Archive for the “Metaphysical” Category

I personally have always been somewhat partial to that pale sphere orbiting around our planet. I appreciate the moon in virtually any phase of its cycle, especially the quintessential crescent moon. However the full moon is another phase that I find to be highly alluring. I appreciate how the rays of the sun reflect upon its entire visible surface such that there is very little, short of very heavy cloud-cover that can mar such a night. This totality is never quite so brilliantly illustrated as on the night of a lunar eclipse. There is something particularly magnificent about how the moon is not merely full but seems afire with a more solar glow, particularly in the minutes preceding the start and following the conclusion of an eclipse. It can be quite captivating.

It is during nights such as these that one who works by night can appreciate the silver lining. To be able to look up at the sky, to watch the waves gently and yet energetically lap up upon the shallow incline of the relatively unpopulated beach, to feel the slight but welcome breeze shifting the warm air, to know that a snack is just two Euro pounds and a quarter kilometre walk away, it all just kind of jars pleasantly against the chaos of Paceville less than a half-kilometre away.

Above and beyond the booming music heard from a distance, above the chinking and skittering of ever-shattering bottles, above the rabble of hot-headed drunkards and so-called bouncers who shame the rest of their kind with their violent dispositions, beyond the skyward lighting of more prominent buildings, exists a universe beyond our atmosphere that is both seemingly constant in its cycles and yet ever-changing. We are, for instance, ever so slowly losing our moon. The distance between the planet and her moon is growing. The tides and the weather have grown less harshly defined compared to that which history and prehistory have witnessed.

In the context of the grandness of this same universe we again return to the small-minded revellings of individuals in Paceville looking desperately for a little excitement and to add a little meaning to their lives, a mission as daunting as finding water in the middle of the Sahara desert. What is the point of inflating one’s ego every day or every weekend in the context of the enormity of the planet, let alone the universe? I do understand why many of them do it however, and the reason can be found within the history of the industrial revolution, where beer was used to placate the workers, to deaden them to their everyday misery, of toiling through a self-destructive routine to earn one’s daily beer and forget one’s misery while making the few wealthy, riding upon the sweat of their subordinates’ toils.

The moon witnessed it all before just as she witnesses the same today. The enslavement of the many by the few, not through banded shackles of iron but through the very legal system that is supposed to uphold justice in the country and in the world. Through this system the few enact new obligations for the many and machinery of exploitation for the few. They call it fiscal policy. They make the many think that they are doing them a favour, first raising the prices sky-high, and then ‘generously’ offering you the ‘opportunity’ to be their monetary farm. They give you the present and take away significant portions of the future. They have many ensnared within their trap of legal slavery and the moon can only remain silent in her witness as the many drink in futile attempts to drown away their worries and their sorrows. We have seen it all before and it never went away.

How does one set about proving that between the numbers two and four exists a three and how does one set about proving that beyond the aforementioned numbers the logical continuation is a six? Mathematics, while not exactly one of my strong points, can be appreciated for the promise that it embodies. Mathematics is a structured system that exists upon the metaphysical level and is perceived to manifest in all things in life. It is a system that humans readily apply to all things artificial and natural, attempting to lay a finger upon every phenomenon in search for a discernible etch, a perceivable hint of structure beyond the silky flat of chaos and all in the name of furthering our understanding.

Aside from its importance in our everyday lives, the use of mathematics for interpolating and extrapolating upon existing series or patterns of values to which we have given meaning has provided ourselves with a lot of what we know today. It gave us a means of trying out new things on the basis of intelligent guesswork rather than mere random chance. It is the logical expression of the concept of building within and beyond that which exists.

Present-day music is largely based upon previous music and other producible sounds. New technologies are mostly based upon previous technologies. New philosophers tend to draw upon old philosophers and experiences in life. Drivers in developing countries use prior knowledge of the road to prevent accidents while blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. Any knowledge that is gained without direct blind trial and error or direct experience is the result of the mind extrapolating or interpolating upon existing knowledge. The ancient Greeks figured out that the World was round thanks to observations of the stars and observation of the world around them. Various aviation pioneers took inspiration from birds that used less energetic sweeping wing movements such as seagulls. The deductive processes involved in crime investigation done right is also an exercise in extrapolating upon the available evidence. If we were to take bridge repair as a means of illustrating working beyond the existing then extrapolation would be a matter of extending the structure across the divide while interpolation would be similar to bridging the gaps between the support struts or columns.

Both techniques also have a place in determining truth from fallacy. After all, not all sources of information are honest and likewise the information that one is fed by sources may also be similarly skewed. The interests of the provider of information can taint objectivity. Truths do not need to be altered into fallacies so as to mislead. Truths can be selectively chosen and provided, or omitted altogether. Information can be provided with baggage attached, conveying positive or negative influence as intended by the interests concerned.

