialogen ”experterna” och organisationerna emellan medan jag är på jobbet och betalar skatt för att de ska utöva den tredje härskartekniken “Undanhållande av information” mot mig? Det ska bli intressant att se värdegrunden när den är klar. Här är ett exempel på ett liknande projekt som pågick 2006-2008  där man i projektansökan kan läsa om syftet, som är att kartlägga olika värderingsmönster utifrån kategorierna traditionalism, modernism och postmodernism vad gäller familjens roll och tankar kring jämlikhet och demokrati, och utifrån detta utarbetat en “värdegrundskarta för professionellt bruk” i Uppsala med syftet att olika grupper ska ”bli mer medvetna om sin värdegrund och kunna förhålla sig till andra värdegrunder på ett medvetet sätt”. Men regeringens projekt är alltså nu att skapa en enda gemensam värdegrund som så många som möjligt ska omfatta. Inte konstigt att det tar tre långa år – nästan lika länge som Sverige existerat ju. Eller har mina lärare lurat mig?

Maskulinitet är föränderlig - det är dags att tänka om!

Apropå skolan så har den visst en egen värdegrundsportal. Där kan man beställa Värdegrundshandboken online (flik överst). Materialet vänder sig till personal inom grundskola och gymnasiet. Under “lektionexempel” kan man läsa gratis. Här är tex ett lektionsexempel för gymnasiet om “genus, jämställdhet och fördomar”:  “Genus är vårt sociala kön, och handlar om de föreställningar om och förväntningar vi har på hur kvinnor och män bör vara: gester, kläder, språk, vad vi gör eller inte gör. Till vardags tänker vi inte så mycket på det – inte förrän någonting bryter mot det vi förväntar oss. Exempelvis när killar sminkar sig – och ännu mer om en 50-årig man skulle göra det. Eller om en tioårig kille skulle komma i kjol till skolan, eller en tjej som jämt har skrap- och blåmärken på knäna. Kanske är det särskilt viktigt att diskutera våra föreställningar om män och maskulinitet, eftersom det diskuteras mindre, och en förändring av hur vi ser på maskulinitet – inte minst hur män ser på maskulinitet – främjar jämställdhet. Lektionen syftar till att låta eleverna reflektera över hur vi bekönar egenskaper och uttryck. Eleverna ges även möjlighet att ifrågasätta och vidga de ramar könen tillåts röra sig inom.”

Får man ifrågasätta själva lektionsexemplet? Eller vad det har i svensk skola att göra överhuvudtaget när svenska niondeklassare inte ens kan lösa en andragradsekvation, medan kineser och östeuropéer lär sig avancerad bevisföring i den åldern utan en enda genusvetare i sikte! Och där andelen kvinnor på tekniska utbildningar är långt högre än i Sverige. Är denna andel möjligtvis omvänt proportionell mot genusvetartätheten? Man kan ju nästan misstänka det.

Alla ska vi kasta oss nerför (s)tupet

Jag trodde att det var var och ens rätt i detta liberala lyckorike att sätta upp sina egna tio gudomliga budord. Eller är det frihet under ansvar som gäller? Ungefär som när dagens skolelever själva ska ta ansvar för sin utbildning och sin fostran, bortsett från den obligatoriska genuspropagandan då? Genuspropagandan ska fostra barnen till demokratiska medborgare som ska kunna ta aktiv del i en demokratisk debatt där utgången redan är given och där det demokratiska samtalet redan från början följer en given mall, och det är skolans demokratiska uppdrag att se till att ingen rör sig utanför denna mall, eller järntriangel, och ve den olycksalige dåre som självständigt rör sig mot hypotenusans utkant och avviker från grundmängden när det är dags för oss alla att tillsammans och i en gemensam kraftansträngning kasta oss utför det propagandakantade stupet och förgås. Det är för övrigt just detta som avsågs i förra valrörelsen med (s)-slogan “Alla ska med” vilket jag insåg efter att ha tagit del av några interna (s)-mail om det genusindustriella komplexet – alla ska vi följa med sossarna ner i avgrunden och det är då och endast då det gäller att vara solidarisk med sina medmänniskor. Ingen ska nämligen lämnas ensam kvar i ett övergivet tillstånd av förnuft och klarsynthet, ett sådant utanförskap måste motarbetas till varje pris och det är däri den framtida politiska utmaningen ligger: att fördumma alla samtidigt med en och samma funktion.

På tal om funktioner har jag just beräknat att utifrån dagens negativa utgångsläge på så gäller att integrationen med en gemensam värdegrund som de naturliga logaritmernas bas går mot noll efter en oändlig gränsövergång -  se själva:

För samhällsutvecklingen som helhet gäller fortfarande min gamla vetenskapliga ansats till förståelse:

som ni kan läsa mer om här i mitt förslag på Theory of Everything men jag har konstigt nog glömt att ta med genusvansinnet explicit, men jag antar att jag då tänkte att det ingick i pk-funktionen, fast nu vet jag bättre. Genusvansinnet står i en kategori för sig – läs mer om kategoriteori här: Ha ha “A term dating from the 1940s, “general abstract nonsense” refers to its high level of abstraction, compared to more classical branches of mathematics.”

Avslutningsvis en video med Mark Steyn (tipstack till Erik & Dogdylan):

”Our core value is that we have no core values”

Uppdatering: den bloggande journalisten Ingrid Carlqvist har fått sparken som chefredaktör för Villaliv (Journalisten, Resumé)  efter att meningsmotståndare utövat påtryckningar. Flera bloggar har uppmärksammat saken (Pelle Billing, Pär Ström, Dick Erixon, Ann Helena Rudberg, Medborgarperspektiv, Erik med flera).  Yttrande- och åsiktsfriheten har sitt pris. Hur kommer den nya värdegrunden att ställa sig till detta?

