The Real Tao
Among the mainline religions on the Earth, to me one of the most valid is Taoism, because it manages to state truths without relying on faith. In fact, the concept of truth itself is shown to be faulty at the foundation, with an example being "What is the truth value of 'This Sentence is False.'?". But the truth that has impressed me so far in Taoism is this one:
"The tao that can be talked about is not the Real Tao."
In other words, if you have a concept of god, the ultimate reality, atah or the like, then you have conceived that concept, and for that reason, the concept you have conceived, limited to the confines of your finite brain, is not the Real God, Ultimate Reality, Allah, or the like. This is just another way of stating my "Just Add One." principle: if you have conceived of ultimate reality, then you can find more reality beyond your concept. This implies that the god that is talked about in Christian churches is not the Real God, if indeed there is one. The cosmic consciousness that you imagine envelopes all living creatures and all existence is not the Real Cosmic Consciousness, and so forth.
But these concern concepts that are "way out there". How about down to Earth concepts? It is true there too! This is because the only way you know an object in our universe is through your brain and your senses, and what these have for the object is not the real object. Therefore we can substitute many other concepts for Tao in the principle. Just about everything is a Tao. For example:
The tao that can be spoken of is not the Real Tao.
The decision you are about to make is not the Real Decision.
The job you currently have is not your Ideal Job.
The partner that you currently are married to or are living with is not your Ideal Partner.
The dog that you can pet is not the Real Dog.
The cat that you own and love is not your Ideal Cat.
The investments that you have made are not your Real Investments.
The fourth turning that can be predicted is not the Real Fourth Turning. (Strauss and Howe state in their book that the events of a Fourth Turning often can't be anticipated in advance.)
The axis of evil that is referred to in speeches by important government officials is not the Real Axis of Evil.
The stock market upturn (or downturn) that you see on the TV station or the newspaper is not the Real Stock Market Upturn (or Downturn).
The hubbert's peak that is observed (for example, the oil production peak of 2000) is not the Real Hubbert's Peak.
The function that can be integrated is not The Real Function. (But it can be approximated. Sarah Voss, creator of Pizine said once that God is a definite integral.)
The religion that is celebrated on the Sabbath is not the True Religion.
The duck that you just shot is not the Real Duck - it is only a decoy.
So duck hunters can learn something from the principles of Taoism - that since they can never catch The True Duck, they might as well give up and let these poor birds live. The Whatever that resulted in all of us being here saw fit to give life to them.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/08/30
2003/08/29
Hurricane Coming?
I heard on the news recently that a tropical wave way out in the Atlantic has become Tropical Storm Fabian, and just tonight it became Hurricane Fabian. It is way out to sea but I want to see if it would affect where I am living (in central Virginia). So I checked the hurricane sites such as Weather Underground's site. It shows the future track of the tropical storm for a few days and shows that it will skirt north of the Caribbean islands, such as the Leeward Islands. But that's not far enough. I want to know if it will hit the mainland United States, and if so, where. There are two sources of this. I tried the Global Forecasting System first. I checked it two days ago and it said that Fabian, which I suppose will become a major hurricane, will hit Miami, then go in the Gulf and hit Fort Walton Beach, Florida, then go off to the northwest and peter out and not affect central Virginia. I checked it again today. The forecast has changed. The 384-hour forecast shows that Fabian will approach Florida, turn up to the north, strike the Wilmington, NC area and make a direct hit on central Virginia. We hardly need this here in Virginia. We have had enough rain this year, and a 6-10 inch deluge, which is what this storm would produce, would cause massive flooding all over the place. I also checked Gary Gray's discussion and he says it may come up the Eastern seaboard, saying that the GFS scenario has Fabian first "taunting Florida" then "slamming hard into the Carolinas". But he notes that there are other models that take it out to sea, and still others that cause it to go poof midsea, sort of like Debby did near Hispaniola in 2001.
I will be monitoring this storm carefully. The local news media don't mention it much at all, and it could conceivably go another way. But it seems like it is going to become another Fran or Floyd. Watch out for those F storms, those storms that have an f-word for their name, such as Fabian. By the way, these links are likely going to become different or invalid in a few days.
