The Ætherflash

Just a quick note to say that the Ætherpress now has a companion site, called the Ætherflash. It is authored solely by me and features just my short stories. If you enjoyed any of my others, they are all there and the site should be updated around 3 times a week.

http://theaetherflash.blogspot.com/

Read More......

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

You don't exist

A half-truth, but an attention grabbing one.

You exist a bit.

When I say you, I mean that bit of you that is absolute, immutable, the bit that you carry through life. Your soul, your being, your 'mind'. The bit of you that is seperate from everything else. Yeah that bit, total rubbish.

I'll make a confession. I've been feeling troubled of late. A bit of a crisis of identity. I realised I saw myself completely differently to how I must appear to others. I found myself becoming annoyed at people who didn't see 'the real me'. That of course, me being the philosophy drop-out I am (yes I'll continue to use the personal pronouns for convenience's sake), led me to think about what my real self. I couldn't put my finger on it, I just didn't know. I realised that by myself, I probably don't exist at all, only my work, or my thoughts or my activities do. I also concentrated on the different me's that all my friends from different periods of my life must know.

I came to the conclusion, and Nietzsche is slow clapping me for catching up, that where I went wrong was thinking of myself as a ball of steel covered in fur. I'll explain that metaphor don't worry. I mean that it is wrong to think of it as something indestructible at the centre, with the only things that change as the frivolous outskirts, the fur. The actual truth is that who 'you' are doesn't exist without it's surroundings. You are defined to a large extent to the situation you are in.

I remember at this point the story told by Bertand Russell in his attempt to find certainty of existence whilst having a cup of tea in his office. He questioned what colour his chair was, and came to the rational conclusion that regardless of whether the chair had an absolute colour, it depended on what colour light you shine on it. This is much like us. We may have a core, a base being, that gives us our parameters and our very basic framework of identity, but much more is determined by what colour light we are in. However pious and pure we think we are, shine enough red on us and we'll turn red. However dark and unworthy we feel, enough illumination will make us shine.

This 'revalation' has left me two things to take with me. Firstly, just to act naturally. Not worry about whether something is 'me' or not, if it isn't me, then I won't do it. The second is a feeling of unity with everything and everyone else, in a purely secular and non-hippy way. My friends, my city, my family, my games, they all have shaped and continue to shape the person I am, and you can't help but feel closer to them. I won't get annoyed if someone can't see what they perceive to be the real 'me' because if I appear to be a certain way with someone, then that is a facet of me, a conditional me, and it is real in that situation. Instead I should look to see why I act a certain way in that situation and if I don't like how people perceive me, seek to change.

Hopefully first of many posts, Ætherpress v3.0.

Read More......

Sunday, 22 February 2009

50/50 - Probability, possibility, and potential: a modern day trinity (of the wholly sort).

I've tried to explain my username/tag/handle/thingy before. I didn't manage too well, though it allowed me to reflect in a more detailed way on why 50/50 is important to me.


I think originally, my problem was either a misunderstanding, or an inability to communicate what I meant - for me, 50/50 reflected an aspect of life, something I think I put down (in error) to probability. Since then, I've come to realise that probability was not what I meant.

In order to explain properly, I need to define the titular trinity - probability, possibility, and potential.

Probability: "the quality or state of being probable".

"Probable" being likely to happen. It's pretty self-explanatory, I guess, but we have to remember that the likelihood of something happening is governed by laws - mainly those of physics. For example, in a bag of of 10 balls, one is red, the rest are blue - it is much more probable that a blue ball would be drawn at random, therefore the probability of being picked is higher for a blue ball.

Possibility: "the condition or fact of being possible".

Here, possible is "being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization", but for this to get interesting, we have to take a little more of a philosophical approach. It would be easy to define what is possible by the same laws that govern probability - however, if we take a skeptical approach, and assume that we don't know everything the universe has to offer, then what lies within the realms of possibility is virtually anything. Of course, there are limits - for instance, definitions. It is impossible to have a married bachelor - if that bachelor were married, they would no longer be a bachelor. This is where potential comes in:

Potential: "existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality".

