4.29.2008
4.28.2008
Incomensurabilidade
Entre mim e ti jorra um oceano de incertezas. A sintonia é acomodada e fluída. Tudo se desenvolve como se não houvesse um fim, um ponto de não retorno. Tudo é imortal e imparável. Mas quando vês alguém na sua vida, num traço circunspecto, então a vida é uma ideia com data limite.
Entre ambos, tu e outra pessoa, existem recuos que não vês, aproximações que não são desejadas e acções das quais não se tem consciência. Existe-se existindo uma vida em constante existência. Um fluidez exacerbada pelas palavras, um rio calmo e terno na realidade. Mesmo na tragédia, nas trevas vistas pelos olhos quando olham para o fundo, tudo é harmoniosamente fluído. E isto não faz sentido nenhum. Não conseguimos perceber a realidade. Nós somos a realidade. Não é possível separar elementos, pois tudo existe na simultaneidade e nas diferenças que permitem decalcar o figure/ground que não é mais que um congelamento rápido. Dialogamos a níveis inauditos para os nossos sentidos, todos os corpos vibram e dialogam com os seus interlocutores. Sempre, sempre, sempre. Sem parar. Sem restrições. Sem absolvições. Nada pára. Nada pára. Tudo pára quando paramos para pensar. O nosso Mundo, o Mundo de tudo, reduz-se a inteligibilidade criadas por sensores que delimitam a compreensão da vida. Reduz-me o círculo, reduz-se mais um pouco, e pára-se. Assim poderás pensar sobre ti. Existir é uma ideia brilhante que nunca cessa e raras vezes se extingue. Existência é uma ideia de mármore. Fria. A vida um zoom constante de realidades que se extinguem, desenvolvem, afrouxam e aceleram. Um "estou aqui a existir e sou sei disto quando me percebo que existi ao dizer isto."
Entre ambos, tu e outra pessoa, existem recuos que não vês, aproximações que não são desejadas e acções das quais não se tem consciência. Existe-se existindo uma vida em constante existência. Um fluidez exacerbada pelas palavras, um rio calmo e terno na realidade. Mesmo na tragédia, nas trevas vistas pelos olhos quando olham para o fundo, tudo é harmoniosamente fluído. E isto não faz sentido nenhum. Não conseguimos perceber a realidade. Nós somos a realidade. Não é possível separar elementos, pois tudo existe na simultaneidade e nas diferenças que permitem decalcar o figure/ground que não é mais que um congelamento rápido. Dialogamos a níveis inauditos para os nossos sentidos, todos os corpos vibram e dialogam com os seus interlocutores. Sempre, sempre, sempre. Sem parar. Sem restrições. Sem absolvições. Nada pára. Nada pára. Tudo pára quando paramos para pensar. O nosso Mundo, o Mundo de tudo, reduz-se a inteligibilidade criadas por sensores que delimitam a compreensão da vida. Reduz-me o círculo, reduz-se mais um pouco, e pára-se. Assim poderás pensar sobre ti. Existir é uma ideia brilhante que nunca cessa e raras vezes se extingue. Existência é uma ideia de mármore. Fria. A vida um zoom constante de realidades que se extinguem, desenvolvem, afrouxam e aceleram. Um "estou aqui a existir e sou sei disto quando me percebo que existi ao dizer isto."
4.21.2008
Oh Finland!
Finnish Customs
Social standards vary from one country to another. Here are some specifically Finnish features:
* Punctuality is extremely important.
* Small talk is often avoided. Get to the point.
* Employers value initiative. You won't necessarily be shown how to do everything.
* Open chauvinism isn't acceptable. Women expect to be treated equally, and will for example offer to pay for their share of a date. Do, however, be courteous and hold doors open etc. But then again you might hold a door open for a man, too.
* Foreigners are treated with tolerance, and rules are relaxed anyway. You're not going to ruin your reputation by breaking a social norm here or there - it's built up over time.
* People in important positions will often be humble to the point of not even mentioning their title when introducing themselves, and you can usually address your superiors by first name. This doesn't mean they don't expect the appropriate level of respect, though.
* It is not customary to use a person's name unless you're trying to attract his attention or are referring to him. When greeting someone, a simple "Hi" is enough.
* Embracing is rare, nor should you usually perform other gestures, such as touching someone's shoulder while shaking hands. The handshake itself is short and firm.
* Children are usually placed in day care at a young age, allowing both parents a normal job. If one party stays at home, it can also be the father.
