Skip to content

personal

  • in personal
  • 4 min read

May the games begin

This week marks the official start of the presidential election campaign in America. On Tuesday two important events took place, the first was a meeting of the Democratic Party in Iowa which held a primary election between the candidates, the second was president Bush's yearly State of the Union address to the nation. For whatever else this election may bring, it promises an exciting and important campaign.

The State of the Union Address is a very improtant media event in the United States. It gives the president a televised hour, during which he can talk about any issues he deems important. This year's speech was especially important, because it prepares the stage for the upcoming election campaign. One of the biggest television networks in America (ABC) devoted two hours of it's prime time to broadcasting the presiden's speach in a program called "The State of the Union Address and the Democratic Response".

The speach was prepared months in advance and the President was said to have spent weeks practicing his delivery. As usual with this president, it turned out to be quite a show.

With the economy in recession and the budget showing the largest deficit in history (See figure), the president had no choice, but to stand firmly on issues which made him. He spoke with confidence and zeal about the war he won and how it was the right thing to do.

Speaking in the American House of Congress, where the majority is held my his own party, Bush could count on a warm welcome. And warm it was. His speech was punctuated by exalted phrases such as "America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them?", and each one was awarded by a standing ovation from the representatives. I have a feeling that the hour long speech, would be only half as long if these cheers were ommited.

The president's prime focus was on War. War against Iraq, war against Afghanistan, war against Terror. In his speech he made clear the divisions which formed in the American political scene during his presidency. He said: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." He didn't declare a new war, but defended the one in Iraq at great lengths. The only thing, which remains unclear is the reason for the war. The key issue of weapons of mass destruction, has turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". He also remained confident about his decision to take USA to war virtually alone and he added that "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

In the speech however, Bush had a tendency to contradict himself. He said, that it is good, that America went to war on it's own, and then read out a list of allies "Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador" (all great military powers, as you can see). He said that the world is safer after 3 years of his presidency, but kept remainding the constant threats of terrorism.

The reactions to the presidents speech can be found in very many magazines online (Salon, Washington Post, Toronto Star). It is interesting to observe how differrent the opinions are, but there is a theme they share. The president seemed overconfident, while the issues in his speech were not very strong. Even the usually supportive Washington Post, called the president "cocky". It seems that the speech made Bush look like he's politically weakened and is trying to regain some of his popularity at the start of the election year. That didn't really work however, and his popularity ratings taken immediatelly after the speech were only 45% (Clinton's State of the Union address gave him 52% in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal).

The president also made an unfortunate issue of "sanctity of marrige". He said that the institution of marrige as the union between a woman and a man should be protected. That will of course turn the gay community against him, while it doesn't really satisfy his convervative voter-base, because they would like to see all types oh homosexual unions deligalized...

Overall, it was en extremely interesting speach, but it did't really give Bush what his campaing would need: a good start.

The other important event that took place this week was the primary elections of the Democratic Party presidential candidates in Iowa. This event turned out to be quite a surprise, because one of the main front-runners Howard Dean came in only third with 17% of the votes. This was a shock for many (me included), because his overall ratings usually placed him first or second.

I will not weep for Dean if he is replaced by another strong candidate. Maybe Kerry will be that candidate... One thing is certain, Howard Dean did America a huge favor. It was him who first openly opposed Bush's policies on such issues as the war, medical care, etc. It is thanks to him that people started to consider alternatives, and stopped calling everyone who disagreed unpatriotic. I'm looking forward to the results of the next primaries in New Hamshire.

For whatever else this year may bring it will surely give as an exciting and important election campaign in the US of A.

  • in personal
  • 2 min read

Unibertso

So... now that I have a new blog, it would seem like a good idea to post something. Let's see... what did I want to write about? Oh yes... 'the Universe'

After reading the 'Library of Babel' by Borges (which you have to read!), I started to think about the word "universe".

I became very excited and planned to conduct a small scale linguistic investigation into this strange and underappreciated word. "Universe" is the one word which describes everything which surrounds us, everything which exists or may exist anywhere. It is a very fundamental philosophical concept and yet it is a word used so often.

It is used in astronomy, cosmology, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics... One interpretation of quantum physics even talks about many universes, which denies the word its universal nature. "Many universes", "parallel universes", or simply "universes" (in the plural) is a contradiction in terms.

