dust

I love bread. Almost any kind but especially my mum's home-baked brown bread (I've learned how to make it but it's never quite as good) and most flat breads. In Beijing at lunch time I would often stop by one of the many little carts on the side of the road and grab a half-kilo bag of 酱香饼, which is basically fried bread with sesame seeds and a bunch of other spices and sauce. Delicious. The bag would be soaked through with grease...mm..

The man is Christian, monarchist, pro-capital punishment, anti-weed, doesn't believe in man-made climate change, writes for the Daily Mail... I must admit, I don't feel like listening to him, on any subject. How he feels qualified to lecture on democracy and liberty... I don't think I'll be listening to the whole thing. I likely agree with his main argument here: the government has too much power. However, the ways in which we come to this conclusion and the things we'd do about it are, I imagine, very different. Would that this were a talk by his brother. Not that I agreed with him on everything, but a lot more than Peter.

Morality is the human level. What is it but what we say it is? We created morals for our own benefit. We apply them when we feel it benefits us to, when we remember to, when it makes us feel warm inside. The Big Whatsit has no gains, no losses; doesn't care whether things are warm or cold. Does not 'care' at all.

No.

If I remember correctly, your last girlfriend broke up with you, hurt you? That was the cause of your spiral? And you're penis size isn't genuinely an issue with most women?

This was featured on deviantArt today.. quite striking..

As others have said, the common interpretation of 'karma' is silly. There is no cosmic judiciary rewarding and punishing us for our 'good' and 'bad' actions. Not only is there no evidence for it, there is plenty of evidence that people who live a harmful life doing shitty things may reap rewards, and people who live a relatively harmless life may encounter frequent trouble. On the other hand, looking at it solely as 'action', it is obvious that certain actions lead to certain consequences. If I throw my garbage out of the window and leave it in the street, if I shit in a bucket and never clear it away, my life will become filled with garbage and shit. (Then again, someone may take pity on my foolishness and clear it away for me.) If I lead a life of considered ethics, nonviolence, healthy eating, hygiene, helping others when necessary, and work hard to achieve a situation where all this is possible, I will likely feel good, both mentally and physically. (Then again, a bucket-shitter might come along and decide he wants what I have, and torture and kill me for it.) Most people don't fit into either of these categories. Most people, most of us included, are currently contributing to the pools of garbage and shit piling up around the world, though we also tend towards nonviolence, personal hygiene, health, charity, hard work, etc. We probably feel good about ourselves when we shouldn't, and bad when we should feel good. So, yes: actions have consequences, which is my simple understanding of 'karma'. But it's not a simple calculation. Don't rely on it. Do what you can, don't expect paradise.

one of many stunning mandala by OrgeSTC oil by Robert Hagan pyrography by Katrin Gareis digital painting by RHADS

From deviantArt digital painting by Wangjie Li digital painting by Cynthia Sheppard calligraphy by shoair acrylic by amytea (they have loads of wonderful abstract paintings) oil by Ruo Li

As someone who likes to think of himself as an artist, too, all this fascinates me and seems quite obviously intensely spiritual. With all the talent in the world, there is no way to get to these levels of skill without insane amounts of hard work and a lot of soul-searching. My favourite discovery of recent months is Istvan Sandorfi. He merged art and spirit wonderfully. I'd love to see one of his paintings up close.