In an article about the world’s last opium den, I read that whores in Bangkok prefer Americans to all other customers. The British are too cheap, the Japanese try to extinguish cigarettes on the girls’ arms, and the Germans are too… well, German. That’s how the article put it, with ellipses and all. I didn’t quite understand the complaint against the Germans. It seemed to allude to a problem so subtle and so droll that I would never get the joke. After all, the article ran in Vanity Fair.

Yesterday at 7:01am I sprinted across 41st Street to catch a 7:00am bus to Boston. The street corners of Times Square were eerily deserted—not for any of the nightmare reasons, like an alien invasion or a dirty bomb, but for the holiday. It was Thanksgiving. Somewhere behind the nearest skyscrapers, a flotilla of huge, anthropomorphic balloons was taking to the sky for the 83rd Annual Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. But here in the neon fog, nothing moved but me and a family of five, apparently lost on their way to see Dora the Explorer. A police van idled at the curb. I found most of this unremarkable at the time.

Down in the Greyhound station I stood in line with two Germans, strapping lads with ruddy cheeks and long woolen coats. They might have been woodsmen, or cologne models. Despite the early hour and the lateness of the bus, they joked with each other like old friends. I thought about the Vanity Fair article and how unfairly it had characterized their race.

A blonde woman in a trench coat tried to engage the Germans in conversation. They responded in a schoolboy’s monotone. “…tax reform in Switzerland has resulted in a 6% increase for citizens of other countries who earn more than…” and “…unlike the buses in Holland, which are supposed to run every five minutes, but in practice they are unsuitable to many weather conditions …”

That’s how the Germans blew it. No wonder the whores in Bangkok hate them. A Greyhound attendant began taking tickets, and the Germans kept boring this poor, beautiful woman with tax regulations and bus schedules. I jumped them in line and found my way to Boston for the most American of holidays.

.

I wasn’t expecting to stand on the front lines of the Veteran’s Day parade yesterday. But that’s what happened. I left the office for lunch, and a formation of Vietnam vets stopped me at the curb. They were followed by a high school marching band from Michigan City, Indiana.

I saw an infantryman swallow a hot dog in Madison Square Park. I saw two kids from the Morris High School ROTC fiddle with a digital camera and swat each other flirtatiously. I saw a van for the handicapped meander down the parade route with a single passenger inside, his forehead pressed to the glass, his face obscured by the tinted windows.

A matronly woman at the police barricade whooped every time a soldier went by. She whooped and flicked an American flag in the gray weather. Her whooping was loud and indiscriminate. One of the marchers, a bearded man in a camouflage jacket, saw her, threw his fists in the air, and whooped. There was a lot of whooping, there at the police barricade. I didn’t quite understand what it meant. I saw banners, insignia, and tassels, but I couldn’t tell what they stood for. The only clear message at the parade was, Here are our soldiers.

The soldiers looked very much at ease.

At one point I stood next to a vending machine for the New York Post. Its cover quoted Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday at Fort Hood: “This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil.”

I get my news from the Times. I think of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly as questions of national policy. Should we send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Can we trust Pakistan to safeguard its nuclear weapons? Have we done enough to rebuild Iraq as a Western-style democracy? Hanging over these questions is an icky awareness that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place, and for the past 8 years our strategy in Afghanistan has been at cross-purposes with our country’s best interests. I don’t much like the wars. I don’t believe we should be fighting them—at least, not in anything like their present form.

So the whooping—echoed by spectators up and down the parade route—caught me off guard. I believed in it right away. I saw people my own age, men and women, walking under the banner of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. I saw children in the back of an Army jeep, beaming as they waved to the crowds. The people in the parade have dedicated their lives to putting our country’s decisions into action. They seemed proud. I felt proud of them.

How do we even begin to talk about the wars when A) serving in the military is honorable and good, but B) the wars we’re fighting are wrong, or at best poorly managed? That a gap exists between these two realities is a national tragedy.

The parade celebrated something we don’t put into words. Words are for newspapers, pundits, and press conferences at the Rose Garden. Words are egoistic and literal. The parade was something else—something collective and ineffable. It was our shared morality on display, a common set of instincts about what is right, and what is wrong, that gives 300 million of us an identity.

We tell ourselves stories about how the wars are going, and what they mean. But our stories are just a speck on a ribbon of humanity that unfurled on 5th Avenue yesterday.

The parade shamed me. I was reduced to cheers.

.

His theory has found both fans and critics in the scientific community:

‘Science needs more people like Garrett Lisi, writes Roger Highfield at the Daily Telegraph. Lisi kitesurfs on Maui, lives in a yurt, snowboards at Tahoe—and has wowed physicists with his “theory of everything.” The surfer dude scientist claims to have solved the biggest problem in physics by finding a model of the universe that works on both the large scale of general relativity and the minute scale of quantum physics.