* Tipping is not necessary. Good service is expected by default, and waiters/taxi drivers should have a decent base salary. If the service is exceptional, you may want to tip anyway, but no one will be offended if you don't. Rounding the bill up by a small amount to avoid change is not interpreted as an insultingly small tip, but rather as a friendly gesture.
* You should ask permission before lighting a cigarette in the company of others, even in areas where smoking is obviously permitted.
* You're expected to leave your shoes at the door when entering private residences.
* You'll probably be invited to go to a sauna at some point. Don't be nervous about the nudity - no one cares.
Social standards vary from one country to another. Here are some specifically Finnish features:
* Punctuality is extremely important.
* Small talk is often avoided. Get to the point.
* Employers value initiative. You won't necessarily be shown how to do everything.
* Open chauvinism isn't acceptable. Women expect to be treated equally, and will for example offer to pay for their share of a date. Do, however, be courteous and hold doors open etc. But then again you might hold a door open for a man, too.
* Foreigners are treated with tolerance, and rules are relaxed anyway. You're not going to ruin your reputation by breaking a social norm here or there - it's built up over time.
* People in important positions will often be humble to the point of not even mentioning their title when introducing themselves, and you can usually address your superiors by first name. This doesn't mean they don't expect the appropriate level of respect, though.
* It is not customary to use a person's name unless you're trying to attract his attention or are referring to him. When greeting someone, a simple "Hi" is enough.
* Embracing is rare, nor should you usually perform other gestures, such as touching someone's shoulder while shaking hands. The handshake itself is short and firm.
* Children are usually placed in day care at a young age, allowing both parents a normal job. If one party stays at home, it can also be the father.
* Tipping is not necessary. Good service is expected by default, and waiters/taxi drivers should have a decent base salary. If the service is exceptional, you may want to tip anyway, but no one will be offended if you don't. Rounding the bill up by a small amount to avoid change is not interpreted as an insultingly small tip, but rather as a friendly gesture.
* You should ask permission before lighting a cigarette in the company of others, even in areas where smoking is obviously permitted.
* You're expected to leave your shoes at the door when entering private residences.
* You'll probably be invited to go to a sauna at some point. Don't be nervous about the nudity - no one cares.
4.15.2008
Existence- we will never die; we have never been born
We consider reality as the simultaneously and different reaction and positioning of ourselves with Others. This is true because my inner dialogue is chatting with you: an Other, myself and us. I assume that I am addressing the World and that I am constrained by the communicational system that sustains me. I also assume that my utterances are modeled by the dialogue that I am. Thus, any particular performance of existence is a shared and simultaneous dialogued with an Other.
Therefore, have I ever really been born? Will I ever die? No.
I never felt birth or existed consciously through it. People told me that I was born, but I never addressed it. I never dialogued with it. I never was what people told me that I was. I am now. I was then, but not to me.
I'll never feel death, because it's effects will not be considered by me. Only the Other feels my death, and dialogues with me, thus creating an act that keeps me alive. But not myself. A me that flies on their dialogues with Others and with themselves. I'll not respond, even though my voice will be heard on their dialogues.
I have never been born and I will never die. That's why I can write this creepy weird things: because I imagine the dialogue between that non-existence on existence and my own existence on this world of co-being.
I reassure you that you will not die either. We are dialogically eternal.
Therefore, have I ever really been born? Will I ever die? No.
I never felt birth or existed consciously through it. People told me that I was born, but I never addressed it. I never dialogued with it. I never was what people told me that I was. I am now. I was then, but not to me.
I'll never feel death, because it's effects will not be considered by me. Only the Other feels my death, and dialogues with me, thus creating an act that keeps me alive. But not myself. A me that flies on their dialogues with Others and with themselves. I'll not respond, even though my voice will be heard on their dialogues.
I have never been born and I will never die. That's why I can write this creepy weird things: because I imagine the dialogue between that non-existence on existence and my own existence on this world of co-being.
I reassure you that you will not die either. We are dialogically eternal.
The end of end of the begining of poverty
At the Monterrey Financing for Development Conference in 2002, world leaders pledged “to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7%” of their national income in international aid. In today’s dollars, that would amount to almost $200 billion each year.
