Skip to content

Web Log

  • in personal
  • 5 min read

5 years

On the morning of the eleventh day of September 2001 a plane crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. No one understood how it could happen; what a strange accident. Fifteen stunned minutes later another plane hit the second tower, and it became horrifyingly obvious that it wasn’t an accident at all, but a deliberate attack.

Five years has already passed since one of the defining moments of our century: the terrorist attacks which we have become accustomed to calling 9/11. It’s hard to believe it happened so long ago; perhaps this is a good time to reflect on what happened and how the world has changed in those few years.

Mindscape

They call music "the soundtrack of your life", and that is a very true statement. The music you choose surrounds you as often as you wish, filling the canvas of your auditory soundscape. Of course, it is not the only soundtrack of your life, just like music is not the only sound that you hear. Sometimes however it can have a deep and profound effect on your surroundings. When you drive, when you work, when you're falling asleep or just after you wake up, the most pervasive thing which you hear, can be the music you selected. This music then fills the day's silences by playing quietly at the back of your mind. Sometimes a really annoying song or jingle will embed itself so strongly in your mind, that you cannot stop thinking about it. If you choose carefully, however, your silences will be filled by the treasured notes of your favorite music.

In a similar way to a soundtrack, there is also a videotrack, which consists of everything that you see during your everyday. These sights can also be influenced by yourself in important ways... The decorations of your apartment, the paintings you hang on the walls, the people you choose to meet, the places you decide to visit, the films you watch all determine the optical content of your life. You may not be able to change the way the city you live in looks, but you can choose to take the longer route to anywhere in order to see its nicer parts... These images will then populate your dreams, memories and imaginations. It might be worth collecting the most beautiful ones.

Each of your senses has a separate "track", or assemblage of experiences which all sum into the adventure, which you call your life.

In addition to the sensual content of your life, there is also a collection of your thoughts, reflections, observations and feelings which arise internally, from your consciousness (or subconsciousness). Many of these you can also influence, change, or simply prune to select for the ones you find most pleasing. We do this in fact all the time, when we choose to think about something, or not to think about something else, not to be concerned with something... The amount of control you have over this part of your existence, can only be appreciated, if you realize, that quite like any other "track", you can add and subtract things from your mind. There are many things which seem overwhelming, like fears, phobias or prejudices, but in reality, this realm is the one in which we have most opportunity for alteration. Like the unchangeable streets of your town, there may be some things inherent to your personality, but these are few and usually buried in the subconsciousness, almost everything else is amendable. Your every though, your every mood is a creation of your mind and it is you and only you who is able to control it.

Sometimes there are some external influences which make you feel a certain way. These influences cause echoes in your egotrack, like the annoying jingle may embed itself in your internal soundtrack. In such a case there is one thing worth remembering. Like the jingle, almost all external circumstances are temporary, so if you can't ignore them, you should try to wait them out. Eventually they will fade out and stop being an important influence on your life, replaced by new experiences, which you will select yourself.

One big mistake, which many people make is not to understand, how much of your internal mindscape can be decided by you yourself. These people often struggle to modify the external circumstances into which they were born. This is often a constructive exercise, but it often leads to frustration and disappointment instead of happiness. This is because no s ingle person can make huge differences in the outside world. Small changes can cumulate over the course of your life, but will rarely give you quick solutions and there will always be some things which you have no power over. This means that an internal stewardship over your mind will always be necessary, regardless of how much work you put into the world outside.

Think of your mind as your garden. Try to plant the most wonderful flowers, pull out weeds, protect the garden from droughts and storms. Don't let yourself however, be controlled by it...

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

Zakład Michała

Jeżeli istnieje Bóg sprawiedliwy, to każdy sprawiedliwy człowiek zostanie zbawiony, niezależnie czy w Niego wierzy, czy nie wierzy i jaką wyznaje religię. Jeżeli Bóg nie jest sprawiedliwy, to żaden człowiek, niezależnie od siły wiary i wyznania nie ma gwarancji zbawienia.

