Trivial topics, Philosophical perspectives, Deep issues that are beyond mainstream thought...
Yes, Poltics and Science are interrelated and in many ways forgotten as to what we have in regards to social construct and order within our own contextual environment.
Awhile back I began to question the order of effectiveness and efficiency of such methods of providing social construct and order within an organization, institution, and Nation states such as the U.S. Even the great Greek Philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) did not believe democracy would be entirely effective. I began to question the very fabric that Nations were built on - ideologies and methods. What I did not understand was first the difference between an ideology, a method, variations of these methods, and cross functional similarities between other disciplines such as science. These differentiators can be extensive but just as meaning has its place in context, context has its variables that can be altered to formulate a new way of seeing meaning. Is science any different? ....and wouldn't ideology just be one of the many variables within context that could change and make that ideology significant or insignificant?
Passion, inquietude, disappointment, expectations, romanticism, solitude and a strong need to escape reality, a mediocre, bourgeois and above all an unhappy reality.
Revealing a pure nihilism and an abyss from which she couldn't escape. This is the story of Emma Bovary, also known as, “Madame Bovary” the name of the French author Flaubert's masterpiece, that scandalized the bourgeois society of the 19th century because of its explicit content. Emma was a young woman, who spent her whole childhood nourishing her soul with romantic novels that eventually molded her mind to have expectations of a wonderful life.
“I, Tschuang Tse, dreamt once, I was a butterfly, flying here and there
looking for and searching for things that a butterfly would do. I only knew
that I was following my moods as butterfly and was unaware of my being
a human being. All of a sudden I awoke up from my dream; there I lay: again
Now I don't know: was I there a man who was dreaming
he was a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly dreaming it
is a man? Between man and butterfly lies a barrier.
To transcend it is called transformation. “
Tschuang Tse was a chinese thinker of the fourth century; he belonged to the Daoist philosophy, also known as Taoism, wich influenced the Eastern Asia for more than two millennia.
The butterfly's aphorism, expresses the relation between dream and reality, an interdependent relation in wich two worlds combine and influence each other.
The dream vanishes in reality and reality vanishes in dream. Tschuang Tse asks himself what is real...if he is a butterfly dreaming of being a man or if he is a man dreaming of being a butterfly.
The relation man-butterfly clearly expresses the duality of nature, which comes from the higher principle that originated everything - also known as the Tao.
According to the Taoist philosophy, the Tao originated the ying and the yang that represent the opposition and at the same time the influence between things, like good and bad, day and night, hot and cold, dream and reality.
All the elements that apparently are opposite, according to Taoism are actually the same thing. Their apparent opposition is caused only by man's perception that aims to classify them as opposites.
Dualism is only an illusion because all the elements are actually equivalent and belong to the same reality.
Therefore day and night, good and bad, man and woman, all things are not really opposites, but each flows in the other and vice versa.
In Tschuang Tse's aphorism: no priority belongs to the waking existence, reality could be a dream or what we see when we are awake, or rather a butterfly or a man.
Coming to a conclusion by analysing Tscheng's words in a taoist point of view I would say that since things are not opposite...a butterfly is a man and a man is a butterfly as well as dream is reality and reality is a dream.
Therefore instead of trying to understand what is the true reality, we should just accept that they are the two sides of the same thing since reality is only one.
The September 2010 Scientific American Mind edition has an article called, "Inside the Mind of a Psychopath." I had to buy it as well as shed some light on what makes a Psychopath tick.
This is what I found...
After interviewing hundreds of prison inmates to assess their mental health, some observations were made.
As a student of both American and international studies as well as a person brought up between both American and Asian schools of thought (Western and Asian philosophy), I always have been interested in fully understanding the world or worlds we live in. In many cases our ground foundation here in the United States has been built on many variations of western philosophy. Even our great schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) have been built on the model of Plato's first school "Akademia." In which Plato (and his disciples) would find the best and the brightest and teach them the most modern advancements of philosophy in order to prepare them for great positions in society. How did Plato know who would be the best and the brightest?
As the definitions of "smart" as well as people we see as having potential shifts as the world changes I would like to bring a little known fact that indeed brings me to dig all the way back to the ancient Greek philosophers. In many ways, "we have to know where we came from in order to know where we are going." The definition of "educated" around the early days of Socrates (even before Socrates) was if a person had a great depth of knowledge of such epic poems as the Illiad and the Odyssey. During these days it was indeed the wealthy that possessed this knowledge. This knowledge led great generals and politicians to seek epic glory in exploration and adventure, which was in fact very similar to stories that these epic poems portrayed. Seems to me that this knowledge helped propel the type of thought needed to advance Greece as arguably the first democracy in the western world; a knowledge that cultivated such great minds as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Now I question our direction of education and even our understanding of what we have built centuries of western thought on.
Current computer technology allows users to think about making physical movements to control a cursor on a screen. Instead, the new technology Intel is working on will be capable of directly interpreting words as they are thought. This new technology could allow people to dictate letters and search the Internet simply by thinking.
Scientists at Intel are creating detailed maps of the activity in the brain for individual words that can then be matched against the brain activity of someone using the computer, allowing the machine to determine the word they are thinking.
Much like the childhood game of 20 questions, the technology uses a form of 20 questions to narrow down what the word the user is thinking of. Some projected capabilities will allow users to write letters, open emails or do Internet searches just by thinking. This will undoubtedly change user interfaces to allow people to interact with computers faster and more efficiently than ever.