This, I think, is the crux of 50/50. Not probability, or even possibility - but potential. Everything has a 50/50 potential, even if needed to be boiled down in the most reductionist manner possible - say you have three choices. Each individual choice has a 50/50 potential, a chance if you will, to come to fruition. God? 50/50 potential of existing - to exist, or to not. Possibly exists, probably doesn't (contentious, but just go with it for the sake of the point I'm trying to make) - but what do we define ourselves by?

To define all of our beliefs by an innate potential for anything would seem rather stupid - the world could end at any minute, I could suddenly become a woman, which though may be fun for a while, is unlikely to happen. we know it's unlikely to happen because of probability. Playing the odds, we may well be, but ultimately, what more do we have? Anything else is equally as much of a gamble, and at worst, would lead to suicide inducing paranoia. Probability is the equivalent of trying to count cards in Vegas - using the best of what you have to try and get ahead. Sure, you may get it wrong, it could even backfire spectacularly, but as the saying goes, the house always wins. This is just trying to even the odds a little.

So, where does 50/50 come in? Potential is something we should always remember, even if we don't live our lives by it. We should never dismiss anything out of hand, it should help keep us grounded, and remind us all that we live in a really big universe.

Read More......

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Heeelp Meee!

So as I write this, I've just finished watching the 1986 remake of "The Fly" - admittedly, I've taken liberties with the title, which is based on the Simpsons' spoof of the film(s), given after a quick bit of youtubing, appears to be a take on the events of the original.

Great hair, by the way.
Anyway, what actually caught my attention was the "process" of teleportation. As a device, it's been used in countless science-fiction pieces - "Star Trek", with its famous "beam me up Scotty", and "Stargate", in which travellers are demolecularised, stored in memory buffers then transmitted as data to far off corners of the galaxy and beyond, to name but two.

Particularly with "Stargate" and "The Fly" (I'm not au fait with the particulars of Star Trek, I was never that big a fan) the concept revolves around the destruction of the object to be transported, then the subsequent reformation of the object on "the other side". Of course, the key question this begs is whether what is being reconstructed is the same as what was deconstructed. Specifically for me, this takes the form of personality, who we are, not necessarily what.

For all intents and purposes, a box "teleported" may come out as something entirely different from what went in, in terms of different individual atoms (though still conforming to the structure of cardboard), because as long as it functions as a box, who really cares? However, for your mother to go in, and to come out being a shade more Hitler-esque would be understandably more worrying. Or even for that matter more Ghandi-esque - we are who we are, to change that is arguably wrong regardless of outcome. But I digress.

My point is if what we know is destroyed going in, is what comes out at the end the same? My instinct would normally suggest that as people, we are simply a series of electro-chemical reactions and response functions, working together as a whole to produce what we call "humanity" - not to lessen the impact of what it means to be human, you understand, but rather to simplify the concept. A reductionist approach, if you will.

However, I can't seem to get my head around this concept - that after teleportation, what comes out is the same: not in terms of specific molecules, atoms and particles, but in construction of identical constituent parts, arranged in the same way. I can understand that logically, we would be the same, but it seems to me that after the teleportation process what would come out at the other end would be an identical me as opposed to actual me.

Why is this though? What is unique to “me”, that something entirely identical to me would not possess? Of course it seems rather easy to jump to the conclusion of a soul, something that embodies our consciousness, our spirit - in essence, who we are, cast aside our mortal body. But this is at odds with my reductionist approach - perhaps you can see my dilemma.

Of course, this is all moot, until teleportation is actually invented - though let's face it, it will happen eventually (in fact I recall reading something about experiments on it a couple of years ago). And, when it does happen, will there be any way to tell? I'm acutely aware I sound more than a tad paranoid right now, and believe me, I have my sandwich board at the ready, but something about it just doesn't feel right.