It is clear that the word is not used carefully nowadays, but what is even more interesting to me is how it was used in the past. Where does the word come from? What is it's etymology and how are the various etymologies different in different cultures?

Finding this out was the aim of my linguistic exercise. I searched among my friends speaking various languages, for the equivalents in their languages.

The word Universe is derived from Universum in Latin. Uni (meaning one) and versum (meaning to turn into), universum means to be turned into one, to be united, to become combined into one wholeness, togetherness, completness. That's a very interesting idea... everything that may exist was to the Latin speakers rolled into one concept.

That's very different from the Slavic equivalent of the word. In Polish "wszech?wiat" derives from Wszech (meaning all) and ?wiat (meaning world). It means the all-world, the all encompasing world, or the world which is all worlds. Here the plurality of the concept is not denied as in Latin.

Upon finding this out, I wanted to learn how other languages dealt with this issue. I was disappointed to find out however, that most European languages share one etymology, the Latin one. Even in the Euskara language (of the Bask) the word is "Unibertso".

I think I will need to look to some languages from outside of our continent for more suprises. Unfortunatelly, I have very few friends in Africa, Asia... Perhaps you know someone?

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

Fikcje

Czytanie Borgesa to przygoda, ktora wiekszosc osob rozpoczyna dwa razy, nim w pelni zacznie cieszyc sie lektura. Za pierwszym razem trudno jest ustosunkowac sie do pism tego autora, poswieconych wszystkiemu, wiec w sumie niczemu. Nie wiadmo jak zareagowac na esej, w ktorym przywolywany jest 'Don Kichote', Biblia i jakis malo znany argentynski mysliciel, a ktory poswiecony jest zabiegowi umieszczania autora w jego wlasnych pismach.
Olsnienie nastepuje dopiero w momencie, w ktorym czytelnik zdaje sobie sprawe, ze zarowno on jak i sam Borges pojawiaja sie w tym eseju.

Wlasciwie nie wiem, czy esej to odpowiednie slowo. Problemy z Borgesem pojawiaja sie juz przy probie okreslenia formy i gatunku literackiego, w ktorym tworzy. Pisze eseje w Polskim znaczeniu tego slowa, czyli szkice literackie, krotkie rozprawy ujmujace okreslony temat w sposob subiektywny, laczac proze artystyczna, naukowa i publicystyczna. Nie sa to rozprawki analityczne i moze to jest takie zaskakujace gdy pierwszy raz sie z Borgesem spotyka.

Kazdy jego esej jest zamknieta caloscia, ktora wpasowuje sie w ciekawy sposob w przerozne konteksty: kulturowe, historyczne, filozoficzne, a rowniez osobiste. W kazdej pracy przywoluje on ktoregos ze swoich ulubionych filozofow (Platona, Berleya, Hume'a, etc.), ale nie dokonuje analizy ich dziel, raczej zlewa je ze soba, laczy w dziwny spobob i wrecza Tobie gotowy twor jako intelektualna zagwostke. Gdybym ja przyznawal takie tytuly, nazwalbym go prawdziwym postmodernistycznym filozofem.

Jedno jest pewne. Jego eseje wywoluja bardzo dziwny nastroj, pewien intelektualny niepokoj, poczucie niezaspokojonej ciekawosci... Opisuje on paradoksy w taki sposob, jakby byly naturalnymi rzeczami, a swiat opisuje tak jakby byl paradoksem.

Serdecznie polecam Wam dwukrotna lekture Borgesa.

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

2004

Czesc Witajcie w 2004 roku.

Rok ma juz 2 tygodnie, a ja dopiero zaczynam moja blogowa aktywnosc, wiec spiesze z zyczeniami. Tak wiec zycze sobie i Wam udanego roku.

Osobiscie zaplanowalem, ze bedzie to dobry rok. Jest 2004, wiec ladna parzysta liczba. Zakladam, ze wydazy sie kilka ciekawych rzeczy w tym roku: bedzie olimpiada podczas ktorej nawet terorysci odloza na chwile bron i usiada przed telewizorami. Ludzie Busha znajda w Iraku sporo broni masowego razenia z czasow wojny z Kurdami i przekonaja amerykanska opinie publiczna, ze to wlasnie byl powod inwazji. Mimo to licze na to, ze Bush nie wygra ponownie wyborow i w Ameryce bedzie nowy prezydent. Czy lepszy nie wiem, ale przynajmniej bedzie mowil lepiej po angielsku.

