5.07.2007
The Atlantis Conspiracy
Having been raised by a conspiracy theorist, I admit to being interested in some of the various theories that I read about. (And I am fully aware that my brain has become wired to look for conspiracies, even if I'm not a full-fledged conspiracy theorist.) So I was intrigued by this press release:
The website is quite thorough. This is no casual speculation; rather it's a fully formed hypothesis. For example, if Atlantis was actually the Americas, why did everyone assume Atlantis had sunk? The author of this theory suggests that a tsunami hit as the Atlantis army was driven back into the ocean. Then, when sailors tried to find Atlantis after the tsunami, they came across a shoal of mud and thought it was the debris from Atlantis and assumed the continent had sunk. They did not go around the shoal of mud to investigate further. Okay, that explanation seems like a sound speculation to me.
I admit, however, that the idea of a war between Athens and Atlantis seems far-fetched to me if Atlantis was actually the Americas; heck of a long way to go for war (in those days). And I'm not sure how the people of Atlantis would be connected to Native American tribes, but perhaps I just need to read more to find that explanation. So, as usual, I am sceptical but intrigued. Check out the website and let me know what you think about this one.
Atlantis Was a Real Place, the Americas
The kingdom of Atlantis included North, South, and Central America. It was divided into ten countries or kingdoms and each country had its own King. One of the kingdoms was also called Atlantis. The King of Atlantis was the ruler over the other nine Kingdoms. The first ruler of the Kingdom was called Atlas. This is how Atlantis got its name.
The royal city of the kingdom was located within the country of Atlantis. Within the royal city there was a royal palace. Originally, three different moats surrounded the royal palace. Plato referred to the moat formation as three zones of water and two zones of land.
As time went by they covered over the moats and cut three canals through the peninsula on which the royal palace was located. The construction of the canals divided the peninsula and formed two triangular shaped islands. The island that held the royal palace was called Atlantis. That is why Atlantis is referred to as a continent, and city, and an island.
Read the short version of Plato’s story at www.atlantiskingdom.com to learn more about Atlantis and the Americas. Then read Plato’s Timaeus and Critias to get the complete story.
I have matched the terrain features that Plato wrote about with present terrain features found in the Tampa Bay area. Research shows that Plato described Harbour Island as the small island of Atlantis. You will find that Plato recorded and published the story just as it was told. He even recorded the discussions leading up to the story. You will also notice several obvious mistakes made in translating the story from Egyptian to Greek and from Greek to English. The biggest mistake occurred when travelers came upon a shoal of mud and thought it was left over from the sunken island. They were wrong. The continent of Atlantis did not sink.
You are invited to review the facts to see for yourself that the Americas, from South America to Alaska were once the kingdom of Atlantis, a single nation. The land formation is still laid out the same as it was over 11,000 years ago. It is best viewed from the air. See image.
Source: Dennis Brooks
www.atlantiskingdom.com
The website is quite thorough. This is no casual speculation; rather it's a fully formed hypothesis. For example, if Atlantis was actually the Americas, why did everyone assume Atlantis had sunk? The author of this theory suggests that a tsunami hit as the Atlantis army was driven back into the ocean. Then, when sailors tried to find Atlantis after the tsunami, they came across a shoal of mud and thought it was the debris from Atlantis and assumed the continent had sunk. They did not go around the shoal of mud to investigate further. Okay, that explanation seems like a sound speculation to me.
I admit, however, that the idea of a war between Athens and Atlantis seems far-fetched to me if Atlantis was actually the Americas; heck of a long way to go for war (in those days). And I'm not sure how the people of Atlantis would be connected to Native American tribes, but perhaps I just need to read more to find that explanation. So, as usual, I am sceptical but intrigued. Check out the website and let me know what you think about this one.
Labels: education, philosophy, weird stuff
4.13.2007
Manifest Destiny
When I went to hear Robert Sawyer talk, he said that time travel was one of the big sci-fi concepts that would never be feasible. His excuse was partly the grandfather paradox and partly that things like the Holocaust would never have happened if someone could go back in time to prevent it. Well, the grandfather paradox is an oversimplified analogy that I'll never buy as a scientific explanation. As for the second point, changing history would be a tricky business. How do we know that some time traveller didn't attempt to change something and just made everything worse instead of better?