Read More......

Monday, 4 August 2008

"Grow up"

I've just been wondering, can you really suggest that a more mature, civil person is superior to another?

Often I'll just make a joke, or a harmless comment, not realising how immature it is (that is if it even is immature) and I'll be told to "grow up" or that it's "pathetic". I think most of us have. However, what I'm wondering is if there is any need, or whether such retorts are just made to make the person saying them feel better about themselves, to make them feel superior.

I mean, these jokes or immature comments are said with no ill intent, yet I'm made to feel bad for saying them; like I'm some immature, insignificant little squit who no one cares about. It really hurts when said with enough vicious pomposity.

No doubt this makes the other person feel better about themselves, pointing out that what I said was inappropriate due to its lack of mature forethought. I don't understand this, making me feel bad about making a joke/comment (and subsequently confused about which part was bad about it) is surely more immature, especially when it's only to make yourself feel better. Perhaps I'm being a little cynical, surely not everyone of these situations is how I have described it.. and surely not everyone who says "grow up" says it to make themselves feel better. However, I don't think I have personally made any seriously intentionally offensive comments that I can remember (that is, outside of heated argument) so it baffles me as to why someone would tell me to grow up. I mean no harm, in fact I would often mean to impress.

I have never told anyone to grow up, but I have been told to. And it really makes me feel bad, and confused. Yet it shouldn't do this, I can be immature if I wish (heck, I'm only 19 as it is), and maturity is no indication of superiority. I'm sure Adolf Hitler conducted himself with plenty of decorum, yet he was by no means a superior (especially not morally) man than myself.

The fact is, we are all different. We all view maturity and morality with different sets of lenses. Sometimes we have to think about what we say to people because even though you think you are more mature, or morally adept, it's hardly mature or moral to go around plastering it about the streets and hurting people's feelings by telling them to "grow up".

Read More......

Saturday, 12 July 2008

No Escapades

I have nothing to do. I finished doing loads of work about a week ago and I'm going to be doing a hell of a lot more in a few weeks, but for now, I have nothing to do. Yet I can't relax. Because my future is scheduled and certain, the space before seems impotent and useless. To borrow a phrase from the White Stripes, I just don't know what to do with myself. Buying both Okami and SSBB for the Wii has helped fill the hours, as has going out and drinking, but it's times like these when it's just me, my thoughts and the world wide web. While you may not be enjoying the rant, just be thankful I'm not posting some dreadful poetry. Rant continued after the jump.

So basically, I go to uni in September. I'm a theatre technician, as of yet untrained, and I'm going to get my training at Mountview Academy. Hopefully after the 2 year course I'll continue working and eventually become a lighting designer. For now however, I'm just looking forward to training and exploring my craft. According to both the faculty and former students, the course is tough. My next 2 years is going to be solid work, 3 years worth in fact. I'll be trained in ever aspect of technical theatre. I'm hoping that my experience will help me cope, but I know there will be times in which I'll be learning things from scratch. I've recently sorted out my finance so I won't really have to worry about money, plus it's only 30 mins away from where I currently live, so I'm staying at home for the time being. It's sorted.

Before that however, I'm going to Edinburgh for the fringe festival. I'll be up there for a month, working on 2 shows. I reckon it's going to be very, very fun. I'm working with people I've worked with before and I get on with, getting travel and accommodation as pay and the shows won't be too busy. I'll start doing stuff for that in about a week when I start going to rehearsals. I've also got to start looking for props and thinking about how to achieve certain effects.

Basically, from the 28th of July, my life is planned for the next 2 years. Which isn't something I'm used to. Since I left college and started working, I've been living without any real long term plans. In some ways I enjoyed it, the freedom was refreshing after school (which I've always hated), and it allowed me to pursue my passion. Sometimes however, the uncertainty can be a downer, especially when it comes to jobs and money. I've managed to survive on my own financial feet since about October of last year and that has been great.

