Quantum Wyrd & Lithe Mind

Grey Meat Machines: New Book Teaser

Preamble to a Novella

The Suprahumans had long been the progenitors of nature and the masters of macroreality, which we call 'reality'.  Possessing radically advanced metabrains, the Suprahumans are countless evolutionary leap, bounds and shuffles ahead of we mere humans, which they call 'Lipoids', possessing primitive protobrains.

After thousands of years traversing the interstitial dimensions which enrapture all plausible dimensions parallel to this dimension, the Suprahumans (or 'Nanoids' as they are known) have returned to macroreality to find the spheroid they had left behind in a terrible state of disrepair.  The landscape is parched, charred and littered with chain shops; when the Nanoids had left this dimension it was all rosehips and bunny rabbit feet.  We Lipoids do know how to ruin a good time, it seems.

Made of silicon and silver, the Nanoids are quasi-robotic, machine oil based life forms that inhabit the in betweens of  we call 'concepts'.  They are privy to all physical matter as a whole, instead seeing the variance in value and simile as would otherwise be annotations of states of matter to us less evolved humanoids.  They merely see us as sacks of animal fats -- and with good reason.

We coarse grain humanoids, in dimension sixty six and a seven, have little or no concept of the Nanoids.  They exist as abstracts to us.  They are the fates, the titans, the gods and goddesses... but even the semi-deific have their perilous pitfalls.

The Suprahuman race thrives on fossil fuels and without them they are like us without water.  As fast as we are releasing greenhouse gases and sub-mantle methane into our atmosphere, the faster Suprahumans will behave as a baby playing with a carrier bag.

So now, we enter into the plight of the Nanoids.  Their hyperelectrical metabrains will be computing gigaflops of information just as we're all flooding our crude protobrains with transfats and Jeremy Kyle.  The Nanoids, however, are not without hope.

Possessing superior intellects and an intense adeptness for Sudoku puzzles, the Nanoids -- miniscule in size as they are -- can pilot our protobrains by use of 'anti-etheric magnetic stimulation'.  AEMS is a technique born of quelling concepts in flimsy proto-neurology to stop the rapid excitement of logical areas of the protobrain, and thus manipulate human behaviour.  There does exist an Achilles heel, however.

No formal or informal logic or antelogic has been known to have any sway over the primordial reptilian brain of humans.  That little piece of goo we inherited from the dinosaurs is the only stopgap in humans subservience to the metabrain antics of AEMS, and surely the only booby trap in the equation of bringing about the rational conclusion of their mission for self-preservation and a one way ticket to a brighter macrofuture.

Atheism is the New Chic, Xtianity the Original Geek

Well, it has been quite some time since I've posted... but then, real life beckoned.  The interesting thing to note, now sinking back into my armchair with my MacBook, is the number of sheer retards on DALnet.  It's a strange and bizarre thing, but since the advent of the God Delusion, atheism has become not respected, but tolerated, by the general girth of Christian population.  We even get to endure their repugnance in the mockery of a channel that #ChristianDebate is.

It's certainly holds its name... it's all about xtians!  If you think God is really neato and want to debate how cool it is to have exactly the same phucking opinion as everyone else, it's megacool!  However, if you poke a pencil through one of the many gaping plot holes in the bible, it's '+b <freethinker>' as we from #atheism have all become accustomed to.

It should be said that #atheism is not a perfect channel in of itself.  It's for bickering and disquiet... but at least its honest in that!

Atheism is the new chic.  I always enjoy seeing people ravet on about the same damned thing Richard Dawkins has had to say about this and that, where Robert Anton Wilson is actually shedloads more interesting and insightful.

This, of course, brings us to the conundrum of Einstein.  He heralded God for one thing or another, but does citation amount to belief?  Surely we all see where there are powers in the universe we can't understand/comprehend, but does ackowledgement of this strictly mean belief in an anthropomorphosization of these principles?  It's like saying "this is a perfect apple... there it must have been designed with intent; hence, God exists!"  Problem with that is that it is humans who define perfection in their own terms.

An example of this would be a perfectly round peg.  It s perfect in the contextualization that, if we have a perfectly round hole, we are stoked... if not, it ain't quite square, if you dig me...