My point? I have a hard time accepting in my logical brain that time travel will ever be reality, but I'll defend the notion of it because it appeals to me and I want to believe in it.
So why am I rambling on about scepticism and beliefs? Because I was just reading about the Dream Manifestation Wizard that claims to offer an exact scientific method to manifesting all of your dreams. My very first reaction was Holy New Age-ness, Batman. But then I read a little bit more and thought a little bit more and was intrigued.
While I was listening to the audio clip, I remembered the sports psychology seminars that I used to take when I was competing with my horse in Three Day Events. Visualizing yourself in each phase of the competition, imagining how it would feel to do everything to the best of your ability, picturing yourself clearing every fence or executing the perfect 20 metre circle. I am a firm believer in everything I learned in those seminars and wasn't that really just another way of manifesting dreams?
And then I thought of my cousin, who said that she thought about exactly what she wanted in a romantic partner and "put it out into the universe." She's currently with the person who truly manifests all of those qualities that she wanted. Mind you, she forgot to specify that she was looking for a man. But she and her girlfriend are very happy!
So I decided to be open to what the website had to say. And wouldn't you know it, they paraphrased my guru, R. Buckminster Fuller, saying that 99.9% of all science in the 20th century was invisible to our five senses. (For those of you in the peanut gallery, the exact quote is: "Now in 1969, 99.9 per cent of the accelerating accelerations of the physical environment changes effecting all humanity’s evolution are transpiring in the realms of the electromagnetic spectrum realities which are undetectable directly by the human senses." From Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.)
Then the website went on to talk about paradigm shifts, which I recently jotted a note about in my faithful notebook that travels everywhere with me... how one of my fundamental themes as a filmmaker is new perspectives and paradigm shifts. Now that little coincidence may not seem like much to you, but I'm rather fascinated by the synchronicity of all this. So yes, I am intrigued by the Quantum Method to manifest my life dreams. I wonder what magic this Wizard might work for me.
Labels: math and science, philosophy
1.31.2007
The Naked Truth
I went and got a couple of my tattoos touched up yesterday afternoon. And I remembered that I had promised to post the genesis of my most recent tattoo:
The tattoo is a tribal sun with the Hebrew letters for Truth in the centre. I had long decided that I wanted some sort of tribal sun on the small of my back, but I needed to decide what I wanted it to represent and what design elements to add to it to make it personal to me.
Around this time, my mother was updating my astrological chart after we ordered my official birth certificate which I needed to apply for my Métis card, and discovered that the time on my certificate was slightly different than the time that my mother had previously used for my chart.
Anyway, it turns out that I have a whole bunch of planets in Virgo in my ninth house, which apparently has to do with our search for meaning, and having four planets in that house meant my search was central in my life. I read some more and I thought about things, one of them being the common themes that I have seen emerging in my scripts: "What is real?" And as everything connected in my brain, I realized that my particular search for meaning is a search for Truth. Which is when I decided to have the word Truth tattooed in Hebrew in the middle of the sun.
Now this is when things got a little freaky. Because my mother had recently told me the story of when she was young and studying acting in New York and feeling rather alone and vulnerable. Her friend Jeremiah (Hebrew scholar, drama critic and mentor) suggested that she needed a protective word, a word in Hebrew where she could visualize the letters surrounding her in a circle of protection. My mother's word was amet, spelled with the letters aleph, mem and tav, which are the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
So there I was, surfing the internet, looking for the Hebrew word for Truth and I discovered that it's amet… my mother's protective word from the beginning of her artistic career. So I thought it was even more perfect to use in a tattoo that I want to represent the future of my artistic career. Truth.
The tattoo is a tribal sun with the Hebrew letters for Truth in the centre. I had long decided that I wanted some sort of tribal sun on the small of my back, but I needed to decide what I wanted it to represent and what design elements to add to it to make it personal to me.