  • in personal
  • 1 min read

How to win affection and respect

"If you want to win affection and respect in this world, you must flatter people. Flatter high and low, and rich and poor, and silly and wise. You will get on famously. Praise this man's virtues and that man's vices. Compliment everybody upon everything, and especially upon what they haven't got. Admire guys for their beauty, fools for their wit, and boors for their breeding. Your discernment and intelligence will be extolled to the skies."
-- JEROME K. JEROME (THE IDLE THOUGHTS OF AN IDLE FELLOW)

  • in personal
  • 5 min read

meta gadu

radosc

solo (0:20)
Zmierzam do tego, ze lain miala fajnego OSa w tych swoich maszynach
solo (0:20)
lol, zboczenie.. imie z malej, ale OS z wielkiej
.mK (0:20)
no wlasnie... w maszynach czy w glowie?

solo (0:21)
Ha, no... to zbyt trudne pytanie, chyba... Sam nie wiem, co tam sie dzialo
.mK (0:21)
A ZAUWAZYLES, ZE JAK KTOS PISZE CAPS'AMI TO USZY BOLA?
solo (0:21)
Nie, jednak jest to irytujace
.mK (0:22)
no... mi sie wydaje, ze moj rozmowca krzyczy i staram sie go zawsze uspokoic
.mK (0:22)
chociaz czasem zupelnie nie o to im chodzi
solo (0:22)
Dokladnie
solo (0:22)
Jakis czas temu zagadala mnie pewna dziewczyna na GG, ktora nawijala capsem ciagle
solo (0:23)
I rozmawialo mi sie z nia troche niewygodnie, bo kazda jej wypowiedz odbieralem... jakos tak zdecydowanie nienaturalnie
solo (0:23)
Pewnie dla kogos, kto nie mial wielkiej stycznosci z czatami, nie sprawialoby to roznicy - i taki i taki tekst bylby tak samo odbierany - jako tekst
solo (0:24)
Natomiast ja, gdy czytam to, co ktos do mnie pisze, rozumiem to jakby do mnie mowil
.mK (0:24)
no... to ciekawe... powoli wytwarza sie nowe zjawisko... psychologia rozmow tekstowych...
niech no tylko sie do tego dobiora jacys psychologowie, to bedziesz mial "pokaz mi jak piszesz, a powiem ci kto cie molestowal w dziecinstwie" psychoanalize
solo (0:24)
Niewykluczone
solo (0:25)
A co ciekawe
solo (0:25)
Pozniej sie z ta dziewczyna widzialem, bo prosila o korki z matmy (zreszta wszystko zakumala od razu) i tak sobie pogadalismy o tym i o owym, miedzy innymi o naszych rozmowach na GG
solo (0:25)
Przyznalem sie jej, ze odebralem ja jako zupelnie inna osobe
solo (0:26)
Nie powiedzialem, ze jako glupia blondynke, ale dalem do zrozumienia, ze uznalem ja za wartosciowsza osobe po spotkaniu IRL
solo (0:26)
Powiedzialem o tym capsie, ze pewnie przez to tez, a ona sie wytlumaczyla
solo (0:26)
Powiedziala, ze pisze capsem, zeby nie musiec pisac wielkimi literami 'Ty', 'Ciebie', imion, etc
solo (0:26)
sic!
.mK (0:27)
nom, a ciekawe jest wlasnie to, ze probujemy zintepretowac litery tak jak rozmowe, starajac sie odebrac przeslanie emocjonalne, charakter, nastroj, itd... wszystko co normalnie odbieramy z mowy ciala, tonu, fizjognomii