There is so much beautiful art out there nowadays, old and new, I sometimes get a bit teary. With much of it now done with so much more advanced tools than artists used to have (copying from photos, photomanipulation, digital painting, more accurate traditional tools, etc), art now has the potential to be more colourful and realistic than it used to be, and some see this as a great thing. I don't know.. Zorn's paint sketches, Da Vinci's pencil sketches, the drawings at Lascaux... we can keep going back, as far back as the beginning of art, encountering the most primitive tools, and it all has the potential to be hauntingly beautiful. Today's realism and colour can be wonderful, but no more so than any other. This is not to say, though, that there are not great artists out there right now. Ignore 'modern art' for a moment, forget that artists in centuries past had more primitive technology and perhaps less technical knowledge, and look at what is being done now on its own merit. One only need browse deviantArt for a few minutes to discover a plethora of wonderful stuff in all kinds of mediums. That's not to mention the new kinds of art we now have. Really, 'modern art' in my mind is cinema, television, comicbooks, modern music (jazz, rock, hip-hop), even video games. The kind of thing that only exists in modernity. Some of the greatest artistic minds of our time are (often unheard of) directors, screenwriters, cinematographers. When it all comes together in a stunning and emotive moving picture, who can say that it's not great art, and potentially an enormous spiritual journey for many involved? And the likes of Frank Frazetta, Jean Giraud (Moebius), Frank Miller, Jim Lee (well, he had a major influence on me as a kid)... they've created some of the most impressive visual narratives of all time, and their influence has again been enormous. Though perhaps less 'spiritual' than some. I created a thread a while back for Victorian era painting. I think this is my favourite era of painting, the Victorian Academic painters especially (though I also love some Impressionism). Most people have no clue quite how much we owe to these guys, as so much cinema, painting, comicbook art, has taken cues from their style and content. An accessible blog on the subject here, with an excellent post about modern art vs Victorian art here. Yes, Louis Armstrong, figurehead of a wildly misunderstood and under-appreciated (by most, now) form of music...

Perhaps oatmeal would be a good starting point, rather than a dog right away I'm going to throw some thoughts out here..might be a load of nonsense.. Perhaps you desire the admiration / praise / respect that healers and other saviours often receive? It is not uncommon for people who 'help' others (for a living, as a hobby, whatever) to do so not because they really care about others, but purely because they enjoy the feeling of adoration, admiration, etc that comes with it. Their ego needs constant attention, and they've discovered one of the easiest / most effective ways of getting this attention. I don't know you, but it does not sound like this is who you are. If you recognize that your desire is phony, "based on nothing", it's probably because you possess a level of self-awareness that many others don't. Based on the fact that you're posting here, thinking about this, giving yourself a good hard look (and a hard time), it sounds like there's a genuine capacity for introspection that seems to go way beyond this 'trickster' archetype, beyond a simple attention-seeking ego. And the fact that you're feeling genuine discomfort at the idea that you seem to feel nothing for others surely means that there is a desire -- and thus a capacity -- for love? Is there no-one you care about? You have perceived a problem; you seem to want to change. You want to feel these things, but you can't. Why not? Are you sure it's not 'all in your head'? For most of my life I've been under the impression that people don't like me, often that they're laughing at me behind my back. My late childhood and whole teenage years I was plagued with this feeling, and I still often feel it, even among people I've known for years. Of course, sometimes it's true: not everyone likes me, sometimes people might laugh at me. But most of the time, it's pure illusion. All in my head, so to speak. Usually, people don't care one way or the other, they haven't given me a second thought... but I project something onto them, misread innocent expressions, etc. I still don't know why -- genetic predisposition? early experience? -- but I know that it's the case, and that's enough for me to be able to deal with it.

Well... quite..

What I find interesting is the surprise with which this kind of information is greeted. If we go back far enough, every so-called "race", every culture, originated with black people out of Africa. Why must we be surprised to "discover" that the first people in China, or anywhere else, might have looked more like modern-day Africans? From the article: “If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.” Evidence refuting a race-based classification of humankind has been available for a long time now. Only a superbly prejudiced or uneducated imbecile still believes that there are anything more than a few small, mostly superficial, differences between any of the so-called "races". It is a testament to the ongoing ignorance and arrogance of humans that in the face of all the scientific evidence, most still seem to believe that "race" is a valid concept. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC515312/ "When individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”"

1964, 1912, 1880, 1830s... I think I see where this is going There's an interesting parallel here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level From 17.9 for Washington, 21.6 for Madison to 8.6 for Bush Sr., 9.4 for Obama and... 4.1 for Trump.