Ja sam planuje skonczyc jedne studia i zaczac nastepne. Mam nadzieje, ze doktorat uda mi sie zlapac w jakims ciekawym miejscu (nie mowie gdzie, zeby nie zapeszyc). Planuje pozostac w tym roku calkowicie pozbawiony znaczen i bawic sie dobrze cieszac sie kazda chwila wbrew iluzji uplywajacego czasu.

Do zoaczenia wkrotce mam nadzieje,

.mK

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

The thoughts of Mary Jane

Who can know the thoughts of Mary Jane?
Why she flies and goes out in the rain
Where she's been and who she's seen
In her journey to the stars

Who can know the reason for her smile?
What are her dreams when they journeyed for a mile?
The way she sings and her brightly coloured rings
Make her the princess of the sky

Who can know what happens in her mind?
Did she come from a strange land, leave her man behind?
Long lost signs and her brightly coloured eyes
Tell her story to the wind

Who can know the thoughts of Mary Jane?
Why she flies and goes out in the rain
Where she's been and who she's seen
In her journey to the stars

-- Nick Drake

  • in personal
  • 4 min read

Murder, abortion, euthanasia, war and the death-penalty

I

Okay, let's construct this in a simple fashion. I want to write about death, or rather about giving death("donner la mort") and it's moral context. In most religions "Thou shall not kill" is one of the main moral guidelines. Yet in most cultures some forms of death-dealing are excused or justified. The question is obvious, how can we reconcile these opposing standpoints?

II

Let's begin with a short list of the forms of death-dealing frequently encountered in our culture. I did this in the title of this entry, naming murder, abortion, euthanasia, war and the death-penalty. This list is not exhaustive of course, but it gives us a clear picture of the number of situations, where the exact same thing (taking a life) is treated differently. Most would agree that murder is inexcusable, but abortion and euthanasia are "controversial", while war is often cheered and executions in some parts of Texas are treated as something of a show.

III

Conditio humana. One moral criterion, which seems important to the point of obviousness to most of my carnivorous brethren that of the human condition. Humans are considered to be different from other beings, because they have a soul. This allows us to kill and eat animals, without moral concern, because they are soul-less (or at least they do not share our Humanity) and are therefore expendable. But clearly this does not form an absolutely respected law. People lawfully kill other people, so the soul-criterion is not set store by. The death penalty is a clear example of this, but so is war. In our televised wars, it seems that people don't die, they become lost, like soldiers in a computer game. Alas I remind everyone, that in war people die!

IV

Another criterion which is often called upon is the criterion of innocence. People who are "innocent" are never intentionally sentenced to death. They have to be found guilty of horrible crimes, ironically usually of taking a life. But the innocence criterion goes much deeper then what can be decided by courts and laws. The Bible teaches us about the original sin, due to which none of us is innocent. But my favorite theologian Kierkegaard, would argue that point. He wrote that "children are not capable of sin, only of bad temper". According to him, a mind has to go past a certain point of self realization, before it can stand in the presence of God and thus be capable of sin. Only then is an original innocence replaced with original sin. I wrote about this earlier.

If we accept this then we reconcile objections to abortion with consent to war or the death penalty. However in turn, we raise many other extremely difficult questions. When can we decide that a person already lost their innocence? Do we determine it by age?, deeds?, a psychological test? What about mentally-impaired people, who never stop being children?

But let us be crude and accept some estimate of innocence, the birth for instance. Once a person is born it has the potential for loosing innocence, so let's consider it guilty until proven otherwise. This doesn't really solve our problems, only translocates them, because now we have to deal with our carnivorous behaviors. Animals, after all will never be capable of sin and thus will always remain innocent. We cannot kill innocent animals and object to abortion at the same time if we are guided by the innocence-criterion.

V

So, is there a solution? But of course there is! All we need to do is to combine the two described criteria into a rule-set. We cannot kill innocent beings, which at the same time possess the human condition. What a nice solution. Starting out from "Thou shall not kill", we arrive at a situation in which we can kill anything and anyone we wish, as long as they are born.