solo (0:27)
Jasne, bo tu litery sa jedynym kanalem komunikacyjnym
solo (0:28)
Dlatego czasem ciezko sie jest dogadac nowemu i staremu
solo (0:28)
bo nowy olewa znaki interpunkcyjne, olewa szczegoly wypowiedzi, ktore zmieniaja znaczenie, etc
.mK (0:28)
no, my tez sporo olewamy: duze litery, polskie znaki, kropki na koncu zdania
.mK (0:28)
Wiec nawet jak ktos pisze w ten sposób, to "brzmi" to inaczej..
.mK (0:28)
ja mialem long-distance relationship z dziewczyna, z ktora bylem przedtem kilka dobrych lat
.mK (0:28)
no i jak tylko "spotykalismy sie na gadu", to za kazdym razem sie klocilismy
.mK (0:28)
w koncu zrezygnowalismy z tej formy kontaktu, bo nie moglismy sie tak dogadac
solo (0:29)
A to w ogole ciekawostki sa
solo (0:30)
Ja np. strasznie nie lubie, gdy ktos pisze kropki na koncu zdan w wypowiedziach na czatach
.mK (0:30)
nie lubisz kropek?
.mK (0:30)
to ciekawe, ja nie zwrocilem na to uwagi
solo (0:30)
Nie lubie...
solo (0:30)
a zwlaszcza, gdy ktos nie uzywa wielkich liter na poczatku zdan, a zakancza je kropka.
solo (0:30)
takie wypowiedzi sa dla mnie pozbawione pozytywnych emocji.
solo (0:30)
wrecz negatywne.
solo (0:31)
stanowcze, zimne.
solo (0:31)
Chyba wzielo mi sie z tego, ze czesto ludzie, chcac podkreslic stanowczosc swojej wypowiedzi, pisza ja wlasnie z kropka na koncu
.mK (0:31)
kurde... widzisz...
.mK (0:32)
tak wiele odbieramy z tak niewielkiej ilosci informacji. to niesamowite
.mK (0:32)
a najgorsze jest to, ze wytwarzaja sie silne "dialekty" czatowe
solo (0:32)
No i wlasnie to jest niebezpieczne, gdy sie natrafi na kogos, kto sie posluguje zupelnie innym kodem, lub w ogole szumem, z ktorego ja wylapuje cos, co nie jest w ogole zamierzone
.mK (0:33)
hackerzy mowia w jeden sposob, zwylki uzytkownicy w troche inny, nowi uzytkownicy internetu w zupelnie jeszcze inny
solo (0:33)
czesc!! skad stukasz????? co masz fotke?????
.mK (0:34)
na przyklad
.mK (0:33)
no... to naprawde ciekawy temat... ciekawe kiedy pojawia sie jakies "badania" na ten temat
solo (0:34)
Psychologow jest sporo, a pracy dla nich chyba mniej, wiec pewnie niedlugo
.mK (0:34)
i szkoda, ze te badania przeprowadzi jakis lamer, ktory sam nie czuje tego o czym pisze prace
solo (0:34)
Tez prawda...
solo (0:35)
Ale czy z takich badan cos moze wyjsc? Czy ktos moze na nich skorzystac?
solo (0:35)
(mowie o wiedzy, a nie o samych badaniach)
solo (0:36)
Wlasciwie to na pewno moze, chociazby w kwestii 'poznania wroga', albo potencjalnej ofiary
.mK (0:36)
wiesz... mysle, ze tak... gdyby byly naprawde dobrze przeprowadzone i naprawde zbadaly szeroka grupe ludzi (a nie statystycznie wazne 30), to mozna by odkryc pewne kody kulturowe ukryte pomiedzy kropkami... a to pozwoliloby zrozumiec innych i uniknac tych dziwaczych konfliktow
