New poll and some thoughts on friendship.

I'd like to start with a small note. I changed the poll. The was never satisfied with the political one since I honestly never have cared much for politics. I replaced it with a poll on which kind of music you most enjoy. Multiple answers are allowed of course.


Furthermore I have been thinking about something lately. Its basically loneliness but loneliness by choice. I have often considered myself to be a lone wolf. I have always had friends but usually just a few select ones. Right now that number is maybe 5 persons. Then I have some people I used to hang out with that I hope to regain some contact with and thats another 5 people maybe. Then there is the band but I pretty much only play music with them. And then there's friends friends that I can enjoy being around but arent that close to.

Anyways, this is what Im comfortable with. I have however realized something. I have never ever really relied on a friend until 5 years ago. That was when I met my ex girlfriend. yes the one I have a hard time getting over. I think I know why now. That was something that turned into a, for me, extraordinary friendship. I told her everything and we were in contact every day. It became a habit to tell her everything and anything that was on my mind. I never had that with anyone before. Not friends, not teachers in school and not my parents.

One of the hard parts with the break up was that now I had no one to talk to about these thing (no one that wouldnt get bored with listening to it anyway). That has been a huge thing for me. Unfortunately materializing in a negative way. The break up did cause me to get alot closer to two of my friends however which is good.

I never felt suffocated in my relationship but I can now feel it when contact with my friends get more intense. I mean I love them to death but Im just not the person who gives someone a ring and comes over for a cup of tea. I can feel restricted if things become to intense (and to intense to me probably aint nothing compared to what others think). If we go into town just to walk around and look through stores I can find myself being annoyed because things dont move along as fast as I'd like them to. Or maybe we go to a shop I dont have any interest in and I become restless and annoyed. I shut up about it of course, I can work in a team, but its just something I have become increasingly aware of.

Furthermore I start to notice small thing that annoys me about my friends if I spend to much time with them. One of my friends really wants to meet a new girl (he was dumped some months ago). And I hate it when he drinks and totally goes for it. Its so predictable and his attitude is "everyone should have a great time" but in reality he's closed in his own bubble and just care about pleasing himself and the girl or girls in question. If something non-comercial is being played on the stereo he's there changing it and saying "we should have music that suits everyone" not even thinking that the majority of people in the room probably prefer something a little more rock n' roll rather than some comercial pop stuff.

Now I dont want to create any bad feelings. I doubt any of them reads the blog but I have to say that I like em all. This is just something I have been thinking about lately. I guess its just as much a reflection of my short comings as it is of theirs. So no hard feeling if you read this alright? ;)

The Cube

I re-watched The Cube today. A relatively unknown movie, at least in my circles, that has become a favorite of mine. Its the archetype for the kind of movie I like. Deep, philosophical and concentrating on the story and being minimalist with no huge need for special effects. It absolutely has its flaws but in general a really good movie. I have copied a review of it below. Im not sure however if I would recomend a person who hasnt seen the movie to read the review first. I had no idea what kind of movie this was when I first saw it and it took me by storm so remember that you have been warned ;)

Compelling idea - poorly executed
Seven strangers are trapped in a deadly maze and must work together to escape. Each of the seven prisoners has a unique personality, background, and skill set; can they work together to solve the riddle of the cube and escape? I thought this was a very interesting idea for a film and is largely driven by character development among and interaction between the prisoners. In the end though, the characters are so unrealistic and uncompelling that there is little to hold your attention. The maze, or Cube, consists of a series of interconnected rooms. Each room contains six doors, one on each wall, one on the floor, and one on the ceiling. Some of the rooms contain deadly traps that the group must figure out how to avoid. They must also figure out how to exit the maze. The six persons trapped in the maze include a college math student, an autistic man, a policeman, a doctor, a fugitive from prison, and an architect. Initially the story is very compelling: why are they in the maze? who selected these individuals? who built the maze? how do they get out? A tense, claustrophobic atmosphere is created as we learn some initial details about the maze and about the prisoners. As the story develops though, the characters start arguing amongst themselves, ultimately fighting each other. The nature of the arguments is silly, and in the end I couldn't wait for the film to be over. Once they figure out how to escape, the film turns into more of an escape/evasion type of story as some try to leave the other(s) behind. The writers and producer took this film into a pit from which it couldn't recover. Some of the most enthusiastic reviews claim that this film is a microcosm of society or other such nonsense. Balderdash. The most enthusiastic reviews grossly overstate the quality of this film. This is strictly a watch once as a rental type of film, not bad, but could have been much better.

