11 May, 2005

Free Will beats the unified Field theory any day of the week!

a personal take on Absolute Truths and and relativism.

After reading Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time", two things got stuck in my mind: the first one was the hypothesis of a cyclic universe (since Hawkins just treats the material part of the Cosmos), in which matter expands to a point and then contracts to a singularity point, from which a new Big Bang creates a new cycle of the Universe (which, as a leisure fact, could allow something like a Galactus if a being is able to survive such explosion).

The second fact I got from this book is presented in its final chapters, in which Hawkins start talking about the culmination of the determination of the Unified Field Theory and its physical, psychological and universal implications. For a quick definition here's something I got from wikipedia:

"In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter. "

Hawkins states that the determination of this framework would also allow us to determine not only the nature and behavior of all matter, but as the physical theory of particles basically reduces all interactions and forces to matter in sub-particle level, it would allow us to determine the nature and behavior of everything, thus allowing an Absolute Truth.

Scary thing, isn't it?.

Now, assuming that this is possible (and I do have faith in the guy), there are two little problems with this statement, one of them is Free Will. Imagine this framework is used by its discoverer to determine how his life will be, or how will he react to a certain situation. Now he knows how he would act, but it's conscious that he can have other reactions, thus, the Unified Field Theory becomes relative to him and his circumstance, turning this "absolute" truth in just another option in his life.

Picture Neo and the Architech in Matrix Reloaded.

The other problem is Definition. The final determination of the universe, and thus the Cosmos if we mantain our assumptions, brings the old discussion of the name of god. You see, if you take the Creator role of God as an equivalent of the Unified Field Theory, since this framework would explain how the universe was created, how it works, and how it will work in the future (although time will be of no relevance when you're able to "edit" the universe at will with the implementation of this framework); then this framework would not only Define the Cosmos, but also Define God.

No one would have expected that the name of God would be a formula? It's just a matter of language codes.

Now, the Definition (and I'm using the capital letter on purpose) is the total conceptualization of something, the final Knowledge of this "thing" (being "thing" anything in the Cosmos), of how it is, how it was and how it will be, thus allowing control over it. So, the Unified Field Theory brings control over the Cosmos (as E=mc2 brougth control over nuclear energy), and thus, control over God. Since we take God as an absolute Truth, the Unified Field Theory would bring control over him, making him relative to those how posses the discussed framework.

tetragrammaton anyone? (don't be lazy, google it!)

Kaiser Xavier.

05 May, 2005

Happy Campers: the Un-review

Today, as part of a package that had a Remix album of a Swedish pop band done by Japanese missing (YES! the GLOBAL VILLAGE WORKS!), I got the Happy Campers DVD.

I came from work and popped it into my dvd player and started doing this incredible annoying thing that is Jungian Analysis of the plot, characters and situations. It's completely annoying, I totally miss the emotional part of the movie (although I still almost cry at the end of Los Coristas, almost!), and I keep writing these "reviews" that are less about the actual movie (for that you have Mr. Tots), but more about ideas, archetypes and stuff.

Happy Campers had a surprise thrown into for me.

Normally, I get the protagonist and from there I work Ego, Shadow and Anima/Animus; but this movie, the sole initial presentation gets you thiking about something else: the chariot and the hanged man. You see, there are 7 "protagonists" in this movie, 4 men and 3 women. When you get to their personalities you can tell who represents whom in the triad / elemental groups:

Triad:
Wendy: Stasis / The Son / The Weaver.
Talia: Entropy / The Holy Ghost / The Wyrm.
Pixel: Dynamism / The Father / The Wyvern.

Elemental:
Wichita: Fire / Wands / Intuition.
Jasper: Water / Cups / Emotion.
Adam: Earth / Pentacles / Perception.
Donald: Air / Swords / Intelligence. ("A witty, inteligent man trapped in a body of a geek is still a geek", HA!)

Finally, Oberon is the Imago-Dei, the creator, propiciator, rules creator.

So, when "God" "dies", Triad and Elements wave and shift between each other.

I'll tell you how that goes after I see the movie a a couple more of times,

César X.- Know thyslef.
"Its like between family, friends, playstations, and internets it's possible for a person to go their whole lives without ever listening to their soul, Now how's the dork?" - Wichita.

03 May, 2005

Why the Muppet, why Us?

Today, flipping between my Excel macro and the 'Net like zapping channels in my sofa I went googling for "Shadow", not the pulp hero (extra points if you know who I'm talking about, and yes, the movie counts too) but the Jungian's Archetype definition, this is what I've found:

"The Shadow, is a psychological term introduced by the late Swiss psychiatrist, Dr. Carl G. Jung. It is everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied. These are dark rejected aspects of our being as well as light, so there is positive undeveloped potential in the Shadow that we don't know about because anything that is unconscious, we don't know about."
- from http://www.shadowdance.com/shadow/theshadow.html

Now, while I kept reading this article (now in my lunch time) I came to this:

"We will feel highly uncomfortable when we are around someone that is carrying a part of our Shadow. As I said before, and it bears repeating, there will often be a repulsive element to it. We will be repulsed by that person and whatever they stand for. It will feel like whoever they are is totally against our principles, moral values and ideals and we will be highly critical of their actions or way of being in the world."

So I began thinking of whom I feel like this, a couple of names crossed my mind, but only one stood: the Muppet. Now, although I don't exactly feel repulsed by him (I just feel sorry for him), I have noticed (as some times many of you have in other ocassions) that sometimes we (and I include myself, just keep reading) need to talk about this guy, it's either to have a quick laugh, or to make a comparison, or to just call the attention of the group (and no, the muppet is not getting married, as far as I know).

Why is this? why is someone in a group that is the end of everyone's jokes? Sometimes people make jokes about others, but these people keep getting them even from people they don't even know?

I kept reading the article and found this:

"Projection and Denial
Projection is an unconscious psychological mechanism. We all project onto other people parts of ourselves that we disown, that we deny. We will usually not identify with the projected quality or characteristic at all. It's them. It's not us."

Or as the writer ends this chapter: "as the 12-steppers say, 'if you spot it, you got it'."

I read in another article that women like Marilyn Monroe corresponded to the Feminine archetype, and that could explain their success as bombshells, actresses, models, what-have-you. Maybe these people are close to the (making this up) "Buffon" archetype? maybe these people reflect parts of us we don't like about ourselves?

I know, or think I know, why this happens I'm my specific case, but anyway these questions are deemed necessary not for one person, but for everyone we meet.

Finally, some pointers (and please, these are not "answers"):
"So notice. Notice who comes into your life that irritates you or pushes your buttons. It's usually something that is so unconscious within yourself, that it's impossible to see that it's about yourself. If it indeed is a part of your own Shadow, in time you are going to see how it's going to start repeating in patterns."

So check yourself before you wreck yourself,

César X.- Know thyself.

P.D.: "No one does this overnight. Shadow work is a life-long retrieval process and it takes years of patient inner dialogue with oneself to understand and even admit to ourselves that Shadow work is even realistic and necessary." - from http://www.shadowdance.com/shadow/theshadow.html