I heard on the news recently that a tropical wave way out in the Atlantic has become Tropical Storm Fabian, and just tonight it became Hurricane Fabian. It is way out to sea but I want to see if it would affect where I am living (in central Virginia). So I checked the hurricane sites such as Weather Underground's site. It shows the future track of the tropical storm for a few days and shows that it will skirt north of the Caribbean islands, such as the Leeward Islands. But that's not far enough. I want to know if it will hit the mainland United States, and if so, where. There are two sources of this. I tried the Global Forecasting System first. I checked it two days ago and it said that Fabian, which I suppose will become a major hurricane, will hit Miami, then go in the Gulf and hit Fort Walton Beach, Florida, then go off to the northwest and peter out and not affect central Virginia. I checked it again today. The forecast has changed. The 384-hour forecast shows that Fabian will approach Florida, turn up to the north, strike the Wilmington, NC area and make a direct hit on central Virginia. We hardly need this here in Virginia. We have had enough rain this year, and a 6-10 inch deluge, which is what this storm would produce, would cause massive flooding all over the place. I also checked Gary Gray's discussion and he says it may come up the Eastern seaboard, saying that the GFS scenario has Fabian first "taunting Florida" then "slamming hard into the Carolinas". But he notes that there are other models that take it out to sea, and still others that cause it to go poof midsea, sort of like Debby did near Hispaniola in 2001.
I will be monitoring this storm carefully. The local news media don't mention it much at all, and it could conceivably go another way. But it seems like it is going to become another Fran or Floyd. Watch out for those F storms, those storms that have an f-word for their name, such as Fabian. By the way, these links are likely going to become different or invalid in a few days.
2003/08/26
If the other shoe fits. . .
I like mixing up slogans, such as "It's an ill wind that spoils the broth." Today I was thinking about shoes. I thought about the slogan, "If the shoe fits, wear it". So I decided to Googolize™ it. I Googled for "If the shoe fits, * it" -wear. I got for the asterisk such words as design, sell, buy, and even steal and f**k, the famous f-word which I don't spell in full to avoid getting this blog filtered out. One of the more interesting ones was If the shoe fits, bang it. Guess who that's attributed to? Former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, banging his really big shoe at the UN in 1960, that's who.
But then I thought of another slogan "waiting for the other shoe to drop".. So I tried "the other * to drop *quot; -shoe . Minusing out shoe eliminated 90% of the hits. I got things like the other contributors to drop, also side, end, and player. The most interesting ones were foot(If the shoe drops, why not drop the entire rest of the foot as well?) and bomb.
But I like best combining the two slogans to get "If the other shoe fits, drop it". It's perhaps a description of acquiring an unwanted skill, causing you to get deployed to an undesirable place or causing Dobson syndrome. This slogan then says when offered the opportunity to learn an unwanted skill, don't.
I like mixing up slogans, such as "It's an ill wind that spoils the broth." Today I was thinking about shoes. I thought about the slogan, "If the shoe fits, wear it". So I decided to Googolize™ it. I Googled for "If the shoe fits, * it" -wear. I got for the asterisk such words as design, sell, buy, and even steal and f**k, the famous f-word which I don't spell in full to avoid getting this blog filtered out. One of the more interesting ones was If the shoe fits, bang it. Guess who that's attributed to? Former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, banging his really big shoe at the UN in 1960, that's who.
But then I thought of another slogan "waiting for the other shoe to drop".. So I tried "the other * to drop *quot; -shoe . Minusing out shoe eliminated 90% of the hits. I got things like the other contributors to drop, also side, end, and player. The most interesting ones were foot(If the shoe drops, why not drop the entire rest of the foot as well?) and bomb.
But I like best combining the two slogans to get "If the other shoe fits, drop it". It's perhaps a description of acquiring an unwanted skill, causing you to get deployed to an undesirable place or causing Dobson syndrome. This slogan then says when offered the opportunity to learn an unwanted skill, don't.