---

For people with an attention spanThis is one of the most intelligent films ever made. It is a metaphor for the prison that is the limitations of the human mind/western society.

The key to understanding the film is illustrated in the open scene when we see a lone guy get turned into dog food: they can't survive alone, they have to cooperate with others.

Unfortunately, the people in the Cube though are just like me and you, they are people who have individual skills but have individual flaws and this prevents them seeing the woods for the trees. They are prisoners of the individually and socially constructed limits of imagination, they are prisoners of society and the cube is just a microcosm of this.

I find it astonishing that so few people actually seem to understand this film.
The clues throughout the film are abundant. Each of the characters' names represents a prison:

Leaven + Worth = Fort Leavenworth Prison.
Holloway = Women's Prison.
Kazan = Prison for the mentally handicapped.
Rennes = Prison that innovated many prison norms and regulations used today (Hence Renne's creativity in dealing with traps).
Quentin = San Quentin, a prison known for it's brutality.
Alderson = A prison that focuses on isolation as a form of punishment.

Each of the characters has a skill that will help the group as a whole to escape but conversely each skill is tied to some character defect. Quentin is the leader (cop) who is also a bully when he doesn't get his way, Worth is, effectively, an insider who knows about the making of the Cube - he knows that there is no master plan or conspiracy but that the Cube is just a product of people like him who just do what they are told, accept a pay-cheque and don't want any trouble. Worth is not really that bothered about telling anyone else in the Cube because he is not really concerned as to whether he or anyone else escapes - he is indifferent, 'worthless'.
Holloway cares for the mentally ill but shows no care or tact towards her peers.
Wren is an escape artist but not interested in helping the others escape.
Leaven is a pretty, young and brilliant Maths student but tends towards apathy.
Kazan is a maths genius...perhaps...but has no ability to socialize (he is autistic).
Alderson is a loner whose faith above reason destroys him very early on.

The set of characters in the cube are bound by culturally constructed laws, rules and letters. There are 26(x26x26) rooms which may represent letters in the American-English alphabet. The rooms are all marked by 3-dimensional Cartesian co-ordinates (representing the limits of human spatial imagination). Traps in the rooms conform to a rule with respect to the particular coordinates and the prime numbers applicable to the 3-digit number.
The Cube and the technological traps within thus represents western society as a product of technico-cultural evolution and the individuals inside are trapped by a) the limits of their imagination as represented by the Cube logic, as well as by b) their inability to cooperate.

These two facets are the simultaneous products of historico-cultural evolution of western thought. The Cartesian perspective of "I think, therefore I am" projects a dualist, separatist view of the world - i am different and separate from that around me. This philosophy is, in itself, a product of the legacy of orthodox Christian theology - Christianity is at heart a religion that preaches separation and ego-centrism, e.g. I am special, if I behave i go to heaven, I have an inner-self which is in some sense separate from the material world.
This perspective conflicts with Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Buddhism that emphasize instead the oneness of beings and the (physical and social) world around them. The inability of the individuals to apprehend the Cube's limitations (and thus be able to escape) is a manifestation of their own inability to throw off the shackles of their own personal and inherited socio-cultural history - they are born free but everywhere they are in chains. They are trapped by their own separatist identities, perceived failings, and ego-centrism.
Furthermore, they are victims of being part of a society that rewards such separation. They are stuck in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (Axelrod, 1984) - the simple premise is that cooperation can provide greater benefit than self-interested behaviour but only if others are willing to cooperate. If other fail to cooperate, it is better to be self-interested rather than a sucker.
This is a frequency-dependent phenomenon meaning that if a majority decide to cooperate, then cooperation will pay and cheaters may even be punished so as to encourage cooperation - tight-knit Eastern societies such as those in Japan and China work along these principles.

