see?

they told you the cloth
tied taught over your eyes
was to protect you from what you may see 

then convinced you that
the shackles they bound 'round your wrists
were the world's finest jewelry

blind fear

the scales on my eyes
are the same scales on the fish
that swallowed a frightened man.
that man is me.
i am terrified.

i am not scared of shriveling
like your desert shrub.
i am not scared of perishing in the night.

i am scared of you.

poor harvest

my thoughts wouldn't stop bugging me
so i drank some insecticide,
not knowing that my brain is a bug farm.

we reap what we sow.
we kill what we don't know.

brutal

recently, there has been much hubbub surrounding stephen hawking and his new book concerning the creation of the universe. he writes, "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." essentially, you don't need god to explain the origin of the universe.

remember when you were younger (or perhaps it was just yesterday) when you asked your mom or dad a question like, "why is the sky blue?" or, "why does grandma smell funny"? your parental unit would answer your question by coolly replying, "well my beloved child, the sky is blue because of how light filters through chemicals in the atmosphere, " or, "just hush your mouth and give nan nan a kiss." immediately following their incredibly unsatisfactory answer, you shoot back, "why?" they will then give you another answer to which you of course follow by another "why?" this game will continue until, exasperated, they throw up there hands and tell you, "that's just the way it is."

unbeknownst to you (and probably your parent as well), your mom or dad has just expressed a very deep and personal belief. that is - what they believe is a brute fact. you see, a brute fact is something that you believe just doesn't have an explanation. or rather, it is explained in itself. it is because it is. or, in some more technical language, it is self-sufficient. in this post, i argue that it is unavoidable to believe in some kind of brute fact.

everything in this universe has a cause. if you would like to debate this, fine. let's get coffee sometime. however, for the purpose of this post, we will just assume that this axiom is true. let us also assume that it is true that i exist. why do i exist? because my parents had intercourse. why did my parents have intercourse? because they loved each other. why? because they were romantically attracted to several different qualities in each other. why? because... why? because... why?...

eventually, the questions will lead us to the edge of what can be explained by science. we will inevitably end up with an answer like - because the universe exists, or, because that's how gravity works. if you don't believe that every series of "why" questions will lead to answers like these (answers that don't have any apparent further explanation), i challenge you to take yourself through the same process. you see, up until these answers, science or reason has led us to the next answer. now, however, we are stuck. science hasn't yet definitely explained the existence of the universe. reason doesn't seem to be able to answer this question either. at this point, we have three options. 1 - we can claim that the existence of the universe is a brute fact and it simply exists because it does. 2 - we can answer the question with another answer. for example, the universe exists because god created the universe. 3 - we can just shrug our shoulders and admit that we have no idea, or at least no good idea, of why the universe exists.

 if we answer with something along the lines of option 1, we have arrived at what we believe is a brute fact. we have made the metaphysical claim that everything in this universe has a cause, or explanation, except for this thing, which is the explanation or direct cause of itself, and the indirect cause of everything else.

if we go the route of option 2, eventually, we are gonna be stuck again. okay, so god created the universe. why did he do that? because he wanted to create something to be the object of his love. why? because the very nature of god is love. why? because... because that's just the way god is. bam! brute fact.stuck again...

let's say we've thrown in the towel and went with option 3. we don't know why the universe exists. okay, but the very fact that you claim that you are ignorant of the explanation or cause of the universe implies that there is in fact a cause or explanation to be ignorant of. so you have also admitted that you do not believe the existence of the universe is a brute fact. or perhaps the explanation you are ignorant of is simply that the existence of the universe is indeed a brute fact.

science has been explaining away apparent brute facts and phenomenon attributed to supernatural forces since the beginning of the scientific method. thousands of years ago, some lady in a corn field was like, "why the heck does our crop grow well one year, and suck the next?" her disgruntled and equally hairy friend answered, "i dunno. that's just the way it is. or maybe the gods are punishing and rewarding us." after tons of observations and experiments, we now have a scientific understanding of crop growth. not only do we have an answer, but we can also demonstrate (prove?) its validity. we don't need to shrug our shoulders, and we don't need god. this pattern has continued into the modern age and science continues to explain things that previously we either had no answer for or attributed to god or some other higher power.

 along with very specific concerns, science has been able to explain more and more fundamental questions. why do living things die? why do i feel sympathy for other people? will science be able to one day explain away god altogether? i don't know. i don't think so. the thing is, i think you need an equal amount of belief to claim that gravity is a brute fact as you do to claim that god is a brute fact. this is my point - no matter who you are or what you believe in, you need to settle on a brute fact, or at least acknowledge that there is something that just is, even though you may not know what it is. for some people (like stephen hawking), the existence of gravity is a brute fact. for others (like myself), god is the brute fact.

everything in this universe has a cause, even if that cause is itself. their must be a first cause, an unmoved mover. we are all the result of countless causes that have worked in unfathomably intricate ways to force us into existence. furthermore, our existence and actions are indeed all causes that will work intentionally (but mostly unintentionally) with other causes that will shape the future of the universe. this is the power that is inherent in every person, in every cog, that is a part of this great machine. we know that there must be a first link in the chain of cause and effect, in the chain of history. however, we are desperately ignorant of how far back this chain goes, or what the nature of the first link is. some believe they have found it. others disagree. even if we cannot prove our belief, settling on a brute fact is an incredibly important step we must take in defining who we are and what we believe about ourselves, humanity, and the universe. maybe one day science or religion will find a way to definitively prove that they have found the true brute cause. but until then, it is up to each individual to seriously consider all that they know and have experienced, and then decide which explanation makes most sense to them.