Mars
Well, here it is, folks. Mars comes closer to us than at any time in the past 60,000 years or so. This is going to attract a lot of people out to see the sky. The media have really hyped this one up. Sure, it comes closer than at any time in the past 60,000 years, but it came almost as close in 1971 and 1988. It came close in 1956, which I remember well, as my parents took me to a skywatch at my school then, when I was 10 years old. I saw several planets, including Mars, through telescopes. It is closer in 2003 but by only a few thousand miles. This is because Mars' perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) has been getting closer and closer to the Sun the past few years, probably because of perturbations from other planets, especially Earth and Jupiter. This can't go on forever; it has to oscillate, else Mars at one time would have been really far out; it would have been at Jupiter's orbit where it would have eventually gotten too close to Jupiter and thrown out of the solar system. So eventually the close approaches will get farther apart again.
Further, there is misinformation out there by the media. Tonight I see that in a side box on a CNN story, CNN says
WHERE IS MARS?
The red planet is now in the constellation Aquarius.
Most viewers can see it in the southeast in the hours after sunset.
By midnight, it will be high overhead.
Before sunrise, it will dip toward the southwestern horizon.
At midnight it will not be overhead, or anywhere near it, except for people in the Southern hemisphere. When Mars comes closest to us at perihelion, it is always in the southern sky, and so it does not get very high. It gets only halfway up in southern Florida, and it may not even clear the trees and houses in places to the north, such as Canada and Minnesota. This is unfortunate, because that makes it harder to see Mars. In any case, CNN should not be stating point blank that it is going to be high.
I have seen the planet several times, with the naked eye and with an 8-inch-aperture telescope, and I have taken a picture of it, which I will put on my astronomy page soon. I find the best way to take a picture of it is to use an extender that allows me to put an eyepiece between the camera and the telescope. I used a 9.7-inch Plössl eyepiece. I probably will take more pictures and view it more, now that it is easily visible in the evening sky; up to now it required waking up in the middle of the night.
Well, here it is, folks. Mars comes closer to us than at any time in the past 60,000 years or so. This is going to attract a lot of people out to see the sky. The media have really hyped this one up. Sure, it comes closer than at any time in the past 60,000 years, but it came almost as close in 1971 and 1988. It came close in 1956, which I remember well, as my parents took me to a skywatch at my school then, when I was 10 years old. I saw several planets, including Mars, through telescopes. It is closer in 2003 but by only a few thousand miles. This is because Mars' perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) has been getting closer and closer to the Sun the past few years, probably because of perturbations from other planets, especially Earth and Jupiter. This can't go on forever; it has to oscillate, else Mars at one time would have been really far out; it would have been at Jupiter's orbit where it would have eventually gotten too close to Jupiter and thrown out of the solar system. So eventually the close approaches will get farther apart again.
Further, there is misinformation out there by the media. Tonight I see that in a side box on a CNN story, CNN says
WHERE IS MARS?
The red planet is now in the constellation Aquarius.
Most viewers can see it in the southeast in the hours after sunset.
By midnight, it will be high overhead.
Before sunrise, it will dip toward the southwestern horizon.
At midnight it will not be overhead, or anywhere near it, except for people in the Southern hemisphere. When Mars comes closest to us at perihelion, it is always in the southern sky, and so it does not get very high. It gets only halfway up in southern Florida, and it may not even clear the trees and houses in places to the north, such as Canada and Minnesota. This is unfortunate, because that makes it harder to see Mars. In any case, CNN should not be stating point blank that it is going to be high.
I have seen the planet several times, with the naked eye and with an 8-inch-aperture telescope, and I have taken a picture of it, which I will put on my astronomy page soon. I find the best way to take a picture of it is to use an extender that allows me to put an eyepiece between the camera and the telescope. I used a 9.7-inch Plössl eyepiece. I probably will take more pictures and view it more, now that it is easily visible in the evening sky; up to now it required waking up in the middle of the night.
2003/08/24
The 1965 Principle
A lot of statements have been made about this blackout that the Northeast recently had. For example, this is the worst blackout this nation has ever had. This blackout disrupted the lives of 50 million (figure is hyped up; see my previous blog). The blackout is a sign of things that could come. And I myself said that this is a precursor to shortages of oil, electricity, and natural gas.
