¡NteReSt¡Ng... VeRy, VeRy...

What I like the most about art is being surprised, I think that 's why I like actual and contemporary art. The classical or traditional one doesn't, generally, entertain me, it tells me nothing and it is because I'm not surprised when watching, looking, hearing... in essence: using it (because art is like a drug, a good one, and if it isn't for anyone, I think it should be).

From the many definitions of art that I have come across I stand with this one:

"Art is anything provoking aesthetic pleasure"

I agree completely and since there is probably nothing fulfilling the definition for all of us (the human beings) at the same time, it is implicit that art is something personal. Anything causing aesthetic pleasure to anyone should be considered art, for the sake of respecting one another's tastes.

So, after nearly a year without posting a word in this blog (this is not to say that I haven't been thinking, XD), why am I giving this speech? Well, it's because I found this video in a blog named serious eats that surprised me and I suddenly felt the need to share and write about why I enjoyed it so much. It made me think that I have always had this thing with destroying things, since I was a child ripping apart old computers and stuff, and I like very much cooking, as you can all check in my other blog (which is one of the reasons why I abandoned this one a bit, XD). Watch the video after the break.

rotating kitchen from Zeger Reyers on Vimeo.

wHat d¡d tHe w0Rms d0 t0 p¡ss 0fF g0d?

I was blog surfing and came across two interesting thinking blogs that made me rofl for a while.
The first one is Saint Gasoline, the description in the header reads: ''A fine mixture of intellectualism and fart jokes'' and has a self-proclaiming comment: ''OMFG! this comiblog is totally sort of funny!''. It is actually a comiblog and I want to single out the post The Idiot’s Guide to Genesis. One of the best paragraphs is the very last

Not content with simply punishing Adam and Eve, God also decides to punish
all snakes, even though it wasn’t really a snake that tempted the humans, but
Satan. God, not caring, punished snakes. He ripped off all of their legs, and
banished
them to crawling about on the ground like worms. (No one yet knows
what the worms did to piss God off.)

The comments took me to the Heather Annastasia's Politics and Religion Blog where I read The Garden of Eden, post on the same subject but that made me roflofl. I just need to share this with whomever read this blog (sigh..). Here you have an extract

So just for laughs, I picked up Genesis and started to read it literally, which is when I reached my epiphany: that it was God who lied and the serpent that told the truth

Hope you enjoy it!

mAn sYntHes¡zeS (ArT¡f¡c¡al) geN0me

ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2008) — A team of 17 researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) has created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0. This work, published online today in the journal Science by Dan Gibson, Ph.D., et al, is the second of three key steps toward the team’s goal of creating a fully synthetic organism. In the next step, which is ongoing at the JCVI, the team will attempt to create a living bacterial cell based entirely on the synthetically made genome.

Once I thought that the day we (humanity) were able to create DNA, the belief in a Creator God would be compromised. Nowadays I think that the ones who believe that The Creator God created us in his image and likeness can escape the problem by thinking that been able to create life is just a consecuence.

I'm just happy to read the news and looking forward to own a synthetic alive non-violent pet.

P.S.: By the way, while reading something about believes, I came up to this post. The author claims that logic doesn't rules reality, it caught my attention beacuse in my last posts I just claimed the contrary, that is to say that I believe in logic and that reality is not real, it's just a perception. As I see it, logic is the tool we have to test our perception in order to change it if needed.

mAtteR 0f Ch0¡cE

Quoting the film Trainspotting from the British screenwriter John Hodge:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Despite the heroin thing, this last sentence was the heroin talking, I think that there is a lot of truth in this text. I'm not sure if it is something argument-able or the kind of thing you learn by experiences (so it depends on perception).

There is a kind of paradox here, because I think that it is actually possible that this choosing thing could be chosen in its own. In fact, this is a reasonable way (among a lot that I might not know) of understanding life, so it is possible to choose it among the rest. At least there is the destiny way, which assumes that you are not the one who makes de choices, they are already made for you.

Thinking about my choosings,

• I choose to choose choosing as the way of life (not mine, every).
• I choose to choose life and I choose it.
• I choose to try to be happy (meaning it).
• I choose to believe in logic.

What does choosing choosing and choosing to be happy means?

Most of the people know that, more or less, everything has connotations (to us), well, you can voluntarily change the connotations that we get from anything. If you see a bottle half-empty and half-full, you can choose to give more importance to the fact that it is half-empty, this is to be optimistic.

For example, about long-lasting relationships, you really never know if it would work for ever or not, so, in order to feel stable, you have to choose to believe that it will last. Of course, it is a risky bet, but not doing so may lead to insecurity and jealousy. Now think that somehow you have doubts, then you have to explore your feelings, but if you have no clues, you may have to choose, taking risks, of course.

This post could have been named Life is a matter of taking risks.

I beL¡eVe ¡N L0g¡c !

I know a few people in the world with whom i cannot argue, there are probably a lot more that i have the lucky not to met. There are two kinds of these people, the ones that doesn't know how an argue works (i listen, you listen) and doesn't listen to your arguments, so it doesn't worth trying, and others that i didn't knew why but they listen and keep track of the arguments, but don't get the conclusions, even if the arguments where truly good.

I'd like to think about this last few, i recently understood why is it that, despite following a good argument, the conclusions doesn't convince them. I think that the problem here is that they don't believe in logic, i.e., they don't think that taken some hypotheses and manipulating them by means of logic rules, the logical conclusions derived are true whenever the hypothesis hold.

These non-believers find hard to argue with people that have different points of view than their own. They usually don't like to discuss if it is not for something they think important, they hate arguing over "silly things" (i personally think that everything worths arguing).

They may probably don't know what is the problem with them while arguing with s'body and they won't be aware of its relation with the problem of learning logic-ruled sciences like maths, physics or chemistry.

The ones i know seem to have everything pretty clear, but they are unable to defend most of their ideas to the end (i assume an idea to be a decision taken from some premises, which are the ones that are truly chosen; and to defend an idea to the end is trying to convince s'one of your ideas till it comes a matter of choice, that is, a matter of premises) and the ones they do, are because they are learned ideas (that is, s'thing that s'one convinced you of).

So, thinking about this topic, i realized that logic is a matter of believing-ness. It is not required for a human being to believe in logic in order to live, he has the means to think, but he can chose not to believe in the logic conclusions he take if they don't match whatever he chose to believe true. This can be the quid of fanatic and not so fanatic religious people, since they believe something or somebody to be true and if any product of thinking leads them to a conclusion in a different direction, they refuse it, even if the premises where true for them!

I think that the believe in logic may have a lot to do with relativism, since believing in logic imply that every point of view should be taken into account and hence are equally valid, here comes the argue whether a premise is admissible or not. For example, a forever-fixed premise should be that human life is over any other thing and a non admissible premise should be that there are races better than others (in fact, there should only be one race taken into account, the human race).

Despite i have always being proud of claiming that i have no blind faith, i now have to admit that i have one: logic rules! I have finally found my path, LOL.

I believe in logic!

The Beg¡Nn¡nG of tHe beG¡nN¡n'

Not everything has a straight beginning, but a sequence of, let's say, first steps which configure a global start point; and this web log, i hope, will have both. In one sense, this is the beginning, the very first post, but something tells me that the hole thing won't be running till i have written a few of them.

As it might haven't been clear from the header, let me explain (to my self) the aim of this blog. When i say "where i will try to pose my thoughts" i mean that i will write deep and not so deep reflections, but all of them right thought. By trying i mean that I'm not an English native speaker, so, for me it's not always trivial to think in English. This is just the point, i usually watch lots of TV series (lost also) in English, but normally i don't have the opportunity of talking (which includes thinking) nor writing in English.

Feel free to argue if you don't agree with my comments. The only thing i ask you is to do it right thinking (i mean, with good arguments).


Good arguments in the sense of M. C. Morgan, namely:

1. A good argument is logical and well-reasoned;


2. a good argument makes a detailed case;


3. a good argument is substantiated with evidence;


4. a good argument is persuasive.
   

Please, correct me in case i made any mistake, 'cause this is what it is all about.