Let's take a reasonable leap of faith and say an apple could be perfect... how do we define its perfection?  By its physical shape?  That's something we define by how we view the world, much as is the same concerning the flavour, texture, colour, or nutritional profile.  Apples are no good when they're bruised, but then what of American cider?  Suffice it to say, with what passes for art these days, I don't see how one can say anything is even ostensibly perfect, at least not without the realms of stereotype, etc.

So could we say that perfect is where we find it?  Neuroscience, et al., suggests that it is... and, to cut a long story, if we can't see directly what we're defining, how can we be sure that its perfection is anything other than a personal consideration -- taking into account when we come to something as intangible as values we're effectively imposing what we see on our offspring, etc., and then what becomes of free thought?

So how is it that fascist #CD'rs can protest to be unequivocally right about anything?  Quite simply, we have the lowest common denominator to consider: insecurity & inferiority.  Banding together is a fine thing -- when we don't stack up, we get as many others along as possible until we do... and thus we have a renewed strength.

Now, here is the interesting and perhaps unexpected tantamount twist to the tale: atheism produces just as many dispropriate individuals as Christianity.  Thing about herd conformity and what you're all doing... because while the Christians might be making a concerted effort to band together, the atheists are making an unwitting effort to do exactly the same under different auspices.

Does this matter in the real world?  Not at all!  It just makes for a facking annoying evening on IRC!

To Boldly Go Where No Chimp has Gone Before

So last night I was hanging around with some anarcha-feminists watching Star Trek: the Next Generation.  It's always a cheap thrill to when the earlier episodes involve Counsellor Troy materializing in a miniskirt and pouting her lips ever so slightly as she explains to Captain Picard (without a tincture of flirtiness) that she believes the alien officer on the view screen might well be a lying douche bag... particularly when Riker is watching -- just in case he gets any idea about her liasing with the officers on the alien starship as regards what's happened after her imbibing far too much Romulan Ale; then reality sets in, and we are confronted with fact Tasha will be the only one to turn Data's head... and we all know that if you can do that to an impassive android, you're probably smokin' hot when it comes to those things we shall reserve for a time when I'm not blogging about little dinner-table conversation...

I had noted that the original open sequence starts out "to boldly go where no man has gone before" and revamped for TNG in the form of "to boldly go where no one has gone before."  So we must assume that political correctness suffered a lapse through the 22nd century, right up until the early-ish 23rd century.  However, one wonders how far the PC affair must go before everyone is satisfied.

What if the openning sequence to Star Trek resounded "to boldly go where no woman has gone before"?  Would we then be criticized and conjectured with egress as to a woman's place being in the kitchen up until the advent of space travel?  "Oh, so you're saying that women just couldn't handle deep-space travel without a special set of regulations for gender-norming?  Is that what you're saying?.." and the 'chauvenism' continues.

So, obviously, you just can't keep some people happy.  Albeit this is nothing new.  Christians hold that the Darwinian contention that we evolved from anthropoid apes is a heresy, and surely it couldn't have been possible that something as immaculate as we started out life as simian as those who appear on the Jeremy Kyle show, alone, appear to be.  Quite suiting, then, that the Americans [being the forefathers of fundamentalist dogma, et al.] elected to fly Chimpanzees into space, rather than risking perfectly good tax payers on such precarious missions.  The irony is that God may well prefer the company of a less evolved being to shoot the currents with, rather than a being who's pretentious enough to hazard an understanding of what he (or she, sorry, ladies) has to say about eternity, divinity and why people can't stop procreating.

So here's to Data... human: primeval without the primate.  May we all learn something from his sedate example and just not bloody worry about it, next time it becomes the case that we're called on to have an opinion about something that really wouldn't matter if someone hadn't already developed and equally absurd contrary opinion for the sake of the Sunday Sun having a headline to run before we all turn to page three.

God's Role in Education: What Do You Think?

In a recent post by Adam Tinworth, as to God's place in education, I have spent some time pondering a contention of one speaker, in particular.  Dr. Ann Holt argues that "that's why our curriculum is so boring... There's a rich history of philosophy and religion, and an empty view taught in schools leaves them feeling hopeless."