So, ultimately the individuals' skills are tied to their failings as this is all part and parcel of the separatist identity they have developed - an aspect of human nature that necessarily develops from infancy to adulthood in conjunction with basic self-consciousness and identity formation but has been prolonged into adulthood by a socio-cultural western tradition routed in Christian and Cartesian separatism and egocentrism.
The prisoners' inability to recognize that they are just elements in a bigger dynamical system which doesn't render them worthless (a perceptual side-effect of egocentric excess) but rather necessary elements of the macro state, the group, accounts for their failure to escape - the irony being that the one escapee is the one that is indifferent to his fate and not bounded by the rules and regulations of the Cube so representative of the western socially constructed world.

Through the overcoming of egocentrism the individuals have the potential to escape their personal prisons that the Cube represents and that is a manifestation of a symbolic, rule-based world in which they have developed - again a Christian legacy that has affected philosophical and scientific perspectives (e.g. information theory, gene-centrism, cognitivism) and governs western thinking to this day.
From this escape they can unravel possibilities that may take them beyond the constraints of current western intellectual imagination and free them from the hell of a world that is bereft of executive instruction (whether from God, aliens, or human dictators) and is instead a socio-culturally evolved accident.
Where such a liberated path might lead noone knows, but any path out of the inferno can't be bad, can it?

Matter = fluctuations in the quantum vacuum

I found this interesting article from New Scientist magazine on matter confirmed as fluctuations in the quantum vacuum:

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Read more...

Quite interesting albeit not surprising for anyone who has followed the development of physics for a while.

On the left hand path.

(Mahakala and the wheel of life)

The subject of what the left hand path really is is a controversial one. There seems to be at least two, maybe three, main theories and based on some of the books I have read on the subject. I will present them here along with references to the books I have used. I will start with the books that deals with the oldest traditions and work my way towards today.

I'd like to start with the most ancient notes on the term left hand path that we probaly have. It is based in what we today would call hinduism and my first point is being made in the book Encountering Kali by Rachel Fell McDermott and Jeffrey J. Kripal. They write that vamachara (left hand path) tantrism is the strife to realize the nature of the world as pervaded by the one shakti (the female force, in this book specifically symbolized by Kali). This is done through rituals of pancatattva with use of the 5 forbidden things in hinduism. This is an antinomian practice that is done to overcome the apparent duality of this world. It affirms radically the way of the phenomenal world.

Next up is the book Aghora - at the Left Hand of God by Robert E. Sveboda. This is the biography of an Aghori and self proclaimed pratitioner of left hand path hinduism. This book explains the left hand path as the perfect symbiosis of right and left. The left hand does however traditionally do the more "inauspicious activities". The left hand path is the faster but more intense and dangerous path towards the goal. And the goal of both the right hand and left hand paths are to realize the universe as atma. This is done, on the left hand path, by the use of traditionally forbidden things in ritual such as corpses, sculls, menstrual blood and the eating of human flesh. The reasoning is that the aghori shouldnt fear anything in samsara because all is atma and we too are atma. To eat ones own feces not as a perversity but as a sign of recognition of the unity that is the all. "Everywhere I see, everything is Me".

Moving along to Buddhism in the book The Tantric Tradition by Agehanda Bharati. The same kind of antinomian nature is described in relation to the practices of buddhistic vamachara tantra. Here however the goal is seen to be the realization of the world as sunya or emptiness and that nothing has a real individual existence at its core.

If we make a huge leap to modern day in Stephen E. Flowers book Lords of the Left Hand Path. This perspective is highly influenced by th deinition of the left hand path as described by Dr. Michael Aquinos Temple of Set. Flowers explains that in his opinion the right hand path is the uniting of the Self with the objective universe, God or nature. The Self is destroyed. The left hand path however would then be the path to free, empower and bring forth a more forceful individual existence of the Self. Often to a level that is seen as divine. Flowers does indeed touch on other perspectives such as the ones described above that the right hand path and the left hand path does lead to the same goal but in general he doesnt deal alot with it and does everything to prove his own point. That to me is one of the major faults in the book because in all my sources that are not not connected to the "satanic scene" it is the traditional view described above (hindu and buddhistic vamachara tantra) that reigns supreme. Im not sure where the idea of the total individuation of the self entered the left hand path in the equation before the modern era. If anyone knows, please contact me.

Furthermore we have the view of the relatively small Swedish magical order Dragon Rouge in Glimpses of the Left Hand Path. Their main symbol, the dragon, symbolizes the union of all opposites. The left hand path is seen as the revival of the contact with nature, with primordial atavistic chaos, that which has been demonized by, among others, the christian religion. The feeling here is that the left hand path is non-dualist and that light and darkness complements eachother (just like it does in taoism or hinduism) while the righ hand path seeks to destroy the darkness and then reign supreme as "the one". This is also explained in Mörk Magi by Tommie Eriksson. It explains how the author sees Chaos and Darkness as the base of our existence and thus the foundation for light. We shoud then embrace all of nature and not just small parts of it and not ty to destroy one part of it which he claims is a trait of right hand path religion.

This is also a philosophy that is described by Jeremy Christner in his Kosmology booklet (not related to Dragon Rouge as far as I know). However this incorporates another element where Chaos is the foundation of all and that light emerges out of necessity but that the Demiurge who appears with the light, and is a creative aspect of light, thinks he is the be all end all of everything that is. The "dark path" would then be to fight the delusional worldview of this demiurge.

Chaos magician Peter J. Carrol writes in his Liber Null & Psychonautthat: "the magician [in the left hand path sense] aims to become a center of creation and destruction himself, a living manifestation of Chaos force within the realm of duality, a complete microcosm, a god" They see Chaos as the ruling force behind the universe and to be as Chaos would then be to act in a left hand path type of way.

Furthermore we have the Temple of the Black Light. This too is a small organisation and they have a view on the left hand path that we cant really find anywhere else. In their world light and darkness is at odds with eachother. This world, the cosmos, is a creation of the light and as such the goal is to ultimately destroy it. This is very different from hinduism and related systems who see the dark force as permeating this cosmos and actually in itself giving rise to this world. The goal is to realize this. The TotBL however has a more dualistic view and seeks to ultimately destroy this world. How they fit this into the use of hindu godess Kali is beyond me as the destruction of the world is but one of her three main qualities. The other two being the one who emanates the universe and then as the one who nurtures it.


This was written as a small overview of the different perspectives that do exist on the term left hand path and how different it can be used by different religions or in some cases different people within the same religion (at least same in regards to the name). This is no claim to any truth even though my personal feeling did shine through a few times. I hope this might create some curiosity with some readers who decide they want to know more.

Bertrand Russells views on the self and the body.

This is an excerpt from Bertrand Russells essay "do we survive death" that can be found in the book "why I am not a christian". The view on the self/soul is one which I would say I have to agree with. I also agree that its highly improbable that we can survive what we know as death. Purely linguistically its of course impossible to survive death because death means that which we do not surivive. However it is so commonly used to mean the same thing as "a life after this" or and "afterlife". It can also mean the survival of the bodys death but then they reason that what we truly are (the soul) doesnt die. This is of course far from my opinions since I am not a dualist. Anyway here's Bertrand Russells thoughts on this:

Before we can profitably discuss whether we shall continue to exist after death, it is well to be clear as to the sense in which a man is the same person as he was yesterday. Philosophers used to think that there were definite substances, the soul and the body, that each lasten on from day to day, that a soul, once created, continued to exist throughout all future time, whereas a body ceased temporarily from death till the resurrection of the body.

The part of this doctrine which concerns the present life is pretty certainly false. The matter of the body is continually changing by processes of nutriment and wastage. Even if it were not, atoms in physics are no longer supposed to have continuous existence; there is no sense in saying: this is the same atom as the one that existed a few minutes ago. The continuity of a human body is a matter of appearance and behavior, not of substance.

The same thing applies to the mind. We think and feel and act, but there is not, in addition to thoughts and feelings and actions, a bare entity, the mind or the soul, which does or suffers these occurrences. The mental continuity of a person is a continuity of habit and memory: there was yesterday one person whose feelings I can remember, and that person I regard as myself of yesterday; but, in fact, myself of yesterday was only certain mental occurrences which are now remembered and are regarded as part of the person who now recollects them. All that constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory and by certain similarities of the sort we call habit.

If, therefore, we are to believe that a person survives death, we must believe that the memories and habits which constitute a person will continue to be exhibited in a new set of occurrences.

No one can prove that this will not happen. But it is easy to see that it is very unlikely. Our memories and habits are bound up with the structure of our brain. in much the same way in which a river is connected with the riverbed. The water in the river is always changing, but it keeps to the same course because previous rains have worn a channel. In like manner, previous events have worn a channel in the brain, and our thoughts flow along this channel. This is the cause of memory and mental habits. But the brain, as a structure, is dissolved at death, and memory therefore may be expected to be also dissolved. This is no more reason to think otherwise than to expect a river to persist in its old course after an earthquake has raised a mountain where a valley used to be.

Congratulations Brock Lesnar!

NEW UFC HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION!

NEW UFC HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION!

Random thoughts 15 November 2008

The blog has been quiet for some time but now I had the urge to let my feelings be known on a few things.

First off I was speaking to my mother yesterday about the issue of gay marriage. In Sweden we have 4 parties that joined in an alliance to rule the country. These are centrist and right wing parties. The opposition consists of one leftist party (formerly a communist party), one enviromental party as well as the largest single party (the social democrats). Now one party is againt the right for gays to marry. The problem lies with the word "äktenskap" (translation "marriage"). This pary is know as the christ democrats and while they to are way more secularised than they used to be they do have their roots in traditional christian values.

The feeling among these people is that God made man and woman to be with eachother and made marriage an institution between man and woman. Thus they are against gay marriage because they claim marriage as a word is something reflecting a union of man and woman not of man and man or woman and woman.

The other side claims that everyone has the same right to get married and show their love for eachother independent of what sex they are. They say love is love and nothing can stand against that.

Now where do I stand in all this? I think it is a non-issue really. Its just linguistics. Its all about one tiny word. I personally dont see the importance for either side to claim this word as their own. Get over it already!

*********************************

I was at a dinner with my colegues at work last weekend and some surprising facts were being brought up. I already knew that one of my co-workers used to be in the same class att school as the woman who played the lead role in the most classic swedish cult porno of all time, Fäbojäntan, but now I have yet another connection. A girl I work with told me how her grandmothers place was the actual place for filming this movie. They apparently had no idea what kind of movie this was and they were just happy to own the houses they used for a movie. s the story goes they invited their parents to the premiere (this was when pornos were being shown on the cinemy in Sweden) - apparently still not knowing what kind of movie it was. Sadly the girl I work with didnt know the reaction they had when they saw the actual movie. Still a great story!

*********************************

Tnoight is the big match in UFC with Randy Couture defending his heavyweight title against former pro-wrestler Brock Lesnar. While one has learned to never bet aainst Couture ever I really tink Lesnar has a chance here. However Lesnar is very much an untested fighter and we dont really know how much he has in him. He is a freak of nature. Very strong, very fast and heavy (outweighs Couture by 20 pounds I believe).

Now Couture has the routine and always goes in with great gameplans but he cant do what he's usually good at and thats controling his opponent close to his own body. Lesnar will be to strong for that. At the same time Couture has out-stricken a good striker such as Chuck Lidell (well at least he was on top for a long time and really only had the striking going for him).

I think Lesnar has a fair chance of winning but at the same time I wouldnt bet against Couture. I want Lesnar to win but man betting against Couture isnt very smart most of the time. besides somethime his age must show.

*********************************

And once again I was dealing with an ignorant person. It was in a thread where I wrote that I did indeed cry at the end of WrestleMania XX when Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero celebrated together. Best friends and bot world champions on their respective brand. Both their stories has now ended, both in tragic fashion but very different from eachother. Guerrero had a hear attack a few years ago and as a result Benoit broke apart. 1,5 years ago or so Benoit hung himself in his gym after having murdered his wife and son. I dont accepts what he did the last few days of his life but he was one of the greats - all time greats even - who's legacy is forever tarnished which is a damn shame.

In any case this person replied to my post with "So you get emotionally involved in something that has been planned from the start o_O?" My reply was:

Yes, just like people cry at the movies or laugh at a play in a theater. Whats so weird about that?

People usually discredit pro-wrestling for all the wrong reasons since they themselves also enjoy scripted shows but they never think of it that way.

I just hate when peple critize me for thing they themselves have no knowledge of. This person never did respond to my comment so I guess he got the point but Im still angry that I I have to make it all the time. Learn to think bastards!