‘Lisi’s theory, based on an eight-dimensional, 248-point mathematical object called E8 whose equation would cover an area the size of Manhattan if written out in tiny print, has found both fans and critics in the scientific community. But whether or not the theory holds true, Lisi’s unconventional spirit—when he came up with the theory, he had a doctorate but didn’t work in the establishment—offers scientists a maverick role model.’ -Daily Telegraph

I had an Epiphany. It changed my life. It is a fact that this was a drug enhanced experience, it is a fact that this none the less happened to me. I do not claim that this was an experience that only I have had, actually it is just the opposite. This is a very common experience, one that is shared by millions of people everywhere all the time, although it usually occurs for others on a daily basis while praying or meditating, usually with the aid of an organized religion. I do not claim that my experience was special or with a higher meaning or calling, only that it occurred. It has given me absolutely no new knowledge or insights. It has given me the desire to seek higher truths. It has given me the glimmer of a peace, a beauty that I did not know existed. This experience has forced me to look inside my soul, to reevaluate all of my preconceived ideals and standards. No longer can I assume that the world is limited to only what I see before me. I must look for the truth in all aspects of my life and in the entire universe, what is usually called the “The Theory of Everything”. It can be an over whelming task. So far I have discovered that light travels in a three part beam, that I know nothing else for sure. This may sound somewhat cynical but you must admit, it is a cynical world us humans live in. I have at times thought that with the insights I have experienced that I could figure out how energy travels, how life forms, how emotions drive humans, how….. the list goes on for a long while. I have in fact got a lot of good ideas about how such things as color, what is the true nature of color? Some of my ideas are in fact proven out by physist. They do a better job of expressing their ideas, I do a better job of feeling the answer. One of the truths that I have come to realize is the answers that so many scientist seek must be felt as much as proven. The answers are wrwped in a sphere of spirtuality that can not be denied. There exist in this universe a force that we can experience but not show on paper, computer, film or shadow puppets. I am sure this force has something to due with all the matter that astrophysist are missing. I am also sure that as astrophysist narrow down the nature of the missing matter they will find that the more they find out, the less they know. The answers they seek will never be quantified in numbers or absolute theories. This I know because light travels in such a way that although it follows the rules of physics as we know them, it also does things that will never be explained by a “Theory of Everything”. As light travels, it creates. This is impossible under the rules of basic physics, and yet it seems to create form on an infinte level. Not only does this energy travel but it creates concentric circles of form, one after another after another. The missing matter I spoke of before is part of the answer to this riddle but not the entire answer. Life is part of the answer. The absolute ability to create something from nothing, life.

 

Albert Schweitzer

Unsterilized Needle Jab

Forward + Forward + Punch

 

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Chokehold with Shackles

Up + Forward + Punch

 

Elie Wiesel

Holocaust of Knuckles

Punch + Punch + Punch

 

The 14^th Dalai Lama

Karma’s a Bitch Flip Kick

Down + Forward + Kick

 

Mikhail Gorbachev

Bruising Skull Slam

Forward + Punch

 

Nelson Mandela

Righteous Prison Shank

Back + Forward + Punch

 

Jimmy Carter

Peanut Harvest Piledriver

Up + Forward + Kick

 

Barack Obama

Automatic Victory

Up + Back + Down

.

Today is the six-month anniversary of the Fiction Advocate.

1. WHAT WE’VE DONE

We defined an entire age in history and literature. We made bookmarks. We swooned over certain fiction writers. We ran some excellent guest posts from Jessa Lingel and Dan Gonzalez. We feuded with friends, and we put out a hit on somebody. We showed you how to be a man. We switched from secondary colors to primary colors, and from first person plural to first person singular (except right now, but this is a special occasion). Some of our favorite writers found us and linked to us. Others called us out. We wrote stories. We perpetuated a number of myths about a fictional character named Robert Repino.

– What’s your favorite post so far?

– Least favorite?

2. WHAT WE’RE DOING NEXT

Chapbooks! And new bookmarks. We’re going to interview published writers here on the blog. We’ll define the new generation of fiction writers, just like we defined the previous one. Does anyone know how to design a colophon? We want to have more guest posts. Why aren’t you writing a guest post right now?

– Any suggestions for the Fiction Advocate?

– Do you want to hear more frequent book recommendations on this site?

3. WHAT WE’RE DOING RIGHT NOW

You probably want this recap to end so you can get back to our original content. Okay, scroll down. We posted a brand new story for you. It’s about haircuts, Chicago, abusive relationships, and totally misapprehending a situation. It’s not bad.

There are two fascinating n+1 articles online. One is about utopia, gay marriage, abortion, and straight marriage. It’s infuriating. Check it out, and then read Matthew Gallaway’s spot-on response to it. The new issue also has a sharp and (in retrospect) overdue takedown of something that we’re apparently calling the “neuronovel.” As soon as you read it, you’ll wonder how you ever loved Ian McEwan. It’s a good article.

Finally, everyone has been jizzing buckets over a new magazine called Electric Literature. And yeah, it’s pretty darn good. We just want to mention that the glowing description of the magazine in the New York Times matches, pretty closely, our glowing description of the poets Matthew and Michael Dickman. The future belongs to good writing, in combination with savvy and relentless marketing. We could have told you that. In fact, we did. In our very first post. Which was six months ago! Can you believe it?

.

We’ve gone international.

Yes, I brought some Fiction Advocate bookmarks to Ottawa with me, and I’m scattering them in strategic places to trick these silly foreigners into clicking through. As soon as you get one international contact, your whole business is international. Right, LA/Ontario International Airport? (Dear LA/Ontario International Airport, You run flights to Tijuana. That’s not “international.” That’s going back to the bar to retrieve your credit card on the morning after. Signedsealeddelivered, Brian.)

Here are some excerpts from my Canadian memoirs.

New Jersey (I flew out of Newark)

If I go on a killing spree here, it will be a totally different governor who rejects my appeal for a stay of execution. How crazy is that?

Canada

I can yell “Fuck America,” and no one will care except those robotic Predator drones, operated by the CIA, that fly overhead at all times, in all places. “Oh, I’m sorry, Predator drones! Did I offend your delicate patriotic sensibilities?” Those will be my last words.

