"Talking Existence"

Portrait of Marco Polo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We exist through the conversations we share. A man is a memory, existing in his sphere of influence. In this sense, being forgotten or ignored... equates to death. This is the essence of a philosophical concept bouncing about in my head. I call it "Talking Existence." The idea occurred to me recently, finding life much too intricate to be measured solely by means of a pulse. Talking Existence is not reverse-solipsism, nor is it a delusion of vanity. To best understand this, you must take into consideration that I see life as art-in-progress, defined by the relationship between the artist and those who visit his gallery. The only thing personal about a masterpiece is its creation. Unless it is regarded by a decent portion of society, a painting might as well never been painted at all. Of course this is a metaphor. (Nothing wrong with recreational painting.) Talking Existence is us sketching a portrait of ourselves each day with our words. Actions are but the manifestations of verbs, physical words. As such, what we do is also what we say. How we speak--both physically and verbally--unto others shapes our existence. That is "Talking Existence."




I can seem simple, deceptively. "Be good. Be proactive. Be remembered." Humanity often turns to established morality and terms for success to define its life. It's because, as concrete-minded humans, we assume length is the end all be all. I'd argue against that. Longevity is a cheap way to be remembered. It's not about quantity or quality-- it's about quandary. When we feel it seems as we are most alive, does it not? The more failure you face, the the more life you have. Only in the ashes of a blaze can we touch a fire. Loss is but a baby born to be a win. (Unless aborted by its parent.) By this, it would seem the content of our lives determines our existence, not our conversations as I proposed. Not so. This is a part of Talking Existence. What we feel and what we experience are merely ingredients to our existence. Our hardships and triumphs are reflected in our tone, humor and choices. Daily interactions are the basis for psychological understanding-- the blood of human interaction. You live by means of your tongue, but a tongue will only taste that which it finds sweet. Scars are inputted into the complex formulae through which we operate. Whether you wave meekly or embrace in a hug is determined by elements of our experience. This is why I say we exist through conversations. Man hasn't invented a time machine, and we all know how fuzzy memories can be, right? You can only follow a foot that leaves prints. If we leave no trail, we are lost.



Beyond being a measure of life, Talking Existence has a much deeper role in the whole of existentialism. It's interwoven into religion and relies heavily of the fallacy of "truth"-- the rusty hinge of morality. Lying is born of a desire to artificially enhance our existence. During my more cynical moments, I tend to regard truth as a great fallacy perpetuated by the naive. Thinking reality can ever be understood is arrogance/ignorance in its most sublime. Perception is 9/10ths of human understanding--a belief the very concept of Talking Existance is built upon. The remaining tenth is the established overlap of the collective beliefs of society and the closest we wee homo sapiens will ever come to an actual "truth." Liars play in this large pool of perception, persuading others to come swim in their version of the murky water. (Note: Read liars as everyone.) Opinions are glorified emotional guesses, but they're the only tools we have to grasp the world around us. Likewise, feelings are fleeting, abstract and non-existent-- excuses to act against logic. The relationship between opinions and feelings is our bias, the nature of our need for personal validation. It compels us to argue and teach, battling others for the right to shape existence. A lie, if not believed by its creator, is merely an acceptance of the ugliness of the so-called truth as we remember it, and an attempt to alter history to our whim. Through lies we are closest to "God," a figure whom I personally deem as the ultimate lie and manipulative tool. If a lie is believed, just like a person, it exists. We are taught about the exploits of Marco Polo as children, but it's questionable if the man ever set foot in China. Just as the ambiguous epic poet Homer is remembered, so too does God exist. In this way, God exists more than we do. True reality can't by perceived by our feeble minds, so what is a lie? It's the basis for perception, cloaked by our innate earnestness. What is remembered lives on.




Once our death is hence three generations removed, apart from being a chink in various strands of DNA, we die out of existence. Name one baker from 17th century Germany off the top of your head. These men are dead-- their ghosts haunting unread censuses and dust-covered family records. Our comparatively simple human experience is ultimately a blip in a doomed cycle of cosmic explosions that cannot ever exist to us as we will never obtain the means to grasp it. Grasping this, we must live within the criteria of a Talking Existence. By believing ourselves to be important and considering life a lasting concept, we die prematurely. The self is a pursuit of egotists and simpletons. Live vicariously through your words and ebb out a satisfying existence for your name.




This, however, only applies to those who deem society as a positive construct. This, quite possibly, is yet another human fallacy... but that discussion is best left for another time.

- B

Edward Snowden: Public Enemy or People's Hero?

I'm aware that due to PRISM, I will be flagged by the United States government for merely mentioning Edward Snowden's name. What will look even worse, is that I'm posting an article about him and sharing it to various forms of social media. I know this because of his crime. His "leak." Julian Assange. Bradley Manning. Names of a similar sort. Purported to be the public enemy, just as Snowden is now. We are told to be afraid of people with such innocuous looks, but such is the era of our existance. The internet age- an age of mass sharing, and instant information... where the greatest crime is the leaking of a few choice words. In Snowden's case... there were a lot more than a few. 

Traditionally, the men who disclosed sensitive material were called spies, and had been rightfully punished for their espionage. Committing treason out of greed. In these cases however, a monetary transaction had always been involved. Interestingly enough., Snowden  did NOT receive a reward for his actions. All he did was air the United State's dirty laundry to dry in front of the public eye. Seemingly.

Hmm... that doesn't seem like the an act of a villain-- knowingly destroy one's own life with virtually no gain. Is it truly wrong to share with the public just how far their government has gone to infringe on their privacy? It certainly seems selfless-- suicidally so. Is it treason? To the government, yes, yes it is. They see his actions as kicking a hornet's nest, causing internal and external unrest. The US government loses a tremendous amount of translucence and face. Worst of all, the leak compromises the programs and secrets that the government would argue were kept under wraps for the good of the country. To truth seekers, however, this is an act of heroism. The freedom of speech is a right Americans grow up learning to be an innate value. Why should our government be allowed to act in secret? What gives them the right to spy on our internet actions? Or listen to our phone calls? Why should we be caught in a net cast to catch terrorists? How the government guarantee that the "accidental" collection of our personal information will be discarded and not be used in a malicious and manipulative way?   

The answer is complicated.

How you perceive the integrity of Snowden's character really pivots on what you define to be right or wrong, where your values lie and your opinion on how strong government's arm should be.  On one hand, his leak could cripples the government's ability to collect data to prevent terrorist activity. On the other, it could also hamper the government's ability to infringe on the rights of the innocent. (Aka, you and I.) Is it even necessary? While it is true that terrorist attacks on our home soil post-911 are few and far in between, but it is also true that we have the government to thank for that. But was it their invasive policies that brought that about? Or was it just the wake-up call, 9-11 itself?The Patriot Act was easily passed around the time the Towers fell. The danger was real. Fear was fresh. But now, the danger is relatively lessened, yet the stiff policies remain. But that's just part of it. A small part of the uncertainty that contributes to the complexity of the situation and make the judgement of Snowden's actions such a hard call. 

So how can we ever find an answer to all the questions, add them up and make that call? Honestly, we can't accurately given the convulsed mess of lies, misinformation and what not. But I was taught to never accept defeat, so we shall press on. When you are faced with that which you cannot, you find that which you can. To put it less theatrically, do the best thing you can manage to do. So, in this instance, we tackle the jackpot question. If we can't answer them all, we answer the biggest and best one of them all. And that's whether or not Snowden committed a crime, or is simply expressing his freedom of speech.  

Wikileaks is an organization founded on the principal that all information should be free. This puts them at odds with pretty much every government on the face of the world.Why? Because secrets are the lubricant that allow each nation's higher ups to squeeze by smoothly. It's the grease that gets those questionable policies through, and the duct tape that plugs the holes of the government's blunders-- ethical or otherwise. While it's all well and good to say, "I think there should be no secrets!" it's extremely naive. Honesty is not the best policy, especially when you have to walk the world's thinnest tight rope when it comes to foreign relations. Other countries are sensitive lot, and the most minor upset could be the difference between an enemy and an ally. 

From an individual's perspective, most of our government's decisions don't make sense. Why should we ship out billions of dollars to other countries, especially when we are in debt? Why do we have to raise taxes and cut social programs? Why does the military need so much money? So many questions. The government faces a trillion daily. Governments are expected to answer all of them, otherwise they are accused of failing at their job. It's easy for us to question the government's actions-- challenge the faceless foe. Rise up against the man. (Well, easy in talk I mean.) But we don't have those responsibilities on our lap, do we? 