Around this time, my mother was updating my astrological chart after we ordered my official birth certificate which I needed to apply for my Métis card, and discovered that the time on my certificate was slightly different than the time that my mother had previously used for my chart.
Anyway, it turns out that I have a whole bunch of planets in Virgo in my ninth house, which apparently has to do with our search for meaning, and having four planets in that house meant my search was central in my life. I read some more and I thought about things, one of them being the common themes that I have seen emerging in my scripts: "What is real?" And as everything connected in my brain, I realized that my particular search for meaning is a search for Truth. Which is when I decided to have the word Truth tattooed in Hebrew in the middle of the sun.
Now this is when things got a little freaky. Because my mother had recently told me the story of when she was young and studying acting in New York and feeling rather alone and vulnerable. Her friend Jeremiah (Hebrew scholar, drama critic and mentor) suggested that she needed a protective word, a word in Hebrew where she could visualize the letters surrounding her in a circle of protection. My mother's word was amet, spelled with the letters aleph, mem and tav, which are the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
So there I was, surfing the internet, looking for the Hebrew word for Truth and I discovered that it's amet… my mother's protective word from the beginning of her artistic career. So I thought it was even more perfect to use in a tattoo that I want to represent the future of my artistic career. Truth.
Labels: judaism, philosophy, tattoos
12.19.2005
Quote of the Day
A question that sometimes drives me hazy:
Am I — or the others — crazy? ........................................................................................Albert Einstein
Labels: philosophy
4.06.2005
Doubleplusungood
Was watching last night's intro to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and was quite tickled by the segment about the latest report critiquing U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities (and the NY Times' use of the phrase "doody-headed nincompoopery"... one can't help but wonder if the decline in their vocabulary is the result of William Safire's retirement... but I digress). While pondering why the authors of this report didn't seem to have access to the three previous reports that reached the same conclusions, Stewart suggested that a new report would be issued to explain this lack of communication, entitled:
"The Report Commission:
Reporting on Reporting Redundancy on Commission Reporting"
>>> watch segment
Naturally, this made me think of the phrase "Department of Redundancy Department." (Did I mention that this was going to be one of those tangentially meandering blog posts?) And I started trying to figure out who first coined that phrase. I remember reading it in "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer, but I'm sure it was around before then. It almost sounds Orwellian but it's kinda the antithesis of the Newspeak in "1984," which is intended to simplify language to its barest, most essential parts rather than make it more complicated than it needs to be (hmm... complicated like my run-on sentences that spew verbosity at every turn). Ironically, the Newspeak translation of "extremely bad" into "doubleplusungood" actually sounds more complicated to me, even though its root words are simplistic. (By the way, check out this Complete Newspeak Dictionary.) But I'm digressing yet again. (Though how can one tell in such a tangent-based rambling?)
Now where was I? Oh yes, Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is to dehumanize language and discount the emotion behind complex constructions of words. So if a culture's language does not contain the word for a concept, will the people of that culture be unable to comprehend it? Apparently, some linguistic anthropologists seem to think so (one website that I stumbled across claimed that Noam Chomsky is one of them, but being more familiar with his anarchist politics than his lingustic theories, I can't vouch for that). Taken to its extreme: if no word for "suffering" exists, how can one appreciate that they are, indeed, suffering? Likewise, how can an oppressed people rebel if they do not understand what "to rebel" means?
Hmm, interesting idea. But I counter with Buffy creator Joss Whedon's claim that language can sometimes have the effect of inhibiting true communication. (Have you seen the Emmy-nominated Buffy episode "Hush"? The majority of the episode is completely without dialogue and what little dialogue there is at the beginning and end of the show focuses on speech and communication... very on theme.) Who was it who said that words conceal as much as they reveal? [Google search result: "Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within." ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE words (as anybody who reads my blog can attest). But I would argue that the hypothetical culture that doesn't have a word for suffering or rebellion will still suffer and rebel AND communicate about it. That communication may involve action or art instead of language, but the lack of a word doesn't prevent the intuitive thought. Does it? Or maybe I'm naive and uneducated and I just need to read more about the various theories of linguistics. And maybe that's more than enough inconclusive ramblings for today.