So I feel like I'm in redundant time. It seems like my life has leaped ahead of me and is waiting for me to catch up. I'm enjoying it, but I can't get the feeling that I should be doing something out of my head. I've got my tax return to do, but that isn't it. I've rearranged my room, cleaned up and organised my paperwork, bought a new hard drive for my PC and cleaned up the folder structure a bit. The next thing is to redo my notice board I guess.

On one wall of my room there is a rectangle of cork flooring about 7 feet across and 3 feet high. On it I pin things like a notice board. On there are postcards, important letters, CDs with cool art on them, pictures, tickets from shows I've seen or worked at, my clock, a fatal fury cap that's too small for me, a boomerang, etc... It seems to reflect my life at whatever point it's at. I rearrange it whenever something big happens in my life. This next one is going to be interesting. For the first time since 2006 it's going to have timetables, mind maps and stuff on it. I'm going to fill it with uni stuff. I also have to have other things on it, it's kind of like it's a picture of what's inside my head at any point in time. It's usually quite cluttered and chaotic, alternating between bright colours and black and white, there are things that are only a few weeks old on there but there are things I've had for years and take me back to the times they remind me of, like the smaller Taz noticeboard that reminds me of my brother, or the frisbee that takes me back to my carefree days at college, playing with my mates. On there now is my ticket to see the Mars Volta on the 16th.

Anyway, enough of the personal splurge. I'll try and do some real stuff before I leave and I may even try and so some reviews while I'm up there. Signing off.

Read More......

Thursday, 3 July 2008

Great Expectations

Expectations, nature, and the human condition.

Okay, firstly I'm going to apologise to Navarre for taking so long with this. I mentioned a while back that I was working on this, and whilst in essence a complete fabrication, I have been relatively busy recently. Not that it's an excuse, but I mention the whole thing because it leads me on nicely to what this will be about - expectations.

See, I figure we can't escape them. What occurs to me as I write this, is that people have already had these thoughts; but I'm going to continue, as even though I don't think I'd be castrated for not handing this in (Navarre doesn't know exactly where I live, anyway), but I feel somewhat obliged to contribute something.

We feel a lot of pressure in our lives, at certain points. And what is this pressure if not that of expectation? Pressure to do well at school, pressure to settle down, and raise a family, pressure to "live a good life". Pressure to get a job, pressure to conform. And the source of this pressure? Everyone. Parents, teachers, peers, ourselves even - arguably, it's the ultimate form of control: one we usually accept without question.

Is it a form of indoctrination though, or a means by which society needs to function? Of course, people can act without being expected to, but could society function as a collective of "free" individuals? Would people willingly work towards common goals, if there was no expectation for them to? Are expectations therefore natural?

If we take a step back, and look at the animal kingdom, the concept of expectation does not exist, at least not on the level we experience it. Sloth cubs, I doubt are expected to grow up and raise a litter of sloth jrs - yet we would expect this of them, but our expectations have no connotations for the sloth, lest we arguably ram two together in the hopes of little sloths popping out. Does nature expect certain things? Of course not, asides from the animism of nature in this case, such expectations would not allow any degree of individuality.

So, not natural, but a necessity for society to survive. Of course we could posit that society is not "natural", and so needs unatural devices to enable it's continuation - however, society is not a human creation. Many, many animals exist in society without expectation - so what makes human expectation so special? I figure it's our individuality. We have free will, we are not slaves to nature, which is exactly why we need to be controlled. Human expectation is a form of control we tend to tacitly consent to. It's an evolution of the rules of nature, something we arguably need as much as air, food and water - without expectation, there would be no morality, no laws, not right or wrong, and under that premise, dare think what human nature would lead us to. We're capable of so much, but we can never be "free".

To paraphrase several great quotes:

Nature, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

Read More......

Monday, 23 June 2008