Even sources that we should be able to trust are not necessarily without taint. The television stations. The papers. This web log too has the interests of myself riding within it and should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt. The only way to sort through the mess of conflicting information is to attempt to extrapolate and interpolate upon the knowledge available in search of the most consistent net or web of integrated information upon which to base your opinions and thoughts. Without a reliable grasp of the information available I am afraid that it is likely that the decisions that you make will be the most sound that they could otherwise have been. Of course it is our right not to be deceived to begin with, but the bad shepherd could care less.

While I do not consider myself nature’s child by any means, I do greatly appreciate the wonders that nature presents to myself and everybody else in the vicinity. I appreciate the first rays of light filtering through the curtains and, if I happen to be awake early enough and happen to be in the right place, how the sky upon the horizon gradually shifts from a deep navy blue to a deep cyan to a dusky green and onward to more solar colours as the flaming sphere peaks steadily over the sea’s edge. I appreciate the clouds and their ever-changing nature as well as the relatively constant lap or rush of a breaking wave. I appreciate the droop of the Eucalyptus tree and the way that the wind interacts with its leaves and other objects. I try to ignore the litter that gets blown around – it does not belong within my picture. I enjoy the experiences provided by the moon, the lightening, the rain and, if I am really lucky, the rainbow in almost any shape, condition and form that it may present itself.

While it would be nice to lie down on a beach somewhere after dusk or perhaps revisit the childhood years and sit at the water’s edge scooping up moistened sand in the name of indulgence within a mid-summer’s dream, the truth is that the beaches are more often than not unfit for such activities, especially so in areas meters away from significant tourist traps, such as the artificial beach in St George’s bay (although to be fair it is not due to any negligence on the part of the caretakers). You just don’t know what you might find or hurt yourself on below the grains of sand.

It all comes down to cultural education really. If individuals were to carry away their spent bottles and trash then others would not only have a cleaner beach to inherit after those preceding them but they would hopefully also be more inclined to emulate their predecessors’ example. It would also be nice if accessibility to more remote beaches were improved so that both the physically fit and not so physically fit may both enjoy the natural heritage of the Islands. A particular beach in the vicinity of Ghajn Tuffieha comes to mind.

Yes this has been a relatively light-hearted post. If any readers have visited any Maltese beaches this year then it would be appreciated by not only myself but also others if they could comment on the state of the beaches that they visited and whether they have any specific suggestions for their improvement. It is a small step but it takes only a moment and perhaps something positive will come of it.

In a previous contribution I had referred to a component within an alternative perspective on relative moral quantification. I had spoken of a hierarchy based upon the degree of internalization or externalization of any conceivable concept. This time I would like to expand upon the relevance of such a hierarchy to the construction and function of any moral system set within the structures of logic.

Returning to an old question, why is it wrong for one person to kill another? Is it wrong for one person to kill another? Why, or why not? These are questions that religious texts do not answer to satisfaction.

Does an individual have the right to kill? If that question were to stand alone then the answer would be yes. The reason why the answer would be yes is because there is no conflict of interest involved. No target is defined and therefore there is no reason why an individual should not kill within the context of such a vacuum. This is why a large portion of the gaming industry features guilt-free killing. Puncturing a 3D image full of similarly virtual holes consists of acts upon the level of expression rather than action. It is acted out but not performed and the interests of no living organism come into play.

Lets turn the question around. Does an individual have the right to live? The answer is yes, because the individual has an interest staked in living. So if an individual has the right to live and an individual has the right to kill then how does this play out in the context of an individual wishing to kill another? The moment that the rights of one entity cross and contradict the rights of another entity, then one enters into the realm of responsibility – the prioritization of rights.

Rights and responsibilities. That is what this boils down to. The previous contribution outlines the basis for determining a moral hierarchy and it may now be appreciated, serving as a yard-stick by which the moral engine of rights and responsibilities is able to function.

Returning to the old question, an individual has a right both to live and to kill. However to live is to be while to kill is to act or do or choose. In the previous contribution it was proposed that the hierarchy should run via the adjectives to be, to think, to express and to do. Therefore while an individual has a right to be alive and the right to perform the act of killing, an individual also has the responsibility not to perform the act of killing as it contravenes another individual’s right to be alive. The right to be alive of one individual nullifies the right of another to perform the act of killing.

I sometimes wonder why individuals would seek to lead one or more lives in addition to and mostly seperated from their primary social one. One sees it happen all around ourselves and all the time. It can also be seen illustrated on daily television shows and the mass media. Some are innocuous or pleasant while others seem surprising or even sinister in nature.