Donor Countries and 0.7% Commitment
Countries already at 0.7%
ODA in 2005 as
% of GNI (gross national income)
Denmark 0.81%
Luxembourg 0.87%
Netherlands 0.82%
Norway 0.93%
Sweden 0.92%
Recent Commitment to Reach 0.7%
Belgium Reach 0.7% by 2010
Finland each 0.44% by 2007 and 0.7% by 2010
France Reach 0.5% by 2007 and 0.7% by 2012
Ireland Reach 0.7% by 2007
United Kingdom 0.47% by 2007-2008 and 0.7% by 2013
All members of the EU 15 0.56% by 2010 and 0.7% by 2015
Public perceptions reflect support for higher levels of aid. When asked what percentage of the federal budget they think goes to foreign aid, Americans' median estimate is 25% of the budget, more than 25 times the actual level. Only 2% of Americans give a correct estimate of 1% of the budget or less. When asked how much of the budget should go to foreign aid, the median response is 10%. Only 13% of Americans believe that the percentage should be 1% or less. Over 60% of Americans believe that contributing 0.7% of national income to meet the Millennium Development Goals is the right thing to do.
Here
It looks like poverty has a perceptual deficit on the eyes of some rich world citizens. Nothing that wouldn't be expected. It's just a profound and fantasy based narrative about their influence on the world's health (end). We always tend to assume larger deeds than the factual actions we make.
But, there is another side of the story, one that is guided by the vision of the enlightened countries, like Sweden. Their moral correctness stand for their actions. Hope we had more of this, and not just little hearts on the chests of powerful people.
Oh World, if you had a voice you would say: "what am I?"
4.10.2008
Give me my freedom!
"Por cada computador transaccionado no mercado de consumo, o consumidor é obrigado a pagar um imposto, sem que se chegue a aperceber. Este imposto é relativo a software que não é necessário e cujo custo está incluído no preço do computador, podendo em alguns casos chegar perto dos 300€!"
English "modified" version: Microsoft and PC stores perpetuate constant assaults on our freedom. Why pay for a software that you don't want? Where's our freedom to chose the OS that we prefer or to deny paying a software that we don't want to use?
Como recuperar o dinheiro cobrado indevidamente/ How to get your money back (Portuguese only)
English "modified" version: Microsoft and PC stores perpetuate constant assaults on our freedom. Why pay for a software that you don't want? Where's our freedom to chose the OS that we prefer or to deny paying a software that we don't want to use?
Como recuperar o dinheiro cobrado indevidamente/ How to get your money back (Portuguese only)
The voice that I obey
Machine gun
I saw a saviour
a saviour come my way
I thought I'd see it
at the cold light of day
but now I realise that I’m
Only for me
if only I could see
You turn myself to me
and recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
remedy, we’ll agree, is how I feel
here in my reflecting
What more can I say?
for I am guilty
for the voice that I obey
too scared to sacrifice a choice
chosen for me
if only I could see
You turn myself to me
recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
The remedy, to agree, is how I feel
by Portishead
I saw a saviour
a saviour come my way
I thought I'd see it
at the cold light of day
but now I realise that I’m
Only for me
if only I could see
You turn myself to me
and recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
remedy, we’ll agree, is how I feel
here in my reflecting
What more can I say?
for I am guilty
for the voice that I obey
too scared to sacrifice a choice
chosen for me
if only I could see
You turn myself to me
recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
The remedy, to agree, is how I feel
by Portishead
4.06.2008
I and many
A person lives in as many worlds as important relations, and takes in each of them a specific identity. There is a private audience that makes us feel like home. With the recognition of oneself through the dynamic organization of shared reality. So, we are as many as significant and different "existences" we "act" on the realities we share.
Will Kant revolve on his coffin? Or will the majority of people simply say: "is this what you have to say? Give me a break! I know that since the first time I recognized my existence on the eyes of another."
Hum...True. Science comes always late. It's actions are always meta analysis, in a way that creates a discourse that explains plausibly what people are afraid or inhibited of saying.
So, what keeps us apart of a fragmented self? Simple: the coherent organization of difference and complexity.
Will Kant revolve on his coffin? Or will the majority of people simply say: "is this what you have to say? Give me a break! I know that since the first time I recognized my existence on the eyes of another."
Hum...True. Science comes always late. It's actions are always meta analysis, in a way that creates a discourse that explains plausibly what people are afraid or inhibited of saying.
So, what keeps us apart of a fragmented self? Simple: the coherent organization of difference and complexity.
Anti
To be anti something means to be anti everything, since the polarity of analysis creates two dead ends where everything is collapsed in little pieces of reality. It's like a fragmented reality that focus it's main core on the layers of deviance, uncertainty, prejudice, stigma, ignorance and the need for self preservation.
