The Efficacy of Bread July 30, 2006
Posted by Martin in : Weird Crap , 2comments[Non-objective Entry]
The poverty of nutrition at 22:00 hrs led me on a hunt for items that could provide me with such, to no avail. However, after a meticulous search, the ominous entity otherwise known as “bread” was stumbled upon in the deepest recesses of the fridge. Little is generally known of this entity, and thus, I feel compelled to write a treatise on the Efficacy of Bread.Bread is primarily comprised of a wheat and flour dough mixed with water, which is further leavened (something to make it easier to chew, haha) through a variety of ways (Chemical, Yeast, Sourdough, what have you).
A mainstream food from ancient times, this is… BUT WHAT OF ITS EFFICACY?!
…The effects of bread on history and culture cannot be understated. Never. Ever.
Why is this so?
1) Toast bread was common to most nations at the WWII period; this includes the German nation. In the process of breaking the Enigma code, the word “Toastbrot” was intercepted on allied radio bands. Incidentally, the operator who intercepted the message was, at the time, eating Toasted Bread. Upon seeing the relation between the 2 words, a translation was given, thereby giving all the letters they needed to break the Enigma Code and ultimately win the war.
2) In the exile of Napoleon at St. Helena, his assailant gradually killed him with steady doses of arsenic in his meals (Reader’s Digest). He did this using Sliced Bread.
3) In the 7th day of creation wherein god rested, he ate Bread.
4) In Metal Gear Solid, chaff grenades actually consisted of Bread Crumbs.
5) “If bread did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent it” – Voltaire on Bread
6) When Descartes said “I think, therefore, I am”, he was having a snack. That snack was Bread.
As you can see, bread’s power cannot be understated. Some have even argued that bread is god, with their mainstay support being holy communion is bread.
Now, what do I have to say about bread?
Well, I got hungry at 10 p.m., ergo, I ate bread, due to the poverty of variety. Shortly thereafter, I wasn’t hungry anymore! OH GOD. It was most mystifying, in all honesty.
Yes my comrades, I am ineffingly bored!!!
I wish Johnny Depp was here to tell me – “You need to get yourself a girl, mate”.
An Essay on Violence July 28, 2006
Posted by Martin in : Essays , add a commentViolence – One of the greatest impediments to human societal progress, one that has plagued humanity since its inception. Violence, insofar as it is an extremely subjective label given to actions and/or events that one perceives to be contrary to one’s biological and cultural values, has indeed been in “existence” since time immemorial, and it is indeed a very conspicuous reality, one that is to be found throughout the course of human history. Even in ancient Greece, Plato proposed to ban poets from the Ideal Republic primarily because he feared that their innate aesthetic ability to construct attractive narratives about violence and otherwise immoral behavior would inadvertently corrupt young minds. In light of recent times, the mass media’s broadcasting of reality through television and other such devices has been corrupted and apparently aggravated by the apparent fusion of the aforementioned with the widespread commoditization of violence and whatnot (as seen in what we presently perceive to be “fodder” movies, modern black “music”, etc.), so as to follow the dictates of the people’s desire for exhilaration and intrigue to efficiently promulgate the perceived reality lying therein.The disputed propriety of utilizing the rights to artistic freedom in justifying the use of violence and sexual or otherwise crude profanity in film and music is indeed, however inherently subjective the moral sense of “proper” is, under the most contemptuous perusal by most people. However, Article 14, section 14 of the 1987 constitution states that “The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression.”, thereby protecting all those who utilize violence and obscenity in the name of artistic expression, no matter how ambiguous the stipulations used may be. One must take note however, that this defends the freedom of expression, not the artist, nor the contents contained therein. Furthermore, art is defined to be “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”, ergo; all works created by human manipulation may theoretically be construed to be art, since the recognition of such is wholly subjective to the viewer(s). Although a collective consciousness with regards to art has been generally formed, there are still a substantial amount of dissenters from this, thereby maintaining the defense of the freedom of expression. As such, it is entirely up to the individual to view and interpret the contents of the art that has piqued his/her curiosity.
To address the question pertaining to the location of the border between healthy artistry and gratuitous violence – such a border does not objectively exist, for the definition of artistry and absurd senselessness is quite subjective to culture. The most familiar example of such would be the disparity between the musical tastes of different generations; rock and roll is generally considered by modern black rappers as trash. In our present culture, most, if not all individuals attempt to distinguish art from blatant idiocy by means of searching for the presence of moral values, lessons, and/or virtues within the work of art in question. However, one must tread carefully, for there are some works of art which, although do have moral lessons integrated within, use “too much” obscene force as a means to convey the said lesson, akin to using a nuclear detonation to edify a child to not play with matches. It in such a state of affairs that one relies on his own sense of pragmatism to ascertain whether the film is of redeemable artistic significance or not, making the whole issue of the supposed boundaries between artistry and wanton violence objectively moot.
- Written for 4th year Media class with Mr. Ortiz as the teacher thereof.
In short, violence has “been” here for quite a while. Yep. An entire lot of it came from religious causes too. Tsk. But really now, you can’t do anything about what you think is crappy art, and neither can I. The Constitution says so, which is an argument from authority. Tally-ho!
Doublethink This July 12, 2006
Posted by Martin in : General Rants , 1 comment so farDoublethink.Quite a thought-provoking word, if you’ve read George Orwell’s “1984″. If you haven’t, chances are, you are an ignorant bigot. Ha-ha, I jest. Take no offense, please. In quintessence, doublethink is one’s acceptance of 2 or more concepts that are in direct logical inconsistency with one another.
Quite a simple matter, one would probably think to himself. Apparently though, people do it all too often. The reasons for this are both saddening and humorous, but it becomes downright infuriating once it is witnessed multitudes of times.
One common instance of doublethink would be the belief in both free will and destiny. What is this insolence? What is this intellectual impotence? The idea of humans being free to dictate the threads of their own fate coupled with the idea that fate is already set is pure ignorance of the law of non-contradiction. People just don’t care to notice this, curiously. They probably think that “good, warm, and fuzzy feelings” constitute an argument, but we may not accuse them of that with certainty.
As a Hungarian proverb would put it – “The believer is happy, the doubter is wise.”
I’d rather be bitter and wise than happy yet deluded, thank you.
Another, heavier example would be the everyday Catholic’s acceptance of the Big Bang Theory and the literal 7-day ex nihilo Genesis creation story. Suffice to say, a concentration of mass in planck time is quite different from “..and the word said – let there be light, poof, biff.” Now, to settle the issues unearthed here between science, logic, and religion, the Catholic has to commit an entire plethora of logical fallacies, mainly: Ad hocs, Post hocs, and Postdictions – very, very unhealthy for the mind.
The heaviest example of doublethink is arguably one of the greatest fallacies borne of ignorance and “good feelings” – The acceptance of the Judeo-Christian deity and objective “evil”. The argument from evil has effectively nullified God for 2000++ years, yet the belief in the entity still persists. Why? Good feelings, I daresay. Any attempt to circumvent the aforementioned argument with theodicies would entail extreme implications on the present concept of “god”, thereby requiring the theist to scrap present-day theology altogether, along with some fundamental tenets taken from the Bible. In this manner, the theist dies the death of a thousand inches, in the words of Anthony Flew.
And so, there you have it. Doublethink – a symptom of intellectual impotence, as Ayn Rand would put it. Should symptoms persist after reading this article, try reading it again, ad infinitum. Make it stick in there.
Good feelings?
Truth holds primacy.
[Edited for perceived profanity.]