brutal.

now

nobody has time for today.
everyone is only concerned about yesterday and tomorrow.
all that’s important is what has happened and what might happen.
that’s probably why nothing is happening.

missing you

symphonies of sympathies
sing me to sleep,
where my dreams are drunk
with self pity.

melodies of memories
make we weep.
it wouldn’t be so hard
if you weren’t so pretty.

a time to breath

strolling under the naked trees,
autumn imparts her gift of peace.
no hustle, or bustle
just the rustle of
my feet through the brittle leaves.

god

so you wanna play hide and go seek?
well i’m counting and i’m trying not to peek.
i’ll play as long as i can
but you must understand
that this isn’t a game to me.

just the other day...

(this is a poem that just kinda came to me, and let me give you fair warning: it’s super emo… like if there was a super hero whose power was being emo, this would be his (or her) theme song… but it’s 3 in the morning on a tuesday night and i’m too tired to care)

just the other day i lied to you…             
i mean i lied about you…                                                          
i mean i lied next to you on the living room floor.

just the other day i changed my mind…  
i mean i changed my heart...
i mean i changed the cd in the car.

just the other day i killed myself…                                                    
i mean i killed the pain…                       
i mean i killed the engine in front of your house.

just the other day i loved you…            
i mean i love you…       
i mean i love you.

frish's paradox

first blog! boooosh! 21st century, here i come!! forgive my excitement everyone but this is truly a momentous event not only for me but indeed for everyone on the interwebs. for the first time, i shall grace the ignorant masses with brilliance and eloquence generously poured from the deep and heavy bucket of wisdom that is my brain into the dixie cups of stupidity you people con off as a noggin.

wow, no one is friggan gonna read these…

okay, okay… so the paradox i am about to propose to you isn’t technically called frish’s paradox. some douchebag named zeno apparently thought of it like 32 million years ago or something and it’s really called zeno’s paradox. i only found this out after i googled what was on my mind and stumbled upon a heart-braking wikipedia article reminding me yet again that there is no such thing as an original thought left in this world… awesome.

this paradox managed to squeeze its way into my head during philosophy class somewhere between trying to disprove skepticism and asserting universal determinism. haha… big words make me sounds smart. anyways, this is the thought i had:

say that i extend my arm in a punching motion straight out from my chest. for the sake of simplicity, let us imagine that my fist moves two feet in a straight line away from my body. now, in that motion of extension, before my fist could be fully extended at two feet, it had to first be extended away from my body by one foot at some point prior to its extension of two feet. it is not possible for my fist to reach the full extension of two feet if first it was not extended one foot. likewise, in order for my fist to be extended one foot, it must first at some point prior to being extended one foot be extended from my chest by one inch. it is not possible for my fist to be in the position of being one foot away from my chest in this scenario if it was never extended first by one inch. i think you can all feel where this pattern is leading…

if we assume that distance is infinitely divisible, the pattern never ends and there is always a smaller distance that must be reached before a movement can be extended any farther. the problem i run into then, is how can we make that initial movement, that smallest little movement of extension, if we have to first be extended by even a smaller distance, and yet a smaller distance before that, and a smaller distance before that, ad infinitum?

the obvious implication of this paradox is that motion is not possible because a movement through space can never begin. however, it would seem that even a most casual observation of the universe is enough to contest that even though this paradox seems to present us with the only conclusion that motion is not possible, things do in fact move.

after thinking about it for a bit, i decided that there are only two ways to get around this paradox. the first solution would be to assert that there is in fact a smallest degree of movement, a smallest unit of space, that something can move through that acts as the basis for all greater movement. if this were true, we wouldn’t need to reach any smaller extension before reaching this smallest level of extension because by definition, no smaller extension exists. i honestly don’t know how realistic this idea is though… the second “solution” is to somehow change our understanding of space or perhaps just our understanding of movement through space. maybe time is involved somehow… i dunno.

anyways, in the little wikipedia article mentioned earlier (you know, the heart-breaking one), an interesting theory by a philosopher by the name of peter lynds is proposed as another solution. he says that “an object in relative motion cannot have a determined relative position (for if it did, it would not be motion), and so cannot have its motion fractionally dissected as though it does as in the paradoxes.” in other words, you cannot say that your fist must be extended by one foot before it can be extended by two because while it is in motion it literally cannot be said to have any extension from anything at all. i’m not sure i fully understand how he is defining motion here but i certainly think his theory very interesting and definitely challenges the way i understand space and motion.

so pretty much right now i’m stuck trying to think of a better solution to this problem than mr. lynds', cuz honestly, i think his solution is just a way of dancing around definitions. oh, and if you decide to talk about this paradox say at the dinner table, or at school, or at a funeral, or whatever… if you referred to it as frish’s paradox, it would really just be a small thing you can do to help make the world a better place. thanks for reading!
here’s the wikipedia article on several of zeno’s paradoxes and proposed solutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes