It's been about a month I haven't posted anything. It seems, according to a meter I included in the blog, during this time I've received around 10 visits a week, from quite different countries: Norway, Spain, USA, France, Malasya, India and Indonesia in the last 20 visits. I guess I don't know most of these readers, since I haven't even been in half of the countries of the list. On the other hand, I know there's a few people (2 or 3) who read itquite regularly. So I wonder.
I wonder why, assuming those visits happen "at random", from people just surfing around, why it is 10 visits a week, on quite a repetitive average, and not 2, or 350. Why not 1 this week and 20 next week.
And it's been 10 a week for months. It got to maybe 15 a week if I added posts more often: 10 seems to be the bottom even if I don't write (even if the blog was empty?)
I've put similar questions to myself about sports, in the past. Take for instance the 100m race: why the top runners are so closed, say from 9.7 to 10 seconds for the 8 people who take part in the final? Why only 8 people in the world go below 10? And those 8, how is it they are so regular? If one of them runs at 9.8, they usually do it at 9.8, not one month at 10.2 and the other in record time and the next at 10.5.
It's not the same in longer races, but there's strategy in these, it is not just "do it as fast as you can". Even so, it's possible to find regular patterns. For sure is quite similar in ski and swimming for instance. And I wonder why.
There's democracy also. In Spain, the biggest two parties get around 38% of the votes every election. One of them wins for there are small differences for reasons which are not easy to guess (at least most of the times). And it is like that in many other countries. In the US there are only two parties and their support is amazingly closed to 50%. This year Obama won "overwhelmingly" by a global difference of 3%. Democracy in the US is a very mature one, the Spanish one at its side looks like a babyboy. Besides, in most countries, the turnaround is just above 50%.
I guess in a perfect decision system half of the people decide to participate, and if there are 2 valid options, half of them go for each. I'm able to understand that (not that I necessarily think it's good).
Anyway, in this world, with so many people, there seems to be a big rule: probability. Call it luck. That's the reason why anything happens? That's why I don't get fired, or somebody else does, that's why I didn't get married and somebody else did???
And, what are we doing (and we call ourselves seekers) when we look for an explanation? Is there a chance we will understand? I wonder.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
the victim under control
An old friend of mine was the victim of an impressive accident when he was riding a moped bike: he was overtaking a big trunk on the right, the trunk did a weird move and my friend fell and got caught by the back wheel of the trunk, and both the moped and himself were dragged on the road for around 15 meters.
On the floor, he was so stuck he could not get out by himself, even if the bike was not so heavy. People around were in doubt to move him because he had lost his helmet; he wanted to should at them to take him out, but he was in bad pain and he could hardly speak. Eventually they released him and while the ambulance was coming he was looking at his leg and wildly wondering if he would be able to move it again.
He would have killed the lorrydriver at that moment, "it was such a big trunk in a not so wide street!, what was he doing there?, and what was the effing manouver he did?"; some days later, the driver went to the hospital to visit and they made peace, although my friend did not like the guy, "not somebody I would get drunk with!". Actually the driver was a member of his club, he had joined that same year, when they had promoted to the spanish 'second B' category. But the diver had not had the chance to watch my friend playing. And he would not anymore.
The recovery was long and painful, the full thing took around a year, and my friend was 17 years old. He wanted to brake the plaster into pieces and start exercising the leg, and afterwards wanted to start walking, then running, and climbing mountains. However there were many things he would not be able to do anymore. "What if the accident had not happened?", he would say, "how far would I have gone in playing football?"
He didnt like studying, or arts; however nobody was going to stop him from getting whatever he wanted to.
And now, so many years later, he puts the icing on the cake of his life with his appointment as the president of his football club, the one he used to play for.
Propositions:
- my friend was overtaking a big trunk on the right in a street which was "not so wide"
- the lorrydriver was "somebody he would not get drunk with"
- when he was 16 years old, he was playing for a 3rd category football team
- the team promoted to "2nd B" and he would not play so often anymore
- ...
My friend is a prick, and the story is silly. Does the victim take control? Does he get anything he wants? And does it mean he is under control? What is "under control"? Is it a feeling, an opinion?
On the floor, he was so stuck he could not get out by himself, even if the bike was not so heavy. People around were in doubt to move him because he had lost his helmet; he wanted to should at them to take him out, but he was in bad pain and he could hardly speak. Eventually they released him and while the ambulance was coming he was looking at his leg and wildly wondering if he would be able to move it again.
He would have killed the lorrydriver at that moment, "it was such a big trunk in a not so wide street!, what was he doing there?, and what was the effing manouver he did?"; some days later, the driver went to the hospital to visit and they made peace, although my friend did not like the guy, "not somebody I would get drunk with!". Actually the driver was a member of his club, he had joined that same year, when they had promoted to the spanish 'second B' category. But the diver had not had the chance to watch my friend playing. And he would not anymore.
The recovery was long and painful, the full thing took around a year, and my friend was 17 years old. He wanted to brake the plaster into pieces and start exercising the leg, and afterwards wanted to start walking, then running, and climbing mountains. However there were many things he would not be able to do anymore. "What if the accident had not happened?", he would say, "how far would I have gone in playing football?"
He didnt like studying, or arts; however nobody was going to stop him from getting whatever he wanted to.
And now, so many years later, he puts the icing on the cake of his life with his appointment as the president of his football club, the one he used to play for.
Propositions:
- my friend was overtaking a big trunk on the right in a street which was "not so wide"
- the lorrydriver was "somebody he would not get drunk with"
- when he was 16 years old, he was playing for a 3rd category football team
- the team promoted to "2nd B" and he would not play so often anymore
- ...
My friend is a prick, and the story is silly. Does the victim take control? Does he get anything he wants? And does it mean he is under control? What is "under control"? Is it a feeling, an opinion?
Sunday, February 08, 2009
do it now!
There's many people seeking. Some of them struggle to learn how to stand on their heads, or to sit straight and crossed-legged. Others just put on fancy clothes and talk a lot, but most are genuine, why would they not be? And not all of them base themselves on eastern philosophies.
Anyhow, probably all of them would agree in one thing: they are in the process of learning, of improving, of making themselves better so that someday they will obtain what they are looking for. But, why does it have to be in the future, why not now?
As an example, I'll take something completelly unrelated: world hunger. Everybody is more or less concerned about that huge problem. Myself, I give away some money every year to some organizations which are supposed to do something about the subject. Little money it is. And I think about it from time to time, although is not the first thought that crosses my mind every morning.
I guess some people are less concerned, donate no money, they woud think it is not fair that people are starving, but realisticly they've figured there's not much to do about it.
On the other hand, there's a few who devote themselves and their lifes to the problem; what about those? Do those think the solution is at their reach? Probably not, more the contrary. But they don't get depressed, they just try to do everything they can to make a small contribution, to help the people of the area wherever it is they've travelled to. And it is awesome.
It is not only they are morally superior (they are, to me); also they look at a huge problem with no visible solution and they decide they want to do everything they can and they do it now.
From J Krishnamurti:
"Do you actually need time to be free of greed? I am taking that as an example [...] You are used to think you do. When I say I will get over it, that will is time [...] So the mind has become accostumed to the idea of psychological time -tomorrow, or many tomorrows."
And many many paragraphs later, after he brilliantly dismantles the idea of psychological time,
"So where we are? Where are you with regard to what you have heard, what you have learned, what you have seen for yourself? It is just mere words for you to carry? Or is there a deep fundamental change so that you are free of all your problems, free of fear? [...]"
Which applies not only to his lecture, but to everything you have heard, you have learned, you have seen for yourself.
Let's forget for a moment about world hunger and about a world free of greed -no matter I have not done anything about those. Am I just carrying words? Have I done anything?
Anyhow, probably all of them would agree in one thing: they are in the process of learning, of improving, of making themselves better so that someday they will obtain what they are looking for. But, why does it have to be in the future, why not now?
As an example, I'll take something completelly unrelated: world hunger. Everybody is more or less concerned about that huge problem. Myself, I give away some money every year to some organizations which are supposed to do something about the subject. Little money it is. And I think about it from time to time, although is not the first thought that crosses my mind every morning.
I guess some people are less concerned, donate no money, they woud think it is not fair that people are starving, but realisticly they've figured there's not much to do about it.
On the other hand, there's a few who devote themselves and their lifes to the problem; what about those? Do those think the solution is at their reach? Probably not, more the contrary. But they don't get depressed, they just try to do everything they can to make a small contribution, to help the people of the area wherever it is they've travelled to. And it is awesome.
It is not only they are morally superior (they are, to me); also they look at a huge problem with no visible solution and they decide they want to do everything they can and they do it now.