.mK (0:37)
jak cos takiego gdzies zobaczysz, to podeslij linka
solo (0:37)
Nie omieszkam
solo (0:38)
Juz to widze.. W szkolach za pare lat sa zajecia z czatowania, gdzie pani dzieciom wyklada, jak niektorzy mowia (pisza) i jak nalezy ich wtedy rozumiec
.mK (0:38)
nie strasz... w pierwszej klasie obok lekcji pisania dlugopisem, lekcja pisania w sieci
solo (0:38)
Albo jak nalezy sie wypowiadac, by byc zrozumianym
.mK (0:39)
ale raczej w to watpie... prawdziwych rozmow tez nas expilicite nie uczyli
solo (0:38)
Ano
solo (0:39)
A wiesz, co mnie z tych wszystkich czatow, a zwlaszcza GG, najbardziej martwi?
.mK (0:39)
nie wiem
solo (0:39)
Ze ludzie w zyciu posluguja sie slangiem GGowym
.mK (0:39)
co masz na mysli?
.mK (0:39)
ze mowia "lol" jak ich cos rozbawi?
solo (0:39)
Mam okazje czytac wiele maili wysylanych przez abonentow naszej sieci do administracji, boku, etc i widze, jak niektorzy z nich pisza...
solo (0:40)
Pomijajac ortografie, z ktora wiekszosc jest, naturalnie, na bakier
solo (0:40)
w tekscie pelno jest '??'ow, '!!'ow', czasami jakies emotikony w '<>'
solo (0:40)
Do tego panuje tendencja, ze im wiecej '?' kolo siebie, tym lepiej
solo (0:41)
Nie, akurat 'lol' nie razi mnie tak bardzo - pewnie dlatego, ze sam tegop uzywam, chociaz nie w mailach do mojego dostawcy Internetu
.mK (0:41)
na 2 roku studiow mielismy zajecia z filozofii i facet, ktory je prowadzil byl bardzo w pozadku... pewnego razu kazal nam wymyslic liste 15 slow
.mK (0:42)
jak juz mielismy 15 slow, to nas zaskoczyl i kazal napisac ktorki wierszyk, uzywajac tych wlasnie slow
.mK (0:42)
w pewnym momencie jeden koles sie zapytal, czy moze uzyc emotikonow
.mK (0:42)
po 15 minutach tlumaczenia o co chlopakowi chodzi, facet stwierdzil, ze nie... ma uzyc tylko tych slow
solo (0:43)
Hehe
.mK (0:43)
nigdy nie zapomne, zawiedzionego tonu glosu i niedowierzania tego kolesia, ktory powiedzial "no ale skoro nie moge uzywac emotikonek, to jak mam wyrazic swoje uczucia?"
solo (0:43)
Ha, no wlasnie
.mK (0:44)
facet prowadzacy zajecia posmutnial, wspomnial cos o szekspirze... ale ogolnie byl niepocieszony sytuacja
solo (0:44)
To kolejne fazy lenistwa umyslowego... Smileye spowodowaly, ze nie trzeba sie bardzo pocic, by ktos zauwazyl, ze piszemy cos humorystycznie albo sie z czegos cieszymy - wystarczy, ze sie napisze ':)'
solo (0:45)
emitikony takie w GG, czy innych czatach, to krok dalej - nie trzeba juz wymyslac kombinacji znaczkow, ktore cos moga przedstawic, jednak przy odrobinie wyobrazni
.mK (0:46)
jeden "znacznik" tego typu mi sie bardzo spodobal kiedys...
oto tresc <subliminal> koniecznie odwiedz moja strone </subliminal>

