Thursday, January 28, 2010

Gnosticism + Adam & Eve

One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of accountability. With unaccountability comes the excuses that simply don't hold any weight. Let's take a textbook example: Adam & Eve:

"The snake told me to do it, therefore I'm innocent & the snake's at fault." But who was stupid(or smart) enough to eat the damn fruit?

Gnosticism shows a refreshing way of looking at this.

Maybe it's not about who's right or who's wrong. Maybe it's not about who's fault it is. Maybe it's not about any of that. What if the whole point of that story was to show a principle of human nature: our yearning for knowledge.

That apple represents knowledge. Before they ate the apple, they didn't know that they were naked. Eating the apple gave them consciousness, and in turn, knowledge. Why would that be bad?!

Would a perfect god not want us to be well-informed? Would that perfect god be afraid of what we might learn from the truth?

It shows us another very critical part of human nature: our unwillingness to accept our error in judgment. After all, why would you take the blame for something you could get away with?

I love how people try to blame the snake for "suggesting" that they eat the apple. I also like how people have tried to blame eve because she was the first to eat the apple. Why not blame adam & eve for eating the apple, themselves?

Or, you could even blame god for making a "forbidden fruit tree". That's like putting 300 horny straight men on an island (no homo) with the one hottest woman that they've all ever seen, installing cameras that clearly aren't plugged in, hiring security guards that look away and whistle at the slightest sign of trouble, putting a fence that's only a foot high, and putting a sign that says "if you're horny, approach this woman" on that fence, then telling them NOT to approach the woman...

Did the perfect god not see that coming? Or did the perfect god see it coming, & put a trap there? I don't even need to put a conclusion, because you should be able to see where I'm going with this...

Blame yourselves for YOUR actions. Everything/everyone else was only a factor in your decision.


- knowledge

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Humour in Death, Burial Practices, and Remembrance

First off, I've revised my weekly drop from last week (Avatar = racist). Dude was a no-show, so I figured I might as well write something.


In light of recent tragedies, I've decided to write about one of the funniest subjects EVER - death! Not a lot of funny find it funny(a few memorable examples come to mind), but a great handful think it's hilarious (myself included).

By the way...Chuck Norris once roundhouse-kicked the tectonic plates. Shortly after, 200 000 Haitians died. Sorry, was that too soon? :D

Back to the topic at hand: what do I want to happen to me when I die? The answer is, that I don't care. I've got preferences, but at the end of the day, I'm dead. It's not that I won't care, it's that I can't care.

Every now and then, I tell my mom that I don't want to be buried traditionally. I do this for 4 reasons:

- It's a waste of money

- I'm dead

- It's a waste of resources (wood, metal, etc.)

- It's hilarious 'cause she gets really offended

Why does it matter which $10 000 dollar coffin I'm going to decompose in? Why does it matter whether this coffin is varnished or not? I would LOVE to be buried in a makeshift coffin (with nails sticking out, splinters, and crooked dimensions), 'cause at least that's funny.

I'd like to get into the reasons why I don't care. Besides the fact that I'm makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! I'm not that special. Sure we're all unique in our own way (and the world's full of beautiful flowers, rainbows, unicorns, and people that all get along...) - but I'll just be another thing that's dead. Most animals don't get buried, and I don't expect an exception to be made for me. Even if I did accomplish something great and respectable when I died, I don't see what good I'd be buried in the ground, decomposing away. I might as well be fertilizer.

Which brings me to my next point: I wouldn't mind being fertilizer. Forget this "cremate-me-and-throw-me-in-the-ocean-so-I-can-be-one-with-it" crap. Use me as fertilizer. At least I'll be giving back to nature - something that's given to me all my life. I've used up enough of nature's resources without ever recycling or giving back - I figure it's the very least I could do. Or you could feed me to some cannibalistic animal (like pigs). Or my body could be donated to science/research. It doesn't matter.

OR I could be cremated, given to my greatest enemy (at my time of death), and let them throw me in the garbage. I don't give a shit, Not only will I be too dead to be offended... It'd also be pretty funny.

Any of these options are preferable to being buried in the ground or being an organ donor .

I hope I've managed to shake up your views on death, even if it's just a little bit.

I don't think that a tombstone should be what people are remembered by. I don't even think that a porcelain vase full of ashes would be any better. I'd even prefer NOT being remembered to any of those... But if I am remebered, I'd rather it be in memory - through people's ideas and thoughts.

I would be honoured to be remembered that way - through the thoughts of the people that have managed to leave their impressions on me before I died. I'd rather be remebered mentally, than physically. When I go to funerals, I don't pay my respects to their corpse, I pay my respects to how they affected my life.

I can do that with or without the tombstone/urn/or any physical representation of them. And hopefully, so can you.


- knowledge


P.S. Thanks to everyone who frequents, tries to frequent, or has read my blog. The numbers are a lot higher than I expected (about 60 more, if you want to be specific). It is appreciated & stop being so damn wary to comment!

& for anyone who hasn't figured it out...if I refer to something that most people generally don't know about in my posts...there's usually a link. Sometimes the link doesn't come up as a different colour, so it's easy to miss.

& also, I hope to see some of you at The Great Time Debate

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Event: The Great Time Debate!

Ever wondered whether time travel was possible? What the deal is with the big bang? How the universe began? Is time an illusion? How much wood a wood chuck could chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? Well now you can get those questions answered!

The Great Time Debate takes place on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 from 7pm-9pm. It's being held at U of T (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Auditorium, Rm. G162. 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto). $5 if you're a student & $7 if you're not.

It features 3 panelists:

- Dick Bond; Cosmologist

- Lee Smolin; Physicist

- James Robert Brown; Philosopher

and the moderator is:

- Dan Falk; Author of "In Search of Time"

I'm definitely gonna go. For anyone that wants to come check it out, and meet up...let me know. If you're a frequenter who I havne't had the pleasure of meeting yet, then e-mail me - I'm still down to meet up.

It looks like it's going to be really good, so I hope to see some of you guys there.



- knowledge

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Avatar = Racist!?

I invited the featured blogger in the article to debate with me, but he hasn't I've decided to just update it with a piece. It's a shame that it didn't turn out how I wanted it to.


Read before continuing: Toronto Star: "Is Avatar Weighed Down By The White Mans Burden?"

This crap is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that after the release of Titanic, James Cameron spent 15 years a-brewin' about the best way to oppress the black man through the use of film. Even if he did intend for it to be what? It's a work of fiction, and it's a work of literature.

Unless people are prepared to criticize books in the same way that movies are, then I can't take this crap seriously. This, people, is what happens when you put a movie in front of a bunch of people who are too sensitive - they discern and infer things that were probably not even implied. This is what happens when people become too sensitive.

One of the key issues in this is that the Natives are unable to save themselves, which apparently = racism. They talk about how the white man is the one that has to come save the day.

Well, if that's the case, then I, as an asian am offended that Hollywood barely puts out any movies with asians saving the day. And if an asian DOES save the day, then he does it with kung-fu, with ninja stars, and with incoherent English grammar. This is an outrage!

Or's a thought: maybe hollywood's full of white people and caters more to the white demographic! It's all making sense. I don't give a shit. A good movie's a good movie. I personally don't give a shit who saves the day - regardless of whether the movie's thought-provoking or just a shoot 'em up.

Let's talk about The Last Samurai. What if a Samurai from the American army came to save the enemy (the Samurai), then how the hell would that even make sense? Let's take it a notch lower, then: what if a Japanese soldier from the American army came to save the enemy (the Samurai)? Unlikely, not as heart-warming, but still possible - but would the movie be as great? I highly doubt it.

How about Pocahontas! The racist movies of all racist movies! *eye-rolling smiley*. What if an Indian saved the Indians!? It wouldn't be the same movie! I hope I'm driving my point here... 'cause all of this crap's absurd. If people are that angry about movies like this, then why don't you re-write the damn movie and make a new one, then tell everyone that it's the same movie, except politically correct to appease the whiners.

What's next? People saying the Handmaid's Tale is sexist because it's told from a woman's point of view?

I long for the day when political correctness has no part in our society, and people learn to stop being so damn sensitive. But that's wishful thinking, and most likely never going to happen.

Until then, get out of here with that weak shit. Seriously.


- knowledge

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Home-Wrecking's Underrated

I hear people say that "all's fair in love & war", yet denounce the "evil" home-wrecker right after - without realizing that It's a complete contradiction!

Before going any further with this...I'd like to diffrentiate between cheating & home-wrecking. Cheating is adulterous; not having faith to one

spouse/[significant other]. Home-wrecking CAN (and usually does) cause someone to cheat, but it doesn't always lead to that.

Home-wrecking's underrated. Everyone sees it as this evil, immoral thing. I see it as a wake-up call.

There's nothing wrong with home-wrecking (but I personally draw the line if it's to a friend).

Think about it: home-wrecking only provides what another person wasn't able to.

If you want to blame anyone...blame yourself for not being good enough, or blame your significant other for not having the decency to break up with you before hooking up. Or you can blame each other for not doing enough to keep it together - but the third person isn't any more guilty than the first two.

The only reason the link was broken, was 'cause it wasn't strong enough to begin with.

That's like Chevy getting mad that people are buying Hondas, instead of theirs. Imagine the CEO of chevy saying: "oh man, life's so unfair. Honda made a better car than us. It's all THEIR fault that WE aren't selling cars." You gotta be kidding me! Blame yourself for not making a better car, or blame yourself for not releasing a car that people would still want in a couple of years...but don't blame someone else for YOUR mistakes & insufficiencies. Hell, you can even blame yourself for being stupid enough to make a car that no one wants to have...but DON'T blame someone for doing better than you.

I'm absolutely against cheating...but in most cases, if someone's cheating on you...then you've picked the wrong person to be with, or haven't done enough to keep them. If it's the first - cut your losses & move on. If it's the second - cut your losses, make sure not to do it again, & move on.

The next time you try to blame someone for the failure of YOUR relationship, remember that the relationship was yours to begin with.

If "homewrecking's wrong", then let's call it "relationship testing"...It's all the same shit. Just get that weak, "it's-all-person-c's-fault" bullshit out of your heads 'cause you're only lying to yourselves.

Does it change if the person's married? No. They should still have the self-control to resist cheating. If they're not satisfied, and have tried everything that they can...then maybe a divorce is in order. It still doesn't change if we add children into the equation - keep it together for the kids or satiate yourself first...I personally don't give a damn what your priorities are.

...As long as you don't put all the blame on the 3rd person.


- knowledge

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Knowledge's Negative Cop Experience?

I go to class and finish up at around 9:30, then I stay at the library until 11.

I got home earlier than I expected, so I decided to turn into a parking lot that I've never turned into before
. As I'm pulling out, a cruiser pull in. I flash my high-beams really quickly (I figure I could say that I was trying to signal left but I accidentally tapped it.) They then turn around.

I pull out left and into the intersection, making sure to go to the inner-most lane first even though I have to make an immediate right (I was dedicated to not be pulled over again). Then I check my rear-view and they didn't follow after me!

I pull into my garage about a minute later and they end up tailing me. They pull into my driveway sideways like I'm trying to escape or some crap. I get out and they ask me "is this your car?" I respond, "Yup...well I just pulled into my garage..." Then he says "it doesn't have to be your car to pull into your garage" but he and I both know it's my car. Fine, I drop it. He asks me why I pulled into the parking lot. I truthfully told him that I just wanted to see it (fishy, I know. I was thinking about saying that I was making a u-turn, but decided to tell the truth to see where it'd land me.)

They ask me to get my licence & registration. I give them my card-holder with my stuff in it & the female cop asks, "is this your licence?" to which I respond "that's just my sec."(I make sure to add a little quiver in my voice so her partner thinks that he senses some intimidation. I see that it works 'cause the dude gives a big smirk at the quiver.

They tell me to wait and not to go inside while they check some stuff. I wait outside for a bit, purposefully leaning on my car while texting some people to seem care-free and laid-back. After about 10 minutes, I get cold and decide to wait in my car, blasting music just loud enough to not get in trouble, but so they can hear the bass from my house music. I made sure to watch the rear-view mirror while bobbing my head to the music (making sure to exagerrate the movement), and the whole time...the male cop's just looking at me (it was really visible 'cause they turned their in-car light on).

A couple more minutes pass, and they come into my garage handing me back my crap. Here's how the conversation went:

Her:"We're giving you a ticket for giving us attitude."

Me: "Excuse me?"

Her: "You have a burnt-out headlight, but it's our discretion as to whether or not you issue a ticket. However, this won't stick if you bring a receipt to court and show it"

Me: "Does it hold any weight that I JUST replaced the headlight?

Her: "You did it yourself?"

Me: "Yup, I wiggled it and it was working again...but I guess it went out again"

Her: "Get a receipt from Canadian tire showing that THEY replaced it" (I decided to drop this and move on to what I really cared about)

Me: But let me get this straight, you're giving me a ticket because I gave you attitude?

Her: Did you not listen to what I said? It's up to our discretion, whether or not we issue the ticket.

Me: "So you're essentially giving me a ticket that you know won't stick because you THINK I gave you attitude?"

Her: "You clearly had a burnt-out headlight"

Me: "That's completely justified, but the only reason you chose to give me the ticket was because you don't feel that you guys got the respect that you think you rightfully deserve?"
At this point, she was getting a bit flustered/agitated...and my mom stepped in to break up the conversation.

What I find hilarious is that the 25 minutes they spent in front of my house, was 25 minutes they could've been catching speeders (the parking lot is right at a hill where people tend to gun it) or some other useful thing.

The main point of the story is that they're essentially giving me a ticket (which they didn't have to) because they think that I gave them attitude. All these people have negative stereotypes of cops, and they're really not doing anything to fix that. It was also pretty stupid of them to tell me that they gave me a ticket because I wasn't the typical citizen who quivers in fear at the sight of police.

My curiosity (both with the parking lot & to see what they'd do) does have a price though. I now have to waste my time and money to go to court on a bogus ticket which won't stick (which both the officers and I know).

What a great system: I
nconvenience the guy who doesn't give the people who demand respect, their respect...instead of giving them a reason to be respected. I can't give them all the negative light though, because I will admit that I did sort of provoke it. But would it STILL have happened if I played it any other way? Who knows.


- knowledge

settlement loans

dreamweaver website templates