Swinging by Accident

Canadians look alike. White. Kind of healthy. There must be a lot of swinging that goes on at Canadian house parties, by accident, when, after a few drinks, it becomes hard to tell if the man you’re taking home is really your husband, or just another Candian guy.

Mindy: “So, your husband… is he tallish, pretty good at sex, freckles on his left thigh?”

Barbara: “Yep.”

Mindy: “Okay. I think I went home with your husband last night. I’m really sorry. The lighting was dim. Plus, you know, we all look the same.”

Barabara: “Don’t worry about it. I still have no idea who I brought home. If anyone is missing a husband with black loafers and garlic breath, tell them to call me.”

Mindy: “Black loafers? We don’t know anyone who wears those. You might have picked up a stray there, Barbara.”

.

– This new story by George Saunders. He’s insane. Can anyone else get away with writing three different characters who sound exactly alike, and who are blatantly a crude amalgamation of the worst parts of America’s self-image? Nope. Only George Saunders can.

– This review of a bar in The L Magazine:

“After a low-key happy hour, the place becomes a hotbed of douchebag activity around 10 pm. Guys with crisp shirts and hair and girls with no irony to their sexiness infest the place…”

Guys with… hair? Girls with no irony to their sexiness? What!?

– This clip of my favorite Roman Polanski movie, Macbeth. Any clip, really.

– This sculpture, pictured above.

.

Through whatever communication we manage to achieve, comments, emails, chats, video debates – anything, we will reach towards a full, true theory of everything.

As a means to this end, here’s a ‘kick-off” for this ‘big toe‘. Pun intended.

First let’s scope it all out so we can have a template to get going. By size we can start at the [Quantum] and travel upwards until reaching the [Atomic] and eventually the [Galactic] and [Universal] levels. The [Electromagnetic Spectrum] practically covers the whole board at the same time and is a good common bond throughout everything.

So trying to expand on this, without working too hard, offers the result:

[Quantum]

[Sub Atomic Particles and "Loner Particles', Electrons/Photons]

[Atomic Nucleus] (This is roughly the gamma ray “high frequency” side of the spectrum, very small. Think roughly one millionth of a millimeter.)

[Atomic]

[Molecular and Heavy Elements ]

[Cells, Crystals, Composite and Bonded Materials, Fluids]

[Small Multi-celular Organisms, Dust, Tiny Visible Particles]

[Spores, Special Cells, Minerals]

A quick break here to note, many of these levels dip in and out of each other. The physical universe is very interwoven, dispersed and bleeds together everywhere. There is much room for improvement in this quick shake-down of existence.

That being said, the next one is really going to be a whole slew of things I can’t post at once from metalworking to pottery, rendering fat into soap to culinary arts. There’s alot.

[Man-made objects, Plants, Animals, Stuff You Can Grab]

[Buildings, Meteors, Mines/Mineral Veins] (This is roughly the size of Radio Waves which are considered the large end of the spectrum, theoretically radio waves can be infinitely huge, but usually we design waves from roughly 30Km – 3cm large for radio usage, anything bigger is still a radio wave though.)

[Asteroids, Mountains, Seas, Weather]

[Moons, Oceans, Continents, Tectonic Plates and Magma]

[Planetary]

[Solar Systems]

[Galactic Neighborhood]

[Galactic]

[Clusters]

[Universal]

Well I gave up on color coding but hopefully I’ll come back and get that done sometime as things get going. What’s needed next is to set real ‘maximum and minimum’ ranges in size and get a top page for each level to start filling out. Suggestions on levels left out, items to add, corrections and so on would be great too.

Enjoy.

All the trailers with Jason Statham injecting adrenaline and jump-starting his tongue on a car battery weren’t enough to interest us. But when we heard the work of directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor described as “a parody of an action film that still works as an action film,” well, we had to see what THAT was about. So, Crank.

Action heroes are the ultimate realists. Charged with the simple task of barreling from one scene to the next, they communicate mostly by assaulting things, and they scorn anyone—dreamers, stoners, bureaucrats, pedestrians—whose attention strays from the brutal facts at hand. Drugs are their natural enemy—not only a classic boogie man that can represent a broad range of social ills, but also an immediate threat to the action hero’s outlook on life. The action hero is necessarily sober. He needs a clear head at all times. In fact, we can add this to our discussion of the four qualities that make a man. Bond sips all those martinis and never gets sloshed. Wolverine drinks cheap Canadian beer, but it’s only a prop, a bottle to shatter before heading into battle. A hero doesn’t let drugs affect his actions. His sobriety is a virtue.

Crank turns all of this on its head. Chev Chelios needs to keep his body flooded with adrenaline or else he’ll die. So he snorts cocaine, pops epinephrine pills, accepts a strange potion from a Haitian cab driver, and generally ingests every full-throttle substance in greater Los Angeles. This is a nice turnabout for the action hero because A) a puritanical attitude toward drugs usually prevents a story from exploring certain avenues, and B) the target audience for Crank is basically a bunch of guys doing bong rips on the sofa while watching the DVD on Blu-Ray. If they’ll pay to see a man electrocute his tongue on a car battery, they’re probably no stranger to inadvisable amounts of Mad Dog 20/20. Crank gives these people an action hero who can sympathize with their attitude toward illicit substances.

But notice—Chev Chelios never gets high. The drugs actually sober him up.

That’s why he’s the action hero, folks.

.

Physicist and popular author Stephen Hawking presents his views on the elusive Holy Grail of modern physics: a theory of everything, so called because it would, if found, explain everything in the universe in a single set of equations. Hawking and several noted colleagues discuss cutting-edge developments in physics, such as string theory and supersymmetry, that hint at a theory of everything. Computer graphics help simplify the complex topics

Continue watching

Man has been confused about what’s really going on in the unverse from the beggining.  Before we had science and government, God and religion seemed like a pretty neat way to answer questions about the underlying nature of reality.  Instead of speculating that a really big man is standing on the back of a turtle and holding up the globe, you just point out to the curious that God invented hell for those who aask too many questions.