When we say that we're anti X, we mean that we repudiate X, although it is a balanced aspect view of Y. So, when erasing X, we erase the total comprehension of Y and ourselves.
Being anti islamics or anti-americans generates darkness on their fundamental and righteous rights and contributions to the world. It fulfils a picture with a blurred ink; it separates what cannot be unrelated.
But, what about being anti something specific like attacking human rights on Somalia? Is it beneficial to be anti this? Does it generates action for the anti to be transformed in pro human rights?
So, anti something gets pro, in fact, a minuscule loneliness of pride. Thus, being anti americans means to say things wrongly, because an anti speech person seeks that that object of anti turns a pro "my view". And turning the world on black and white doesn't solve this. What anti means is that "we are fed up with you. We would like you to behave like us, or to respects us as we want to be respected. If you change behaviours we will dissolve our anti thoughts on your respectful understanding of ourselves."
An anti something has always a deep motivation and a hurt pride. To respond with anti you that are anti me is to block the bridge that unit us: dialogue and share of the other's positions.
When we say that we're anti X, we mean that we repudiate X, although it is a balanced aspect view of Y. So, when erasing X, we erase the total comprehension of Y and ourselves.
Being anti islamics or anti-americans generates darkness on their fundamental and righteous rights and contributions to the world. It fulfils a picture with a blurred ink; it separates what cannot be unrelated.
But, what about being anti something specific like attacking human rights on Somalia? Is it beneficial to be anti this? Does it generates action for the anti to be transformed in pro human rights?
So, anti something gets pro, in fact, a minuscule loneliness of pride. Thus, being anti americans means to say things wrongly, because an anti speech person seeks that that object of anti turns a pro "my view". And turning the world on black and white doesn't solve this. What anti means is that "we are fed up with you. We would like you to behave like us, or to respects us as we want to be respected. If you change behaviours we will dissolve our anti thoughts on your respectful understanding of ourselves."
An anti something has always a deep motivation and a hurt pride. To respond with anti you that are anti me is to block the bridge that unit us: dialogue and share of the other's positions.
Matthias Ettrich: the KDE man and his lucidity of analysis
"The desktop problem has been solved many years ago. I mean, try to compare Windows XP with KDE 3: nobody in their right mind would choose Windows over GNU/Linux based on the desktop experience alone. The Web problem has also been solved. Microsoft clearly lost the Web war -- they failed to enhance the Web in a proprietary way. What remains are some legal issues on the multimedia side that can be mostly worked around, the office documents formats issue and the flood of applications that only run on Windows, mostly games. "
"A proprietary undocumented text format as the de facto standard -- and that's what .doc is -- is a shame for all parties involved. It's like using a special patented ink that can only be read with special patented sun glasses. Who would want to use that for all their scientific, private and business documents? Probably nobody. Why they do so with computers is beyond me."
"To me personally, two things matter the most. First, how easy is it to develop applications that really utilise the power of the underlying platform? Keep in mind that those 'desktops' really are software development platforms, what you see on the screen is just the tip of the iceberg. And second, is it free, in the liberty sense of the word? Do I get the source code? Can I learn from it? Can I modify it? Can I share my modifications with others? Imagine where the world of computer science would be without Free Software! How much secret knowledge would be kept behind closed doors? Without us, people would study computer science and programming without ever having seen a real program in its entirety. That's like becoming writers without ever having read a complete book."
Do we all need more words to get the message clear? Will the ignorance and prejudices turn to appropriate based ethical knowledge about software?
Source
"A proprietary undocumented text format as the de facto standard -- and that's what .doc is -- is a shame for all parties involved. It's like using a special patented ink that can only be read with special patented sun glasses. Who would want to use that for all their scientific, private and business documents? Probably nobody. Why they do so with computers is beyond me."
"To me personally, two things matter the most. First, how easy is it to develop applications that really utilise the power of the underlying platform? Keep in mind that those 'desktops' really are software development platforms, what you see on the screen is just the tip of the iceberg. And second, is it free, in the liberty sense of the word? Do I get the source code? Can I learn from it? Can I modify it? Can I share my modifications with others? Imagine where the world of computer science would be without Free Software! How much secret knowledge would be kept behind closed doors? Without us, people would study computer science and programming without ever having seen a real program in its entirety. That's like becoming writers without ever having read a complete book."
Do we all need more words to get the message clear? Will the ignorance and prejudices turn to appropriate based ethical knowledge about software?
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)