Doesn't this violate some basic law of logic? Of course it does and I hope I've made it obvious. If we allow ourselves to set moral laws, and then create exceptions in them, or use them in sets, we and up with a combinatorial ethics, which is no ethics at all! If we can set un-absolute rules, then they are no longer rules, but parts of a relativistic theory, which can take on any form we desire according to our mood or situation. If we are free to combine the above mentioned two criteria, then why not take a third one along with them? There's not reason not to.

When it comes to death dealing, we really shouldn't play moral combination theory. The stakes in such game -- lives (human lives, innocent lives, or just plain lives) are too high. "Thou shall not kill" is a rule, which applies in the same way to murder, abortion, euthanasia, war and the death-penalty. If we choose to accept it, let's be faithful to it. And if we choose at any point to reject it, let's not pretend to be holier-then-thou when talking about abortion or the death-penalty...

Vegetarian food, anyone?

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

Brukowiec

Strategia marketingowa gazety Fakt jest ciosem ponizej pasa! Osobiscie gardze tym pismem, gardze wszystkim co ono soba reprezentuje -- pogonia za sensacja, plotkami, brakiem jakiejkowiek refleksji, chwilowoscia opisywanych zdazen. Jestem pelen pogardy dla jego formy, tresci (tudziez jej braku), formuly itd... A jednak...

A jednak, gdy przechodze obok kiosku i katem oka zobacze na odwrocie brukowca zdjecie pieknej, rozebranej dziewczyny, to przez ulamek sekundy chce miec Fakt. Przez moment chce miec ta gazete, by moc w spokoju przyjzec sie temu cudowi natury jakim jest cialo sfotografowanej kobiety.

Moment mija, ja ide dalej. Przechodze kilkadziesiat metrow, ale refleksja ciagle zatacza kregi w polkulach mozgu... A moze tak naprawde chce miec Fakt, czytac Fakt, wchlaniac Fakt? Moze moje swiete oburzenie jest tylko fasada, moze tak naprawde o niczym innym nie marze, jak otulic sie kojaca, papierowa pustka brukowej gazety?
I wtedy zaczynam gardzic samym soba...

Szmata o nazwie Fakt, wtykana mi codziennie pod nos w drodze do pracy, oraz inne jej podobne Big Brothery dokonuja psychicznego zatrucia calego(!) naszego pokolenia. Zyjemy w ich oparach, chac tego lub nie.

Chcesz 10% wiecej?

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

Ja [serduszko] Popper

"Staralem sie przetlumaczyc ten Heglowski belkot z Filozofii przyrody tak wiernie, jak mozna; pisze on: 'Dzwiek jest wymiana zachodzaca pomiedzy specyficznym byciem-na-zewnatrz-siebie-na-wzajem maretialnych czesci, a zanegowaniem tegoz -- tylko abstrakcyjna albo, by tak rzec, tylko idealna idealnoscia tego specyficznego momentu. Ale wskutek tego sama ta wymiana jest bezposrednio negacja specyficznego materialnego trwania. Negacja ta jest tym samym realna idealnoscia ciezaru wlasciwego i kohezji -- cieplem. Rozgrzewanie sie dzwieczacych cial, podobnie jak rozgrzewanie sie cial uderzanych i tracych o siebie nawzajem, jest przejawem ciepla wytwarzajacego sie zgodnie z pojeciem oraz dzwiekiem.'

Do dzis nie brak takich, ktorzy wierza w powage Hegla i w dalszym ciagu nie sa pewni, czy tajemnica jego powodzenia nie polega raczej na glebi mysli niz na jej braku. Tym radzilbym uwazne przeczytanie ostatniego zdania -- jedynego zrozumialego -- tego ustepu, poniewaz w tym zdaniu Hegel odslania sie calkowicie. W gruncie rzeczy bowiem znaczy one nie co innego, niz: 'Rozgrzewanie sie dzwieczacych cial... jest przejawem ciepla... wraz z dzwiekiem.'

Powstaje pytanie, czy Hegel oszukiwal sam siebie, zahipnotyzowany wlasnym inspirujaczym zargonem, czy tez bezczelnie chcial oszukac i oczarowac innych."

- Sir Karl Raymund Popper Spoleczenstwo otwarte i jego wrogowie, tom II, str. 36.

  • in personal
  • 3 min read

The Universal Other

The following is a summary of my current understanding of Kierkegaard's philosophy.