However, a lot of these claims are hyped up or are bogus. How can you tell? Apply the 1965 principle: Any statement that is made about the blackout that occurred this year must also be true about the 1965 November 9 blackout. These two blackouts were near twins of each other. A local problem happened somewhere, and it spread all over the place in the Northeast, causing the lack of electricity to between 20 and 30 million people, in both 1965 and 2003. So any statement that is true about one is likely to be true of the other.
For example, this blackout may not be a foreboding of things to come. Sure there is an oil shortage coming around 2010, a natural gas shortage next year, and an electrical shortage coming in 2005. But how can the blackout of 2003 be a precursor of these when the blackout of 1965 clearly was not? In 1965 there was plenty of electrical power, oil, and natural gas. Sure the 2003 blackout may cause people to take a look at these other problems; in that case, I am glad that it occurred. But the 2003 blackout has nothing to do with these problems, because otherwise the 1965 blackout would have been followed by the same problems.
People acted courteously and civilly at this blackout. That’s OK. They did in 1965 as well. But this can’t be said to be because of Planeattack on 2001 September 11 or the events that followed that awful day, because there was no such event before the 1965 blackout; I don’t think the Kennedy assassination qualifies. It is said that this blackout means that we have a Third World transmission system. Be careful when you say that. That implies that we had a Third World transmission system in 1965, which says that we have done absolutely nothing about it in the 38 years since then.
I think that one reason why people make these blithe statements without taking 1965 into account is that many people, including many of the hypermedia, were not even born in 1965, or were kids who were more concerned about Tinkertoys and Mickey Mouse than about power generation. Those of us who were adults in 1965 know what happened then, and can appreciate how similar this blackout was to that one.
I still think we have problems ahead. But don’t believe it when you hear hype in the media about the Great Blackout of 2003 that doesn’t take 1965 into account.
A lot of statements have been made about this blackout that the Northeast recently had. For example, this is the worst blackout this nation has ever had. This blackout disrupted the lives of 50 million (figure is hyped up; see my previous blog). The blackout is a sign of things that could come. And I myself said that this is a precursor to shortages of oil, electricity, and natural gas.
However, a lot of these claims are hyped up or are bogus. How can you tell? Apply the 1965 principle: Any statement that is made about the blackout that occurred this year must also be true about the 1965 November 9 blackout. These two blackouts were near twins of each other. A local problem happened somewhere, and it spread all over the place in the Northeast, causing the lack of electricity to between 20 and 30 million people, in both 1965 and 2003. So any statement that is true about one is likely to be true of the other.
For example, this blackout may not be a foreboding of things to come. Sure there is an oil shortage coming around 2010, a natural gas shortage next year, and an electrical shortage coming in 2005. But how can the blackout of 2003 be a precursor of these when the blackout of 1965 clearly was not? In 1965 there was plenty of electrical power, oil, and natural gas. Sure the 2003 blackout may cause people to take a look at these other problems; in that case, I am glad that it occurred. But the 2003 blackout has nothing to do with these problems, because otherwise the 1965 blackout would have been followed by the same problems.
People acted courteously and civilly at this blackout. That’s OK. They did in 1965 as well. But this can’t be said to be because of Planeattack on 2001 September 11 or the events that followed that awful day, because there was no such event before the 1965 blackout; I don’t think the Kennedy assassination qualifies. It is said that this blackout means that we have a Third World transmission system. Be careful when you say that. That implies that we had a Third World transmission system in 1965, which says that we have done absolutely nothing about it in the 38 years since then.
I think that one reason why people make these blithe statements without taking 1965 into account is that many people, including many of the hypermedia, were not even born in 1965, or were kids who were more concerned about Tinkertoys and Mickey Mouse than about power generation. Those of us who were adults in 1965 know what happened then, and can appreciate how similar this blackout was to that one.
I still think we have problems ahead. But don’t believe it when you hear hype in the media about the Great Blackout of 2003 that doesn’t take 1965 into account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)