As stunning appeal as this might sound, I think it bodes well for an argument antithetical to her own contention.  Namely, the trite and perhaps inscrutable notion that depth cannot exist outside of a religious context for the fact that in sheer principle God "must" be responsible for all beauty in the world. [An interesting note to make at this point: even in the theosophical context, man must intrinsically be responsible for good and beauty of his own design, as similarly he must be culpable for all the abysmal and heinous sin he engenders in the world.]

My response was simply; "why religion is culturally invigorating and art isn't"?  Surely there is beauty in what we make, as humans, for what we make of the world.  If God made the world the way it is, as his spiritual progeny why should we not marvel at that which we did create in our attempt to understand the heavens?  I'm afraid the worldview becomes successively more bleak:

Panegoism is much easier to proliferate once we all have a similar understand of the same thing... and why should we?  Art teaches us to look for beauty where we find it, while Christianity defines beauty quite succinctly.  Is it not then limiting to be told rather than to discover for ourselves?  Perhaps we should take it one step further; the Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that they cannot interpret for the bible for themselves -- that it can only be done by some faceless didact in the Watchtower; most modern Christians would opt to contend this.

However, I trust we see that leading from one thing to another, and God is approaching a reprieve for his totalitarian rule over the hearts and minds of the populous.  However, perhaps a more egalitarian approach would be in order.

In a reasonable society, would it not be best to have our social structure be of a more diverse tenure if we wish to keep everyone happy?  Is this not unity?  Perhaps it is better spoken of as versatility.  Is it possible to maintain a beauty of diversity where one thing may be true and the others false?  If anyone feels they can decry me, I invite them to at this point, and all arguments will be taken up in a latter more rotund post.  I thank you all for your time in following me this far, and good evening.

Cannibal Holocaust: the 'Plan 9' of Grindhouse Horror

As films go, few are more grotesque and held in such ill-repute as Cannibal Holocaust.  It's a grim romp through logical expletives and trespass of good taste -- so who could want anything more?  Anyone who expects a reasonable story line!

So what do you do with a film of loosely strewn together scenes of egress?  Call it the Blair Witch Project?  Put it on YouTube?  How about try to tie together with a plot which defies all reason and market it as "the most controversial film ever made."

Now, what does it take to be controversial?  Any of you North American readers will be familiar with the Jerry Springer show... it's the 'yo mama', 'pull my finger', 'God damn Jews' kinda controversy that appeals to not even the lowest common denominator, but anyone who reaches that terse singularity and arrives at the answer "one" IQ point sheds every time you watch this flick.  If we could say it was a binary value, best to set it to 'zero'.

It's not particularly hard to imagine why women being violated, animals being butchered alive, and whatever else might add to the crescendo of "bad taste" which ultimately appeals to fuckwit amoralist posturing [note: this is common in teens and people who still believe WWE is real life shit, beyond the age of 18] which is notable that much of its imagery has not evolved into being 'acceptable'.

On that note, movies that are ahead of their time, at some point, become acceptable; because they have latched onto some emergent undercurrent in society which, at the time fledgeling, would come to show something of the human condition and how its subject matter becomes socially relevant to reflect the aspect of society the scene(s) are commenting on.  Hence, we can then deduce that Cannibal Holocaust is about sheer shock value as opposed to social commentary.

Now this is not a hard formula to acquire;

Editor, "wouldn't it be fucked up if we had some simian dude abort some broad and fill the aperture with clay?"
Director, "yeah, that's totally bitchen -- let's do it!"
Editor, "one day skateboard punx are gonna do worse, so let's make it as horrid as possible to avoid being forgotten."
Director, "yeah... makes me wanna eat pizza..."

At least one could say many horrible film ideas are at least the product of being stoned... this movie is a product of solvent abuse, at best.  2 girls 1 cup has more cinematic merit, and is really, really nifty if you're into bizarre and obscure pr0n.  Perhaps we could find ourselves some Weebles, cover them in lighter fluid, ignite them, and forcibly insert them into a cat's anus -- lousy Death Metal bands the world over will be singing our praises!