Reporting on Reporting Redundancy on Commission Reporting"
>>> watch segment
Naturally, this made me think of the phrase "Department of Redundancy Department." (Did I mention that this was going to be one of those tangentially meandering blog posts?) And I started trying to figure out who first coined that phrase. I remember reading it in "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer, but I'm sure it was around before then. It almost sounds Orwellian but it's kinda the antithesis of the Newspeak in "1984," which is intended to simplify language to its barest, most essential parts rather than make it more complicated than it needs to be (hmm... complicated like my run-on sentences that spew verbosity at every turn). Ironically, the Newspeak translation of "extremely bad" into "doubleplusungood" actually sounds more complicated to me, even though its root words are simplistic. (By the way, check out this Complete Newspeak Dictionary.) But I'm digressing yet again. (Though how can one tell in such a tangent-based rambling?)
Now where was I? Oh yes, Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is to dehumanize language and discount the emotion behind complex constructions of words. So if a culture's language does not contain the word for a concept, will the people of that culture be unable to comprehend it? Apparently, some linguistic anthropologists seem to think so (one website that I stumbled across claimed that Noam Chomsky is one of them, but being more familiar with his anarchist politics than his lingustic theories, I can't vouch for that). Taken to its extreme: if no word for "suffering" exists, how can one appreciate that they are, indeed, suffering? Likewise, how can an oppressed people rebel if they do not understand what "to rebel" means?
Hmm, interesting idea. But I counter with Buffy creator Joss Whedon's claim that language can sometimes have the effect of inhibiting true communication. (Have you seen the Emmy-nominated Buffy episode "Hush"? The majority of the episode is completely without dialogue and what little dialogue there is at the beginning and end of the show focuses on speech and communication... very on theme.) Who was it who said that words conceal as much as they reveal? [Google search result: "Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within." ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE words (as anybody who reads my blog can attest). But I would argue that the hypothetical culture that doesn't have a word for suffering or rebellion will still suffer and rebel AND communicate about it. That communication may involve action or art instead of language, but the lack of a word doesn't prevent the intuitive thought. Does it? Or maybe I'm naive and uneducated and I just need to read more about the various theories of linguistics. And maybe that's more than enough inconclusive ramblings for today.
Labels: books and literature, buffy, humour, jon stewart, language, philosophy, politics, tv
10.05.2004
I Believe...
"The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing" — Blaise Pascal
Was talking to my mother about the book I'm going to be writing during National Novel Writing Month (which reminds me, the NaNoWriMo website should be back up and running now... must go check in). So I was telling her the basic storyline and got to the bit about the main character tapping into her supernatural powers and my mother asked me where my concept of the supernatural comes from. Is it the Celtic paganism of my aunt on my dad's side of the family? Or the Native shamanism from my mother's side? And while I lean more towards the Celts, I realized that in my mind all religion—and to me that includes all belief in the supernatural—is water from a communal well. So whether it's witches or shamans, Christians or Jews, to me it all boils down to common mythic themes à la Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth.
This is my truth at this moment, anyway. An important disclaimer because my views on religion, spirituality, mythology and the supernatural seem to be in a constant state of flux. Adding to the confusion is the fact that I seem to have a distinction between things I actually believe and things that intrigue me and I kind of want to believe but don't really. (For example, when I was in grade 5 and studying Greek mythology, I was fascinated by the Greek gods. I didn't actually believe in them but I found myself wanting to believe in them. Very odd.) So I've been trying to figure out what I believe right now.
What I know I believe: The universe is too mathematically beautiful for me to be convinced that it's all just a random accident. (And I'm not using the teleological "argument from design" here... I'm not claiming that it is impossible for the universe to have organized itself that way without a "designer." I'm talking about the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics as a method for understanding the universe. And no, I don't buy the argument that mathematics is a human construct invented for this very purpose. Guess I'm just an old-fashioned Platonist at heart.)