We're going to have to get back to Syria at some point, but Again, I was being facetious, and I did think it was pretty obvious this time....I'm assuming you did get that! But on the serious side, because of awful education many millions - if not billions - of people in the world genuinely don't understand how to not have children, or that not having children might be a good idea, etc. I'm not sure what you mean. There are too many people for comfort -- I don't think I know anyone who believes we need more people on the planet, anyway -- but this isn't exactly what I meant. When I said "improve health and gradually decrease population sizes and quality of life worldwide", it is that these things go hand in hand. Stable populations are a symptom of a healthier, happier society. With improved education, health, free trade, etc etc, leading to a good quality of life among a well-educated population, people have less (perceived) need to have lots of children, they are not tricked by religious monsters into believing that birth control is evil, there is less violence and less risk of war, etc. Sure, of course. Among other things. Population booms in China have, I think, been responses to war, famine, and having a generally shitty time of it. That the birth rate remained so much higher than the death rate for so long is in part due to, again, poor education and general quality of life, and not because everyone was suddenly healthy and happy in the wake of Maoism. It is since education and QoL (due in large part, yes, to the booming economy) have begun to significantly improve for so many that the birth rate has begun to decrease -- I think this is, partially, regardless of the OCP. According to some sources (though I haven't found the original data) the WHO says that increases in death and fear of death lead to a higher fertility rate in a population.

OK...what I said was silly, and it's perhaps hard to tell that I was being facetious. I wasn't really suggesting we should implement population control, forced or otherwise, mosquito-based or otherwise ... Certainly not, and I hope you and others know that I'm in favour of sustainable agriculture, accessible healthcare, vaccination for major diseases, accessible birth control, better education on the aforementioned issues, and better education generally, as long-term means to improve health and gradually decrease population sizes and quality of life worldwide. To get facetious again, though: if bugs started making everyone infertile, we'd all have more time on our hands (without all the pesky children to look after) to focus on these issues...

Not sure I can comment too harshly on that one. It would solve a lot of other problems. We'd have to make sure the mozzies were spread out a bit though, in the interests of fairness.

What kind of footage? The devastation? I've seen photos. And of Warsaw, and Stalingrad, and Hiroshima, and London... Why do you mention Berlin in particular?

Based on his general behaviour, I don't think it's a stretch to describe him as having an unbalanced mind. Probably not much of a stretch to say about many of us, really. As far as the present conversation it's not, generally, his use of expletives so much as his deranged view of current and historical events. In other words, I feel safe in describing his viewpoint as unbalanced not because of the way he says things, but because of what he's saying. At least, I suppose, he is honest enough to say what is going through his mind.

3. Read enough about nutrition and exercise and somehow you will become stronger and healthier and lose weight and....

Not sure about that...

On the video... Whilst agreeing with the main thrust of it (the SJW part), I do want to mention: University is not, and has never been, about 'employability'. It is, and has always been, about education for education's sake; about academic freedom, in the interest of learning more about things. One might learn engineering or medicine, but one might -- with equal support -- study ancient Chinese literature, or the history of the role of women in society. It (almost) all contributes to the wider pool of knowledge. What we should be doing is not limiting the range of subjects students can study, or laughing at the idea of 'Gender studies', but limiting the number of people who go to university. A lot of it comes down to Blair's silly idea. The problem is not that some people read 'Gender studies', but that so many do; that so many people go to university in the first place, with the expectation that it is supposed to set them up for a career in something. It is not, necessarily.

I read in The Times the other day (yes, The Times.. though I get it mostly for the puzzle section) that young English have among the lowest literacy and numeracy skills in the "developed world". A similar article here. Of course, this doesn't mean that we're all illiterate, but the numbers are a little worrying. "7% of 20 to 34-year-old graduates in England have numeracy skills below level two, while 3.4% have literacy skills below this level. This means that they struggle to estimate how much petrol is left in a tank from looking at the gauge, or have difficulty understanding instructions on an aspirin bottle."