Reading more… Becoming blind…

Advertisements

From concerns over blue light to digital strain and dryness, headlines today often worry how smartphones and computer screens might be affecting the health of our eyes. But while the technology may be new, this concern certainly isn’t. Since Victorian times people have been concerned about how new innovations might damage eyesight.

In the 1800s, the rise of mass print was both blamed for an increase in eye problems and was responsible for dramatizing the fallibility of vision too. As the number of known eye problems increased, the Victorians predicted that without appropriate care and attention Britain’s population would become blind. In 1884, an article in The Morning Post newspaper proposed that: “The culture of the eyes and efforts to improve the faculty of seeing must become matters of attentive consideration and practice, unless the deterioration is to continue and future generations are to grope about the world purblind”. (1)

At the end, we didn’t become blind with the books.

And we will probably not become blind with iPads as well.

But could it be that we are looking into the wrong direction for problems?

The issue with more and more information is not that is causes blindness. But that it opens the eyes. And the more your eyes are open to see things, the more you lose touch with the things which cannot be seen at all. And the latter are the ones which are important. And you need to close your eyes to see them.

At the end, we will keep on reading.

At the end, we will know everything.

And with new technologies we will see anything.

We will be so excited about our knowledge!

So happy for our newly found wisdom!

That we will miss our unhappy (self) children next to us.

Trying to catch our attention to their new play.

Daddy!

Daddy!

Look!

Not now kid. I am discovering the universe!

Daddy…

Daddy…

Look…

The universe is passing right by you…

Daddy!

WHAT?!!?

(I love you…)

Floating into the abyss.

A teardrop…

We believe we can come up to the surface.

Without knowing that we are already home…

Is Christianity against knowledge? (Yes and No!)

Advertisements

Many have wandered whether religion and Christianity in particular is against knowledge. Not because of it being related to the “dark” Middle Ages (a story which has been discredited a long time ago by Harmonia Philosophica; read the relevant article “Middle Ages – An enlightened era“) but because of the famous story of God forbidding Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This story, along with the hostility of the church against enlightenment (something which is completely justified; read the relevant article “Enlightenment was darkness” in Harmonia Philosophica), has made many people wander whether the church has any dogmatic stance against knowledge per se.

The short answer: Yes. But only because it values knowledge!

Let me explain my self. Knowledge is something which for millennia was held in very high esteem. And for that reason it was kept away from the majority of the people who were not worthy of it. This was not only a church thing. Think of Pythagoras for example. His students had vows not to reveal anything they learnt to the non-worthy on the penalty of death. Think of the alchemists, who encoded everything they wrote so that they don’t fall into the wrong (not worthy) hands of the people outside their closed cast.

Harmonia Philosophica in general is a testament to that belief. Its articles are written in such a way that they draw people away and which seem to convey nothing more than a vague hint to what they were meant to convey.

The Fathers of the Church have explained that eloquently: God doesn’t forbid Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for no reason. He does so because Man is not yet mature enough to handle this knowledge. If we had the patience we would be allowed to eat from the tree; we are part of God Himself anyway aren’t we?

So the church doesn’t want to forbid knowledge in general. But it wants to impose respect to knowledge as such. Knowledge is not something you read in Wikipedia (Read the articles in Harmonia Philosophica by the way against Wikipedia). Knowledge is something which you should earn with sweat and huge effort. As Buddhism says, “When the student is ready, the teacher appears”.

And we are certainly not ready.

Education and knowledge without ethics generate monsters. Remember, Mengele the “Angel of Death” had two PhDs. (Read the relevant articles “The source of ethics” and “Against the fallacy of education as a source of ethics“).

Don’t worry.

You will soon eat from the tree of knowledge.

For now you just have to compromise.

Come on.

Eat a banana.

And some day, if you are a good boy, Pythagoras will speak to you…

Only to tell you not to speak.

Lust for knowledge. The sin of our era…

Advertisements
Photo by stijn from Pexels

A new computational-model reveals that serotonin, one of the most widespread chemicals in the brain, can speed up learning. (1)

Researchers have found that piano lessons have a specific effect on kindergartners’ ability to distinguish different pitches, which translates into an improvement in discriminating between words. (2)

We live in a knowledge-centric world. Wanting to add more and more into the sea of knowledge. While what we should be doing is trying to empty it. And see that it is a bottomless sea. With every knowledge added, a new question arising. With every mystery solved, ten more appearing. Like the Danaides, cursed to complete a feat which is from the beginning destined to fail.

Stop trying to understand.

There is nothing to compute.

There is nothing to discover.

Every time you look at that sea.

You are looking at yourself on the calm surface…

Let the slightest drop fall in and the simplest and deepest of the truths will emerge. The image is distorted. There is no you. There is nothing to see. Dive deep to the bottom of the sea. And see for yourself. There is nothing there. Only the thing you bring with you… Suddenly you are standing dry. Next to a big old tree. You hold water in your hands. You are thirsty. But… look at that small pond. There is a fish in it. You put the water inside… And without knowing it… You kill yourself…

Quantum computing. Tautologies. Fire of existence.

Advertisements
Photo by Emiliano Arano from Pexels

Quantum computing, in which computations are carried out based on the quantum principles of matter, was proposed by American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman in the early 1980s. Unlike normal computer bits, the qubit units used by quantum computers store information in two-state systems, such as electrons or photons, that are considered to be in all possible quantum states at once (a phenomenon known as superposition).

Scientists at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory are the first to successfully simulate an atomic nucleus using a quantum computer. The results, published in Physical Review Letters, demonstrate the ability of quantum systems to compute nuclear physics problems and serve as a benchmark for future calculations. (1)

Using particles to perform calculations about particles.

Using scientific models to validate other models.

Using thought to validate other thoughts.

Our whole existence, a constant tautology.

Blocking us from seeing the true nature of the cosmos.

Break the vicious circle of existence.

Destroy knowledge.

Set Rome on fire.

Die.

And being will emerge out of nothing.

To engulf everything in a blaze of fire…

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%