Now people are questioning religion and therefore the God or Gods behind various religion.  Especially when God or religion interferes with their plans.

Robert Wright has penned a book called “The Evolution of God” which may pique your interest:

Amazon link

Birth and Growth of Gods

Powell book review

A different kind of diet

Delicious Monsters

Lying is an Art

Probiotics and Prebiotics

Numerous scientists, theologians, and philosophers have attempted to present one and another “Theory of Everything,” one that explains the roots, fabric, and operation of Reality. Until now, all have failed. 

Albert Einstein dreamed of a set of equations that could explain the Universe by reflecting all apparent laws of Nature. His approach was conceptualized as a Unified Field Theory—the interaction of assumedly continuous fields. Some have criticized his disregard of microphysicality, or his failure to include “information” or spirituality among the factors of energy, matter, and the speed of light. PluribusOne™ Consulting has defined the shortcoming of all prior theorists as “…working within an altogether too limited and yet needlessly complex paradigm.” 

Wise physicists have perceived the need for a new concept, and that is what we are advancing through Noetitek™ and all of its applications: a new conceptualizing that involves a unity that includes and integrates the Mind with Space and Time and facilitates an understanding of all phenomena. Can we express this theory in a narrative that begins with the first step of Creation and its purpose? Yes. Can we express this theory numerically in a way that supplies a comprehensive understanding of the operation of Omniverse? Yes. Does our theory encompass all phenomena, including matters deemed “paranormal?” Yes. The equations, which will be held secret until our book project is finished, allow a whole new perspective; for example, they show the fact that we are immersed in all dimensions of space-time-mind, and they also enable an understanding of “how and why” as well as what this breakthrough means for the future. 

The microcosmic human is truly at-one with the Omniverse. With our fresh all-encompassing perspective, and the associated tools that PluribusOne™ has developed to guide every field toward new discoveries, no secrets or goals lie beyond our reach.

I’m hoping that this post can be an interactive one.  I know the whole premise of blogging implies the opportunity for interaction, but this one in particular needs it.  The purpose of this post is not for me to share what follows, but to induce others to share, creating a collective conversation that is greater in depth, breadth, and quality than any individual contributor could produce.

Paradigms….these are the frameworks, conscious and unconscious, that we use to make sense of our world.  They are the lenses that we see everything else through.  The ideas that guide our thoughts, distort or even create our perceptions.  From our perceptions comes our experience, which further informs our ideas about the world.  It is perfectly circular.  This circle can be sublime or tortuous, or most likely a bit of both, depending on the day. 

I firmly believe in consciously creating your own paradigms.  I reject out of hand that these things are inherited, pre-created, and culturally derived.  That may be for people who sleepwalk through life, but not for me and not for anyone else that dares to take up the reigns of guiding their own evolution.

That being said, I did not create my current incarnation of my constantly evolving paradigm in a vacuum.    Ideas from great thinkers, writers, artists, philosophers, and some everyday people have all contributed raw material to this structure that I’ve built.  So I’m going to attempt to list the top 10 sources of raw material for my paradigm.  As I write this sentence, I have no idea which of the many influences from my life search are about to make this list, but I am about to take the time to hash it out.  I will try and provide a brief intro to each of the items in this list without getting to lengthy. 

Again, the idea is for people to share persons, ideas, books, songs, movies, or any other kind of source that has deeply impacted or informed their personal paradigm.   There is no need to come up with at least ten, or to limit yourself to ten,  it’s merely an arbitrary number I picked for myself to give some structure to this post. 

Ok, I’m back.  This is what I came up with.  These are in no particular order (ranking these things seemed to be a futile exercise)

• An infomercial for self hypnosis tapes that aired in 1984
  • This was my first exposure to the idea that human potential exceeded what the majority of people displayed in ordinary life.  (I was 6 years old)
• The Power of Your Subconscious Mind by Joseph Murphy
  • I found this book when I was 7 years old, and it was really the beginning of my love affair with the genre of books associated with human potential, development, and ultimately spirituality.
• Louise Burrell-Christe
  • My grandmother taught me about devotion, spirituality, and that the Divine is not just something to talk at, but also something that will talk back if you listen.
• Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch
  • These books helped me to heal a schism that had formed in my young mind.  I had deep spiritual experiences associated with the ‘G’ word, but so much dogma and rules attached to the word “God” that I couldn’t reconcile the two.  This series of book helped me to re-conceptualize what the Divine is in such a way that it worked well for my evolving paradigm.
• Integral Life Practice by Ken Wilber, et al
  • This is really just my favorite of a long list of books about the integral theory.  It is about putting integral theory into practice, integrating mind, body, spirit, and shadow.  The AQAL framework does a great job of holding all sorts of things and showing the relationships amongst them.
• Simplified Magic by Ted Andrews
  • I had always been drawn to the meditative science of the Qabala, but this was the first work that seem to demystify the mystical enough for me to finally be able to understand why I was drawn to it.
• The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life (Volume I and Volume II) by Drunvalo Melchizedek
  • Probably  the weirdest book on the list, but one of my favorites.  It is possibly the most complete information I’ve ever found in a single source about Sacred Geometry.  
• The band Tool. 
  • Maynard James Keenan’s lyrics speak to my path, what I’ve been through, how I’ve gotten where I am, and the kind of bizarre spirituality that I’ve carved out along the way.
• The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
  • A simplified explanation of string theory that solidified the foundation left in my consciousness by The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra.
  • My Big Picture Theory of Everything (My Big TOE) by Thomas Campbell
    • Helped to smooth the edges in my consciousness between my scientific and spiritual tendencies. 