From J Krishnamurti:
"Do you actually need time to be free of greed? I am taking that as an example [...] You are used to think you do. When I say I will get over it, that will is time [...] So the mind has become accostumed to the idea of psychological time -tomorrow, or many tomorrows."
And many many paragraphs later, after he brilliantly dismantles the idea of psychological time,
"So where we are? Where are you with regard to what you have heard, what you have learned, what you have seen for yourself? It is just mere words for you to carry? Or is there a deep fundamental change so that you are free of all your problems, free of fear? [...]"
Which applies not only to his lecture, but to everything you have heard, you have learned, you have seen for yourself.
Let's forget for a moment about world hunger and about a world free of greed -no matter I have not done anything about those. Am I just carrying words? Have I done anything?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
endarkenment
I was 20 when it happenned, and it was sudden: I got endarkened and I ceased to believe.
It was sudden, but it was the conclusion of a slow process as well. My endarkement came out of the blue one morning when I realised I was living in a big contradiction: none of the stories I had been told about god made sense to me anymore, and at the same time I was relying on them at least to lay the foundations of my answers to some old big questions. But it was also slow, since it started even before my first holy communion; I managed to skip all the catechesis sessions and I went to the priest just one week before the event -he was very upset with me, however he explained me the details on the staging with the rest of the guys (how we should go in a queue to the altar and back, doing as if we were praying).
At the same time I was really a devotee: whenever I got a host into my mouth I used to talk to Jesus as a sincere believer, honestly. My problem came with the church itself, quite deceitful, and my catholic school and teachers, the boring religious studyings, and so on.
There were clear signs of the dark coming:
- Questioning the people who brought up the story to me (the teachers and the priests), not relying on their coherence, integrity or even their common sense
- Calling into doubt the aspects that sound unbelievable or unacceptable (weird explanations on the origin of life, old-fashioned moral doctrines)
Afterwards, getting old and assuming that the dark was not the place to be, I resumed my quest. Very carefully, however: careful with the words themselves (e.g. enlightenment as explained in previous posts), and trying to avoid to get dazzled instead.
But then, wherever I looked for alternative belief systems, I found there were mainly two options:
- or you choose one system that seems the best and accept it as a full pack; (in consequence you don't question their people and you assume the unbelievable part of it)
- or you study very closely every system available and take the small good pieces of each of them; (but those pieces don't necessarily make sense when are taken stand-alone, and the pieces from different origins don't match together either, and there's the huge risk you get puzzled)
Should I had stayed in the dark then? I didn't, and on the road I've met quite some people following the second (including myself, I'm afraid), which is a sure path from endarkenment to endazzlement.
It was sudden, but it was the conclusion of a slow process as well. My endarkement came out of the blue one morning when I realised I was living in a big contradiction: none of the stories I had been told about god made sense to me anymore, and at the same time I was relying on them at least to lay the foundations of my answers to some old big questions. But it was also slow, since it started even before my first holy communion; I managed to skip all the catechesis sessions and I went to the priest just one week before the event -he was very upset with me, however he explained me the details on the staging with the rest of the guys (how we should go in a queue to the altar and back, doing as if we were praying).
At the same time I was really a devotee: whenever I got a host into my mouth I used to talk to Jesus as a sincere believer, honestly. My problem came with the church itself, quite deceitful, and my catholic school and teachers, the boring religious studyings, and so on.
There were clear signs of the dark coming:
- Questioning the people who brought up the story to me (the teachers and the priests), not relying on their coherence, integrity or even their common sense
- Calling into doubt the aspects that sound unbelievable or unacceptable (weird explanations on the origin of life, old-fashioned moral doctrines)
Afterwards, getting old and assuming that the dark was not the place to be, I resumed my quest. Very carefully, however: careful with the words themselves (e.g. enlightenment as explained in previous posts), and trying to avoid to get dazzled instead.
But then, wherever I looked for alternative belief systems, I found there were mainly two options:
- or you choose one system that seems the best and accept it as a full pack; (in consequence you don't question their people and you assume the unbelievable part of it)
- or you study very closely every system available and take the small good pieces of each of them; (but those pieces don't necessarily make sense when are taken stand-alone, and the pieces from different origins don't match together either, and there's the huge risk you get puzzled)
Should I had stayed in the dark then? I didn't, and on the road I've met quite some people following the second (including myself, I'm afraid), which is a sure path from endarkenment to endazzlement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)