Different persons may want to lead multiple separate lives for any of a number of reasons. Some are based in egotism while others are a necessity for continued survival within a highly nosy and very unforgiving society. As they say, one person’s heaven could be another person’s hell, and in the context of a society where the conventional values are agreed upon only by a general majority it is inevitable that some minorities will consequently feel the need to lead multiple lives.

It is actually much more penetrative than one might think. Basically if a person has a secret – any secret – then it is possible that that person may consciously or unconsciously be living a double life of sorts. This includes the classic examples – the individual who has an affair, the homosexual priest, the man who dresses like a woman by night – but it can also extend to less obvious examples. A woman could be a strong negotiator in the public sphere while grappling to come to terms with a terminal ailment behind closed doors. A jolly mild-mannered baker could be a serial killer with blood on his hands. An anointed war veteran could talk tough by day but cry in his sleep. A girl could be truly outgoing and yet curl up with a diary before bed. A factory worker could get lost in a private day dream.

The list goes on and on with the commonality centring around the fact that there are some things that individuals do not feel safe enough to trust with the public sphere. It is likely that the vast majority of those who form the general public, whether or not considering themselves mainstream, hold several aspects of themselves as far out of reach of everybody else as they can reasonably manage, and it is likely that they do so in fear of reprisals. I wouldn’t blame them or yourself for doing so. Many learn to do so from a tender young age when trial and error teaches them that children and adults alike are capable of making a person regret the words that they utter. While on this topic one could also point to this as a reason why so few people are outspoken in the world and why it is only a child who would dare to point and declare that the King wears no clothes within the famous fairytale. I guess it all comes down to keeping life simple and to this end the strategy seems to have served its purpose, in spite of the added difficulty in doing so upon an Island such as ours where everybody seems to know everybody and the vast majority of us are likely related to the 4th degree in some fashion or other.

I would like readers to pause and reflect upon their individual selves. Do you hold part of your life separate from another? Do you hold secrets that you feel are simpler kept than shared? It is fine to do so as many secrets are everyday matters. I hold secrets of my own and the chances are that so do you. Its ultimately a part of what makes ourselves social beings and moreover human.

You are yourself every bit as much as I am myself. It seems obvious right? Well it is obvious but within debates both in Malta and World-wide we seem all too often to forget this essential truth. There is no element of choice in being who you are. It is a reflection of the sum of your personal interpretation of your internalized interpretation of your observations of the stimuli that surrounds your life.

Likewise thinking what you think is relatively involuntary and therefore not a choice. This is why many persons experience unpleasant thoughts that they desperately try to push out of their minds while other persons wonder where their previous more pleasant thoughts drifted from.

The way that you express yourself is more down to choice but even so there remains a degree of impulsiveness – of habits that are hard to suppress. In western countries there is the tendency to shake hands upon meeting. In fact I would break this section down into three parts. Firstly, one’s habits, secondly one’s communications, where one converts one’s thoughts into a medium through which those thoughts are successfully conveyed, and thirdly there is the performance, a series of acts that are devoid of the real implications attached to equivalent actions in reality (an example of such would be acting out a stabbing motion upon a stage). Lastly the actions that you perform are primarily down to choice, though the root may be entrenched within that which you think or are, and this completes the hierarchy from the internal to the external.

The reason why I consider this to be important lies within my belief that the legal and political systems within many countries fail to recognize the above in their daily dealings. The result is that the conclusions which are reached are logically incomplete and sometimes even incompatible with society at large.

Example fields where this blind-sightedness strikes include the inequitable treatment of different sexes, races, sexual orientations, marital statuses,political orientations, religions and more, within the context of identical circumstances. Likewise this same blind-sightedness applies to the loading of certain forms of deviance against other forms of deviances.

This aside, if one were to take the adjectives to be, to think, to express and to do, and were to throw each into the context of representing different grades of rights, then one would end up with a very simple, conservative yet liberal and also effective means of evaluating and comparing the conflicting interests that can make up some of the more profound of dilemmas. For example, is it wrong for one human to kill another? Why or why not? Do traditional instructions of indoctrination provide ourselves with a reason better than ‘because it is written in this text’ or ‘because the other person has the right to live’? The later statement is by far more credible a response than any variant of ‘because X says so’ but would we be able to explain this effectively or would we get caught within indefinite loops of ‘because’?

Through the acceptance of a certain hierarchy in the different degrees of rights and the use of such as a logical tool in the quantification and assessment of ethical questions one may find that the result would be a social fabric of greater consistency and with fewer elements of hypocrisy than that which more traditional legal concerns provide.