I could go on.  The list is actually very, very long and continually growing.  And here’s the not so hidden agenda behind this (hopefully) interactive post:  I’m always looking for something new to add to this list, something that will send me reeling in a whole new direction the way each of these ten did.  So please, share.

merkaba33 is a contributing writer for projectgroupthink.wordpress.com. Get instant updates for this blog via Twitter: PGTblog.

We’ll define the Interaqnum as the period between the Gulf War and the Iraq War—so, roughly 1991 to 2003. And we’ll characterize it by naming its major writers and identifying their shared attitudes and subjects.

Why shouldn’t we be allowed to invent a literary epoch? History is an overlapping series of arbitrary time frames; the moment between the wars in Iraq is less arbitrary than others. And while literature doesn’t necessarily define a historical period, it certainly provides the raw cultural material that critics love to shape into a lasting monument to an age. So that’s what we’ll do.

The writers we’ve selected to illustrate the literature and the overall tenor of the Interaqnum are those whose fiction reflects the particular American fixations of the time; those who produced their first major works during the Interaqnum; those whose work seems poised to influence the fiction that will be written from now on.

Michael Chabon

Wonder Boys (1995)

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (2000)

He won the Pulitzer and a generation of enthusiastic fans by exploring what it means to be a real-life superhero.

Dave Eggers

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (2000)

This may not be a work of fiction, but it uses fiction’s bag of tricks, and everybody in America read it hungrily. Plus, he launched the most important new publishing venture of the Interaqnum.

Jeffrey Eugenides

The Virgin Suicides (1993)

Middlesex (2002)

His two eerie, affecting bestsellers were both products of the Interaqnum.

Jonathan Safran Foer

Everything is Illuminated (2002)

This schlocky trip through one young man’s Holocaust fantasia somehow won over a bunch of Interaqnum readers.

Jonathan Franzen

Strong Motion (1992)

The Corrections (2001)

His magnum opus dramatized some of the major interpersonal concerns of the age.

A. M. Homes

The End of Alice (1996)

Music for Torching (1999)

Her transgressive stories are disturbing precisely because they felt so plausible at the time.

Shelley Jackson

Patchwork Girl (1995)

The Melancholy of Anatomy (2002)

Skin (2003)

It’s like feminists finally got past reclaiming their bodies from Freud and just decided to be really weird and perverse.

Jonathan Lethem

Motherless Brooklyn (1999)

Fortress of Solitude (2003)

Another prize-winning author who resurrected old archetypes like the detective and the superhero with grand results.

Rick Moody

The Ice Storm (1994)

Purple America (1996)

Demonology (2001)

He brought a hard-won grace to chilling stories of dysfunction and addiction.

Haruki Murakami

Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World (1991)

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (1997)

Norwegian Wood (2000)

Sputnik Sweetheart (2001)

A Japanese guy obsessed with America, he made plenty of hip, noir-loving Americans obsess over him.

Chuck Palahniuk

Fight Club (1996)

Choke (2001)

We know he’s a crock of shit, but his downtrodden macho voice has been adopted by fauxhawked bros across the country.

Annie Proulx

Postcards (1992)

The Shipping News (1993)

Close Range (1999)

The Shipping News was lauded from every corner, and “Brokeback Mountain” had a second life as an important movie.

George Saunders

CivilWarLand in Bad Decline (1996)

Pastoralia (2000)

Already his antic satires are being widely imitated.

W. G. Sebald

The Emigrants (1996)

The Rings of Saturn (1998)

Austerlitz (2001)

His work runs the trauma of WWII through the sieve of personal memory.

Zadie Smith

White Teeth (2000)

Her debut was dazzling and fiercely contemporary; she could become one of the best critics of her generation.

David Foster Wallace

Infinite Jest (1996)

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (1999)

He questioned the basic tenets of Interaqnum life with a tenacity that would have seemed crazy, if it wasn’t so smart.

So, in broad strokes we’ll paint the Interaqnum as a time when literature focused on the personal flip-outs that we suffer during a time of relative comfort and stability. Unlike the ’80s, when up-and-comers like the Brat Pack and William T. Vollmann were pushing the extremes of indulgence and depravity in the world around them, the writers of the Interaqnum had a fairly safe, affluent age in which to explore the quaverings of their own fickle souls. Their attention was fixed somewhere on a spectrum between neurotic analysis and self-doubt, at one end, and an exuberant or manic embrace of multiplicity and complexity, at the other end. This also distinguishes them from some of the post-Interaqnum work that has come out, which is often marked by an awareness of personal responsibility and social interconnectedness. (Such as Eggers using his latest books to champion a Sudanese refugee and a hurricane-ravaged Muslim family; Tao Lin blitzing the internet in search of simple human empathy; Colson Whitehead, Hari Kunzru, and Aleksandar Hemon dragging us into the post-racial, post-national stew of the present day; etc.) In other words, we can plot our Interaqnum writers on a continuum as follows.

Franzen, Moody, and Wallace used rather formal means (or, in Wallace’s case, extremely formal means) to depict the white American male’s insecurity within his own skin.

Palahniuk attempted the same, but went too far and channeled a grotesque kind of suburban rage.

Eugenides and Homes took a calmer, more specific look at people who are inwardly driven to perversion and desperation.

Saunders was no less dark in his assessment of America at rest, but he wrapped his biting criticisms in smartass fables and satire.