I'm not saying the government is always doing the right things. Nor am I not accusing them of being forever in the wrong. The same goes for Snowden. He's a human. Not a demon. Not an angel. Is it wrong to rebel and question? No, it's healthy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's... necessary. Is it right to meddle in matters greater than you? Probably not. So what am I saying? Which side am I taking? What's my point? What is the answer to the big question? Was he right or wrong!? Both. Or neither? Bah! How the hell should I know? My gut tells me to cheer for the guy because I don't like being watched without my consent, yet my head tells me to let the government to do their thing since I can't even fathom the gravity of the situation. 

I guess you could say I'm on the fence, but I'm by no means neutral-- make no mistake. Regardless of whether or not Edward Snowden's actions are right or wrong... he is not an evil man. He not an Osama Bin Laden. He's a a man with opinions and a genuine desire to do what he thinks is right. He is an American, just like me. Hell, he even looks a little like me!

 Beyond my gut and my head, there's a third party that helps me do my thinking-- and it settles the deadlocks between my head and gut. That breaker of ties is my heart, and it's been telling me Edward Snowden is a hero. Yes, government does need to maintain quite a few secrets to keep it going-- but there is a limit. There's a line they cannot cross, and they cannot cross it because of who they--no, WE-- are. The United States of America, a land birthed from the union of liberty and justice-- delivered by a revolution from tyranny. We can never become that which we defied, nor should we ever deny ourselves of the freedoms that constitute for our very existence. 

The USA prides itself as the land of the brave, and Edward Snow is being just that. He's not affiliated with terrorist groups. This won't destroy our country. Have the floodgates opened? Has anarchy broke loose? Have any of the American people, civilians, been harmed by this leak? No, no it hasn't, and no, they haven't. The government's shield of secrecy has been shattered, and we the people are BETTER for it. They can still force these online companies to fork over our information, but now we know about it. We know there's an eye on our shoulder. Who cares if the enemy knows? If anything, it might just ward them off. 

Of course, it's never good to listen to your heart is it, so I guess the real answer to the question will never be found-- at least not by me. Hero or villain, Snowden's integrity weighs on your perspective on a great many factors. So many, that it might just be impossible to tell. 

As for me, I will applaud Mr. Snowden for the size of his balls-- for their massive size is the only thing I can be certain of. I wish him luck in his quest to elude the US government. He'll need all of it... and then some.   

- B

Google Glass: Here's Looking at You[r] Kid

"I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time."  

- Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google 

Several days ago, I detailed the emergent technology Google Glass and pondered the ethical repercussions that arise from a future of widespread dependence on the device. I strongly suggest you read that entry prior to this installment. See: Google Glass: Futuristic... and Freaky 

While I've made the case that Google's invention may inadvertently force an upgrade on the human race that downgrades intellect, let it be known that I am in no way a crazy conspiracy theorist. I do not mistake Google's ambition for evil (even if their mantra does echo the mad mission of Dr. Who villain Cybus prior to the creation of the Cybermen.) If anything Google is naive, underestimating the power of its own creation. For with all power comes perversion... and Google cannot stop the nefarious from misusing their technology.

"Google Glass, ASSIMILATE!"

At the risk of putting ideas in the heads of the deviant, I won't bring up some of the extremely disturbing potential uses for the device that crossed my mind... but I will pose some pretty heavy scenarios so those of you with anxiety about these sorts of things should probably give this blog entry a pass. That said, I'd like you to do your best to read on and consider everything I say is merely a possibility. Still... they are all quite possible.

Google Glass: Futuristic... and Freaky

Say, "cheese"... Clarice

Recently, I wrote a blog entry regarding the false need for smartphones and my unwillingness to upgrade with the rest of the world. At the end of the piece, I jokingly said I'd break down and upgrade when Google Glass hit the market due to my glasses fetish. Since then, however, I've had time to consider a world viewed through the futuristic lens of Google's all-seeing eye. Despite my childhood-seeded desire for living in a Blade Runner-esque cyberpunk society, I've become reluctant to see the dreams of Google Glass fully realized. In our age of ultra advanced technology, each new tech faces a fine line between a being helpful... and eerie. In this case, I find Google's attempt in making the next jump in modern communication a leap that lands on the creepy side.


Before any further discussion in regards to its ethics, I'd like to give a run down on what exactly Google Glass is and does for those of you who are unfamiliar. I think Google's marketing has done a splendid job of this already, so I will provide their advertisement before I make my own rundown:

Pretty neat, huh?