?

Log in

No account? Create an account
novembre 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

le 12 octobre 2019


I have always found it odd that scientists conclude that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and yet they maintain that it all began in one gigantic bang.  If the universe is in fact expanding faster and faster, then wouldn't it be far more likely that it all began in a slow burn?  Well, they believe the universe is expanding in this way because of their adherence to the idea of red shift describing acceleration, rather than distance itself, as perturbed by a different kind of gravity - (perhaps gravity as a "repulsive force").  Based on their assumption, they are forced to come up the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, things they cannot see, but have faith are there, as scientists once believed in the Ether.  It's the same old mistake, all over again.  I am sure they will come up with measurements proving these surreal forces.  But, I would still maintain: only as an alternative to other possibilities than a big bang.  I think various versions are compatible, depending on your perspective.   But to insist only on one big bang, well, that is as narcissistic as claiming there is one god and nothing else.  All other believers be damned.

And it isn't theology which has me taking this stance.  There are big bangs happening all over the current universe, and there are all sorts of other extreme phenomena, and there are universes beyond our own.  So what is this fixation on a single big bang?  I would give hearing to anyone who also maintained that the world began not in a bang but in a whisper.  Makes at least as much sense to me.  The universe is mainly cold - and raise your hand if you've ever woken up in the morning hearing the sun roaring?  And, speaking of theology, wasn't it the bible which said that, in the beginning was the word, not the bang?  lol.  Jeez, what is this, some kind of competitive space race?  On your marks.  Get set.  Go!

Is that how the WTC was built?

Is that how a baby is born?

I recently viewd the movie, "Birdman," (2014).  It is a very good movie, which I gave a B-, if I remember correctly.  Too bad I don't do many movie reviews anymore.  Well, the full title of this movie is, "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)."

Today, I was paging through my Morrissey / Smiths tag, (recommended!), and I found a 2011 entry, entitled, "on the necessity of ignoring reality." It's an entry worth reading again.

I just thought the similarity was interesting.  Both titles are basically saying and meaning the same thing.  You need ignorance to get you through reality.  It is a relatively unique idea.  I put it into the Noosphere in 2011, and it came back in a 2014 film.  More or less. I've seen that sort of thing happen several times. Whether some idea was stolen, inspired directly, inspired obscurely, or shared psychically - this is something we often can never really figure out. I have seen people say or do things, thinking themselves completely original, when I could actually see the external stimuli which were triggering their reactions or trains of thought. Yet even Pavlov's dogs were acting willfully. It's all the same thing, really. Life, by hook or by crook.

A local music radio-show almost always features terrible lead singers, sometimes fronting pretty good bands. I am now listening to a not-so-great band being lead by a guy with excellent pitch and falsetto - a low country sort of voice. Band: "The Bare Handbones," or something. Show is via WNIJ - NOT YET POSTED - https://www.northernpublicradio.org/topic/sessions-studio.


Staffordshire figures were smallish art pieces made in England, using earthware, ceramic, lead, tortoiseshell, creamware, pearlware and/or paint, especially in the 19th century.


1 - 'Perswaition group' Staffordshire piece
2 - Glass piece entitled "Persuasion", 1809
3 - Arbour Staffordshire, 1750

It is argued that #2 (1809) inspired #1 (date uncertain), and the resemblance is strong.  Thus,, #1 must not have been inspired by Jane Austen's later, 1817 novel, 'Persuasion'.  Looking at #3, dated 1750, we can see that this theme of persuasion was not too different to earlier pieces depicting an arbour romance.  I would like to imagine that Austen's novel itself was inspired by the likes of #1.  Perhaps a figure she knew as a child or younger woman.  I think it would be fitting that the novel, 'Persuasion', would have been inspired by the likes of number one, (with spelling corrected), because Saffordshire figures themselves were emblematic of a rising middle class, becoming able to both make and purchase art and decorations.  Austen, especially in 'Persuasion', illustrated strains of class difference of that time.  Apparently, Stafforshire figures spanned from at least around 1740 to 1860.

View illustrious Wiki page.

View site devoted to Stafforshires.

Note: I actually had to correct the spelling of persuasion in Wikipedia, (from pursuasion), precisely where the text was discussing the (perswaition) misspelling of persuasion(!)

Journée précédente  Journée suivante