Eggers, Foer, and Smith let their exuberance loose, inviting the whole world into their books, but they sometimes came across as cloying or willfully naïve.

Chabon and Lethem were also exuberant, but it showed more in their method of storytelling, which channeled their ambitions and their geek knowledge into a fresh take on marginalized genres.

Like a voice in the wilderness, Proulx fell somewhere outside the spectrum; she updated our perpetual American longing for a cowboy past. Sebald and Murakami embodied what we expect of foreigners—trippy, almost supernatural narratives layered over ponderous investigations that never get resolved. In that sense they revealed how we looked at the world beyond our borders.

In conclusion, these books show that during the Interaqnum we were all quaking in our shoes, either with a vague, pent-up excitement, or with a debilitating and unwarranted anxiety.

So there it you have it.

Quickest definition of a historical era ever.

What did we get wrong?

.

A new book and a new article in Salon are raising a topic we posted about way back in July 2008, on a different blog. The topic is Literary Darwinism—or evocriticism, as the new book’s author calls it.

Basically there are some academics who believe—rightly—that the study of literature is becoming an endangered species, and who argue—not so rightly—that we can save it by embracing a scientific approach to literary analysis. Specifically, they consider works of literature in terms of the lessons of evolutionary biology.

D.T. Max explains it better than we can.

Just as Charles Darwin studied animals to discover the patterns behind their development, Literary Darwinists read books in search of innate patterns of human behavior: child bearing and rearing, efforts to acquire resources (money, property, influence) and competition and cooperation within families and communities. They say that it’s impossible to fully appreciate and understand a literary text unless you keep in mind that humans behave in certain universal ways and do so because those behaviors are hard-wired into us.

That’s from his article in The New York Times Magazine in 2005.

The new article in Salon (about which more later) was written by Laura Miller.

Laura Miller’s article is a review of this new book.

Another good overview was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Boston Globe published a manifesto by Jonathan Gottschall, one of the leading Literary Darwinists.

And just to round out the reading list, Denis Dutton made a related argument last year in a book called The Art Instinct.

Finished reading all that? Okay.

We have some powerful mixed feelings about the idea of reading fiction with Charles Darwin by our side.

First, in a broad sense, we are totally stoked about the underlying principle of evaluating fiction in terms of a universal human need for stories. This is something Laura Miller describes well.

Why do human beings spend so much time telling each other invented stories, untruths that everybody involved knows to be untrue? People in all societies do this, and do it a lot, from grandmothers spinning fairy tales at the hearthside to TV show runners marshaling roomfuls of overpaid Harvard grads to concoct the weekly adventures of crime fighters and castaways.

For decades the trend in academia has been to analyze literature in terms of other fields, like queer theory, post-colonial politics, or African-American studies. The assumption was that we could validate the study of literature by showing that it helps to shape our identities. Lately that assumption has been challenged by a more conservative movement that seeks to restore interest in the canonical works and show that literature can be valued on aesthetic principles alone. Both of these approaches are useful, and we’re glad people are feuding over literary studies. But nobody in the academy is really speaking to the central issue, as we see it, which is that stories are how we view the world. Here at The Fiction Advocate, our preoccupation with fiction falls more in line with fields like narratology, stylistics, and yes, now that you mention it, evolutionary biology.

When Miller describes Boyd’s book, she makes the best argument we’ve ever heard for the vitality of fiction.

Human beings are what biologists call “hypersocial,” more social by far than any other animal, and the major product of our deep investment in sociality is our culture…. In short, humanity itself is an element, like the weather or seasons, that each of us needs to negotiate in order to survive… Fictional stories encourage and permit us to hypothesize, to speculate about potential situations we’ve yet to encounter and to anticipate how to respond appropriately… Good storytellers earn attention and admiration, and they also provide their audience with the pleasure of a communal experience that strengthens the bonds within a group. They set forth the group’s shared beliefs, myths, symbols and history (real or legendary), creating a greater identity, a culture, that can expand beyond the boundary of small, local communities where everyone knows each other personally.

Yowza! The Fiction Advocate and this analysis are sitting in a tree. The Fiction Advocate and this analysis are K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

It’s funny that Brian Boyd calls the approach “evocriticism,” indicating that the field has adapted and evolved since the days when it was known as “Literary Darwinism.”

Last year, when we posted about this, Literary Darwinism didn’t exactly impress us. The research that Jonathan Gottschall cites in his article for The Boston Globe, in particular, struck us as borderline useless. We said:

Some of the work being done by Literary Darwinists makes it seem like they were excited to open a brand new toolbox, only to find there was nothing to build. Like the survey of beauty myths across different civilizations. Okay, so you discovered the ratio for descriptions of female attractiveness versus male attractiveness in folk tales is 6:1… AND? I would think that anyone who studies literature would LAUGH at the notion of analyzing it with simple ratios. But not these guys.

The studies in Graphing Jane Austen claim that, in spite of what the post-everything scholar might claim, certain characters ARE more universally villainous or sympathetic than others. Thanks. But were we really suffering under the illusion that, in a post-everything world, the author’s role is dead and nobody can tell the difference between Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham anymore?

Although the Literary Darwinists made an appealing argument, they couldn’t translate their big theory into a viable methodology for looking at fiction. Which… is kind of the point. Every example they gave was out-of-touch with the reasons we read fiction in the first place, and we just sort of cringed.

Laura Miller echoes our thoughts about worthlessness of the Jane Austen argument, and about the difficulty of using these branches of science to describe something as shifting and nuanced as literature. But we love Miller’s article because she maintains hope that evocriticism has the potential to be HUGE one day, as long as it focuses on the art of narrative instead of particular works of literature.