What I think I believe: That there is an overall pattern to our lives that we would be able to see if we could see the big picture, but because our perspective is zoomed in so close, it appears random. (Intellectually, I recognize that believing "everything happens for a reason" may just be an easy rationalization, especially for people who have endured much suffering. It gives them a reason for their suffering; it doesn't matter that they don't yet know what that reason is. And it's certainly true that many people who survive tragedy or illness come to adopt such a belief. But I can't help but wonder if the truth lies in the flipside: that people who have endured suffering have learned to look at life differently and have glimpsed something that those untouched by tragedy may not yet see.)
What I want to believe: The philosophy of Judaism. (Since Judaism is the only religion that I was ever formally exposed to, I realize that it's natural to lean towards it when considering religious affiliation. But in my gut, I feel as though there's more to it than that. I seem to be somewhat chickenshit in following up on this, however, and I'm not sure if it's my reluctance to be involved with any organized religion or if some deeper fear is involved. Still working on this...)
What intrigues me even though I'm very sceptical: Supernatural phenomena and the paranormal. (Sure, I love Buffy and Charmed and all those shows, and I'll admit that they've got great entertainment value and perhaps that fuels my interest in this area. But I have experienced dreams and visions that make me wonder if there might not be something to the whole supernatural/paranormal thing, after all. So far, however, my scepticism is winning out on this one. But that could change...)
Was talking to my mother about the book I'm going to be writing during National Novel Writing Month (which reminds me, the NaNoWriMo website should be back up and running now... must go check in). So I was telling her the basic storyline and got to the bit about the main character tapping into her supernatural powers and my mother asked me where my concept of the supernatural comes from. Is it the Celtic paganism of my aunt on my dad's side of the family? Or the Native shamanism from my mother's side? And while I lean more towards the Celts, I realized that in my mind all religion—and to me that includes all belief in the supernatural—is water from a communal well. So whether it's witches or shamans, Christians or Jews, to me it all boils down to common mythic themes à la Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth.
This is my truth at this moment, anyway. An important disclaimer because my views on religion, spirituality, mythology and the supernatural seem to be in a constant state of flux. Adding to the confusion is the fact that I seem to have a distinction between things I actually believe and things that intrigue me and I kind of want to believe but don't really. (For example, when I was in grade 5 and studying Greek mythology, I was fascinated by the Greek gods. I didn't actually believe in them but I found myself wanting to believe in them. Very odd.) So I've been trying to figure out what I believe right now.
What I know I believe: The universe is too mathematically beautiful for me to be convinced that it's all just a random accident. (And I'm not using the teleological "argument from design" here... I'm not claiming that it is impossible for the universe to have organized itself that way without a "designer." I'm talking about the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics as a method for understanding the universe. And no, I don't buy the argument that mathematics is a human construct invented for this very purpose. Guess I'm just an old-fashioned Platonist at heart.)
What I think I believe: That there is an overall pattern to our lives that we would be able to see if we could see the big picture, but because our perspective is zoomed in so close, it appears random. (Intellectually, I recognize that believing "everything happens for a reason" may just be an easy rationalization, especially for people who have endured much suffering. It gives them a reason for their suffering; it doesn't matter that they don't yet know what that reason is. And it's certainly true that many people who survive tragedy or illness come to adopt such a belief. But I can't help but wonder if the truth lies in the flipside: that people who have endured suffering have learned to look at life differently and have glimpsed something that those untouched by tragedy may not yet see.)
What I want to believe: The philosophy of Judaism. (Since Judaism is the only religion that I was ever formally exposed to, I realize that it's natural to lean towards it when considering religious affiliation. But in my gut, I feel as though there's more to it than that. I seem to be somewhat chickenshit in following up on this, however, and I'm not sure if it's my reluctance to be involved with any organized religion or if some deeper fear is involved. Still working on this...)
What intrigues me even though I'm very sceptical: Supernatural phenomena and the paranormal. (Sure, I love Buffy and Charmed and all those shows, and I'll admit that they've got great entertainment value and perhaps that fuels my interest in this area. But I have experienced dreams and visions that make me wonder if there might not be something to the whole supernatural/paranormal thing, after all. So far, however, my scepticism is winning out on this one. But that could change...)
Labels: philosophy
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.weirdgrrl.ca/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed"){kind=small}
About Weirdgrrl