  • in personal
  • 3 min read

Moral truths vs. moral relativity

There have been times in my life when, whilst trying to argue the case for postmodern, liberal virtue of tolerance I was accused of having no 'moral backbone'. My interlocutors believed that if I have no indissoluble, universal set of moral values, then I'm merely a moral relativist, merrily changing my stance as I see fit. Today, during an inspiring lecture on Bioethics I mentally returned to that discussion with a new set of arguments...

What is an indissoluble and universal moral value? It is only that which can be called a moral truth, ergo an absolute. I have written on truth many times before and I strongly believe that any kind of truth, even if it exists is unattainable for us. This argument is especially valid for moral truths, because there is no way to prove that something is objectively good or bad. Moral truths are usually derived from religions and they vary from one religion to the next. In my opinion arguing that one must base ethical judgments on a moral truth is an invitation to making ethics arbitrary. Not only that, it is also an excuse for that arbitrariness, because each person can choose his moral truth and then argue that only his stance is valid to the exclusion of all others. This may work in a small group of people, fundamentally believing a holy text, but it is not a solution for a global society.

The other stance is that of moral relativity. I will try to argue, that paradoxically this view is less arbitrary then the former one. What does moral relativity mean? Despite what it's critics try to say it is not a careless attitude, which allows you to make one kind of judgment today and a contradictory one tomorrow. Moral relativity means that your moral judgments are relative to something. What that something might be is another question. In our democratic century it could be, for instance, the common moral stance shared by the majority of people. The majority-stance is not timeless, it may change from generation to generation; it is also not universal and may vary from one society to another; but it is a basis for moral judgment. If all your decisions were in compliance with the views of the majority, you should not be rejected, but rather democratically embraced. Ideally, this is how laws are created in democratic societies.

Ethics would not be ethics however if it only played such a descriptive role, it would then be sociology. Ethics requires a normative component, to be able to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Postmodern ethics of moral relativity, as far as I understand it, tries to employ reason and an almost scientific methodology. The ethicist tires to reconcile the complex innards of the majority-stance by creating a moral model. For instance, "Why is it okay to kill a carrot or a cow and not okay to kill humans?" One model could say that it is only okay to kill beings that do not feel. This works fine for the carrot and humans but fails for cows. Another model could claim that it is only okay to kill non-humans. This form of chauvinism (I heard it called species-ism) seems to work fine in our example, but has some other drawbacks. A third model, which was described in today's lecture talked about 'moral agents', meaning being which can control their destiny, those who are conscious subjects, not merely biological objects... This could work out fine if only we could tell how conscious a cow actually is...

Whichever model you choose, you have to test it, like in science against what the majority of people actually believe. Ideally you should find a model, which fits the majority-stance, you could then use it to resolve conflicts, which have not yet been determined by referenda, and also use it as a convincing argument to persuade the remaining, skeptical minority.

I believe that such a model, if we can develop one, would be a great asset to scientists. The public, whose ideas about science and its consequences are often surprisingly different from our own, constantly confronts us. We cannot hope to convince them to our point of view by a chauvinistic ideology, which claims that science is good per se. We will have to use moral relativity, we are after all postmodern.

  • in personal
  • 2 min read

The year of the documentary

I don't know what it is exactly, but during the past months, a large number of very interesting and influential documentary films have been released or re-released. I don't want to analyse why this is happening, I'll just make a list of films worth watching if you like the "non-fiction" category.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism A great documentary, which bases almost exclusively on footage from the FOX news channel. The film analyses how a giant propaganda machine does it's work, distorting and manipulation information for a very specific political agenda. http://www.outfoxed.org/

Uncovered: The War On Iraq This film analyses how information was manipulated in the run up to the war in Iraq. It's filled with interviews with CIA intelligence analysts, but the film makes it's point even more clearly, by showing us all the things Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al told us about the certainty of Iraqi weapon stock-piles. http://www.truthuncovered.com/

The Corporation If corporations are legally human, what kind of people are they? This is a great film, which shows us the paradoxes of corporate power. A thorough analysis of the issues at hand, with appearances by Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Michael Moore, etc. as an added incentive for watching. http://www.thecorporation.tv/

Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara Rober McNamara, secretary of defense in the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson. Called one of the most controversial politicians of the cold war, he now is able to talk about many issues of that long and dangerous conflict. He is a man, who is able to admit mistakes, and who is able to teach us a lot. Original musical score by Philip Glass creates a thought-provoking atmosphere. http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar

Fahrenheit 9/11 I have to mention also Michael Moore's newest film. http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Supersize Me What happens to someone who eats McDonald's food? Only McDonald's food... Watch this, you have been warned. http://www.supersizeme.com/