Until it evolves into something that can “save” literary criticism, evocriticism will remain a great theory, and a terrible methodology.

.

Today, through a mutual friend, I ended up randomly meeting up with two beautiful people.  Tamara Park, author of “Sacred Encounters” and one of her traveling companions.  I have not read the book but now want to.  It bills itself as a bit of a travel journal as she treks through terrain between Rome to Jerusalem, and covers territory such as faith and doubt in between.  I suspect she picked up many stories along the way–she listened intently in the little half hour we had together, and while I wanted to hear more about her and her life she continued to simply encourage my own sharing.  What a marvelous quality to discover in some one else.  I hope to encounter her more and emulate the beautiful way of engaging the world around her that she seems to have.  Cheers!

The second event. Tonight Jessie and I embark on a seven week book club adventure reading through “A Theory of Everything” by Ken Wilber together with a group of fellow “post-Christian” adventurers.  I read the intro last night and found myself excited for the voyage ahead.  There were two things that stood out to me.  1) He talked about the “de-throning” of post-modernism by other more viable stories.  While post-modernity emphasized the nurtured cultural models of the beliefs we have concerning the world, making them little more than embedded myth and accepted fables; such discoveries as evolutionary psychology, chaos theory/complexity, and M-Theory/String Theory, have helped us realize that while things may not have readily apparent reasons for why they are…they still ARE!  In other words there are bigger stories than post-modernisms particular one, at work.  That intruiges me.  Another thing that Wilber said in the intro was particularly good: “we may not be able to get a view of EVERYTHING but isn’t a little bit of wholeness better than none at all?”  And I found that hopeful and redemptive.  All in all, I’m excited to take the journey together with my wife and other friends who all seem to find ourselves in the same space.  What dreams may come?  It will simply be good to gather around a challenging text and be stretched again. 

These are little blips of community that I see taking shape again… Receiving the stranger, creating space of sacred encounters, and then allowing others into the place of concept and stories to encounter something Other.

[ATTENTION: The following is a satire. It might not represent the author's view.]

There is a weird theory on time circulating in the Internet originating from a racist moron. It’s called Time Cube. It is so obscure and wrong that I can’t even comment on its dumbness. How dim-witted does one have to be to come up with something so stupid like a cubic earth?

It is self-evident, that earth is  an eleven-dimensional hypercube with 42240 cubes as its boundaries. You might wonder why we can’t perceive the other 8 dimensions. That’s because we have only two eyes. Seeing only two dimensions with one eye, three dimensions with two, we would need ten eyes to see all eleven dimensions! Analogously, we have only two eyes to hear in three dimesions, two nostrils to smell in three dimension, and two legs to walk in three dimensions. The only animal coming close to see all dimensions are spiders which have eight eyes seeing nine dimensions in total.

The reason why we have adopted to the life in three dimensions is because in the other eight dimensions there are huge walls (they are not really walls, but energy barriers. It’s going to be too complicated if I explain everything in detail…) hindering us to move freely in them. Therefore, we have lost the other seven eyes, hears, nostrils and legs in the process of evolution. Spiders didn’t feel this evolutionary pressure because of a simple reason. What does a spider remind you of? — Of course, the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Spiders have retained their eight eyes and eight legs being able to see the FSM in a higher-dimensional glory because they are intelligently designed.

Why eleven dimensions? — Because the FSM has 42240 appendages so that it can touch every side of the Earth.

Do I have a proof for this simple and obvious fact that some people maliciously call “only a theory”? — People often feel that time does not flow with a constant speed, but sometimes slows down, and sometimes speeds up. That is not a psychological phenomenon. There is a physical reality underlying the variation in the speed of time. While Earth is travelling through time, it rotates in a complicated manner so that when the real time is projected onto our reality, we sense it distorted. The distortion emanates from the inconsistency between our three-dimensional sensory organs and our inner clock which as a vestige of evolution still feels the real time.

So I have just proven that the earth is an 11-dimensional cube. And that proves the existence of the FSM because only the FSM can create something so marvellous. And can it be only random accident that the number of surface cubes of our earth equates the number of FSM’s appendages?

If my theory is so simple and obvious, why does not everyone know it? — Because people, who don’t believe in the FSM, are mentally ill (that is only a theory, but the best explanation so far). Ways of healing this mental disease are eating lots spaghetti, becoming a pirate, petting Tarantuals and inbreeding.

Let’s summarise my paper. The Earth is an 11-dimensional cube, created by the FSM who existence is herewith proven. Time Cube is a moronic theory. Spiders are FSM’s special animals. And donate to my good cause by buying my book “45 Minutes in the Other Cube.” [1, 2]

more about “JogyJogy – Видео Stephen Hawking and …“, posted with vodpod

PARTE II

more about “Stephen Hawkins and the Theory of Eve…“, posted with vodpod

Einstein and the other great scientist’s of our time have spent their careers searching for this one unifying theory of the world/Universe that we live in, something that sums up our very existance. Indeed, the work they are preparing to do at C.E.R.N. could very well lead to the discovery of what they’re calling “The God Particle” or the substance that makes everything what it is. See M-Theory for a deeper understanding.

As a self described “Amateur Theosopher”, I believe I have been able to take my understanding of science and my study of religion, albeit mostly an Abrahamic point of view and come up with ‘it’. In no way is my theory a compromise between science and religion, rather a spotlight on science and religions commonalities which are far greater than most realize. In a terribly un-scientific way it goes like this:

 1. All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration,

2. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively,

3. There is no such thing as death,

4. Life is only a dream, and

5. We are the imagination of ourselves.

* T.O.E. stands for “Theory of Everything”…