According to Soren Kierkegaard there is no race, creed of culture devoid of prescience of the one true God. He does admit that many people in all cultures are unaware that this knowledge is the knowledge of God, while others repress the realization and thus live in sin. Despite this he believes all adult people have an insight into the Absolute.

I have stumbled upon this idea in other places, reading Ken Wilber, or learning about Buddhism. I have always had a problem understanding the how this "Buddha nature", or what you would call it, can be universal...

The child. Innocent, void of cultural schemata, slowly becoming. In this pre-personal state an infant associates itself with the world. It perceives in only two categories -- that which is good for me, and that which is bad for me. That which hurts and that which is pleasant. Those categories are innate, instinctual, pre-intellectual. They are shared by children and animals, this is the prime oblivious innocence.

As the child dissociates its self from the world, these categories are retained in their absolute form. There is truth and there is falsehood, there is good and there is evil, there is white and there is black. Those categories are infinite to a child, they are subject to no interpretation.

During a rise to adulthood in our age and in our civilization, we are taught to question and finally reject absolutes. "Remember, there is no black and white, only shades of gray". This notion is so important, so seemingly fundamental, that we call others, who embrace absolutes fanatics. But I digress.

The infinite categories offer a growing mind a glimpse of the Absolute, which is super-cultural (or pre-cultural). This Absolute is Kierkegaard's Other -- the unpersonified God, who is common to all people, regardless of cultural origins.

An interesting notion in Kierkegaard is that a one can only be a self in a relationship to an other. This other in childhood is one's parents, in adulthood it is the state, or one's business (science, religion, etc.), but one's true self can only be realized by a relation to the absolute Other.
Unfortunately people often refrain from this Other, and choose to relate to worldly things, thus living in sin (not realizing their true Self).

Why do people do this? Why do people choose to remain in sin, in Samsara? Kierkegaard's answer is interesting, although I'm not sure if I quite grasp it. From what I understand, his logic on this point uses a sort of circular dialectic, a positive feedback mechanism. A person shies away from the absolute because he is awed by it's eternal nature, which causes fear. He then tries to refrain from thinking about this, repressing the notion (as Freud would call it) in a defence mechanism of the unconscious. Any glimpse of the absolute causes an anxiety, which further pushes it away from the conscious mind. And thus the circle closes. We live in sin because we are sinful. We are sinful because we live in sin.

There are many things which I don't understand, but Kierkegaard was a fascinating mind.


  • in personal
  • 2 min read

Robin Hood

On my way to work today, I chanced to pass by two strangers talking. I heard one sentence of their conversation, but it lead me down a strange road of thoughts...

The sentence was: "Stealing means taking from someone that which they have a right to have".
How interesting... a subjective definition of the crime of theft. By comparison an objective definition would have to be: "Stealing means taking that, which you do not have a right to have."

The principle difference between the definitions, other then the fact that one is voiced in the positive, the other in negative terms, is the point of reference. The subjective definition refers to the subject -- the person who is being robbed, while the objective definition refers to the object being stolen.

Come to think of it, our laws are based on the subjective definitions of crimes, aren't they? There must always be a victim for a crime to have been committed. If I am to lie it is not a crime, unless I deceive someone. Murder is not a crime, if I'm only killing time. And stealing is also not a crime until I steal from someone in particular.

It is for that reason that we have special bodies appointed, (usually by the state, but not necessarily), which take care of interests of non-humans. The forest authority, will be the victim of your theft if you steal trees, the RIAA (or ZAIKS in Poland) will be the victim if you download an mp3 file from the net. Notice, that the artist who composed the song, may be long dead...

This subjective nature of our laws leads to (or perhaps is the consequence of) the subjective nature of out moral values. We do not steal because it is wrong. We refrain from stealing if it may hurt someone, usually if we believe the victim may retaliate by legal action or otherwise. If we believe that "no harm is being done", we don't think our actions to be wrong. Hence the idea of "victim-less crime" and it's harmless nature.

Moral questioning is the nature of our postmodern world, but it goes much further back in time. Perhaps to the ideas of the Enlightment period...

Lack of absolute values, subjective morality, ethics and laws not referenced to objective definitions of crimes... all this leaves me with one question: Pray tell, what came first subjective laws or a demise in the absolute nature of moral values?