The Two Most Dangerous Ideas| 1. THE AFTERLIFE

When confronted with the question of nuclear annihilation I am initially an optimist.

Despite the spiral of fear that leads to nuclear proliferation, I think the possibility of all out war highly unlikely. The question of World War III is not a question of when, but if.  If the planet continues to warm, the current state of land use and ownership (i.e. use of resources, the only thing that is inherently valuable) will change violently and war will most definitely ensue. But otherwise I’m not so sure. At face value, compared to the obvious threats of nuclear war, the prospects of human suffering as a result of climate change are relatively tame. The two bombs the United States dropped on Japan have made there mark on the world’s psyche.  We know what happened to the victims and we know those bombs are not very strong by todays nuclear standards. So with that it seems obvious that the pursuit of nuclear weapons by governments (and military groups) of the world is much more in the realm of symbolism than intent to use. Today only 9 nations possess nuclear weapons and today, nuclear technology is far too expensive and advanced for just any rogue military group to develop and deploy. Presumably, those nations that possess them into the future will understand the ramifications of using them: massive human suffering, large scale environmental destruction, the threat of nuclear retaliation, etc. It an arms race!

But there is one large bit of reality we have to confront head-on. There are some VERY interesting people who want to get there hands on WMDs and it makes the rest of us very nervous. After all, the accusation that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs is what allowed President W. Bush to get support for the invasion of Iraq. But in many cases we are not dealing with a merely genocidal, crazed and power hungry dictator - we are dealing with highly delusional and furiously religious martyrs.  Sometimes, the fervor of faith regretfully outshines the power of reason (or even the hunger for power) because of a single notion: A strong belief in the afterlife. Certainty of an afterlife abdicates ultimately one’s responsibility as a member of their community, namely, our planet. It lowers commonly understood ethical barricades. Certainty of one’s afterlife surrenders the pre-afterlife, life, as a service to the god who governs the afterlife where you will rest for all eternity.  Unfortunately, this life, as joyful and exhilarating and rich and fulfilling as it may be can hardly compete with the prospect of eternity. WMDs in the hands of strong afterlife-backed bigotry is much more dangerous than those same weapons in the hands of the most hostile secular military group.

Apart from the grand threat of violence there is a greater, far quieter threat.  No one knows if there is an afterlife precisely because it is after life, a point where if one’s conception of self doesn’t completely cease to be, one still couldn’t come back to tell anyone anyway!  We are stuck believing in a particular afterlife based on what, then? An old and doctored textbook?  The tale of the afterlife is frozen in time and immune to cultural evolution, because it will forever lie in the realm of speculation, and therefore belief in it runs counter to cultural evolution itself. The very notion of the afterlife was a byproduct of our brain, of our minds’ grand imagination and of our species’ own struggle with its ignorance and, as such, it must be acknowledged and studied. Yet today we are, absolutely speaking, far less ignorant. My question is, why continue to live under an irrelevant tale – and one that obviously puts our precious lives at so much risk?

As Stephen Fry puts it, “even if it’s not true, we must absolutely assume there is no afterlife”.  (See: “The Importance of Unbelief”  http://bigthink.com/ideas/17864 for a brief and poignant interview on this topic).

God Bless America! Wait…what?

Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker on a mini-van that said “America, BLESS GOD”.

It reminded me of the late George Carlin’s last HBO special “Its Bad for Ya” where he blasts this slogan (watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuOBf-39t64).  I couldn’t agree more.

After eight painful-to-bear years of W, we finally found some relief (I almost said “hope”).  B.O. came along and projected reason, thought and calm.  That was 2008.  I was in college and was fortunate enough to be living in Italy for that entire Fall semester.  I witnessed this most grueling election from Rome and I saw how much Italians and Europeans cared.  They at least understood what Obama stood for; they were strongly pulling in his favor.   I was too.  I was sick of the status quo, the war-mongering, the lobbying, the shallow and cliché  ”I fight for the little guy” and “I’m a Washington outsider” garbage.  Most of my peers and teachers were also pulling for this guy to lead our great nation.  Many of us joked that if McCain won, we would stay in Italy because it would essentially be the final nail in the coffin.  One night, less than two weeks before election day, I met a girl at a pub and talked to her for a while about life in Rome, studying abroad and, regretfully, the election going on back home.  Once I learned that she supported Sarah Palin (remember her?), I fell ill.  The news stands were scattered with Euro-porn and Italian, British, American, German, and French newspapers all hyping the election (the Euro-porn wasn’t hyping the election, to clarify) and this single-sex religious college chick has not opened her eyes.  He won and so I allowed myself to return home at the end of the year (for the record, I did not vote).

Expectations were high.  Every speech he delivered was a massage to my tired perception of politics.  But whats that Barack?  ”God bless you and God bless the United States of America?”

Its evident our president possess the mind to see what an unfortunate phrase this is – and I am not flattering him with this statement.  Now, I am as misinformed as the next person because I rely on the media in so many ways (Mark Twains qoute, “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed” comes to mind) but ultimately, I offer my honest personal perceptions and judgement.  In fact, and I hesitate to admit this (pero que se joda), the loudest voice in my internal debate isn’t the voice of reason but instead the voice of love and ethics (49/51).  In the question of who to vote for, which is more powerful a decider: a strong intuitive affirmation of someones personality or a shallow understanding of a highly technical debate controlled by the media?  Or this: a weak intuitive sense/ emotional indifference towards someone or a strong understanding of a highly technical debate also controlled by the media?  I am not a politician or an economist and I didn’t become interested in these important issues until I left my nest and learned to fly (one my own, I might add).  I am still young ergo I belong in the former category of ethically-minded and ignorant-to-the-issues people.  Yet those who know me, know I believe that all persons and cultures have ignorance in common.  The question is of what type, and to what degree.

So why the God talk?  Obama has really come a long way since his crowd-tearing speeches of 2008.  For one, his job description changed.  He’s a decision-maker, not a support-getter…but hes also a support-getter (FF to 11 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRaTekm9Ak8).  And perhaps what has changed the most is that he now needs the support of a different group of individuals.  Starts with “C” and ends with “ongress”.  Yes.  That generally useless group of lawyers who all have one thing in common: they are good at being liked by 51% of their constituency.  (Tangent: think about how much attention is paid to a presidential election.  Now think about how much attention is paid to the elections of politicians from which we choose our future president).  Congressmen say what they need to in order to get their seat.  What set Obama apart was his willingness to say things that no one else would say (like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA) or that no one else really believed or believed they could say.

So it seems our president’s time in Washington, now fighting an obstructionist Congress and an angry, torches-in-hand, “we want our country back” mob (read: Tea-baggers), has made him not only watch his mouth but also cater to their ideology.  He admission that he prays everyday and that his pastor sends him a Bible verse for breakfast everyday has let me down.  Does anyone really believe that Obama is religious enough to believe that God blesses America?

Who is really clinging here?  And is it to religion or to public support?

Rules in Creative Fields

In school you can learn one of two things: how to play the game or how to write the rules to the game. I like writing the rules. I also like observing others to see what they do.  Some play the game very well. Some write the rules very well. Some do neither and some do both to differing degrees. Throughout architecture school this dichotomy was evident to me. Of course, you can’t always write the rules and when you can you certainly can’t write all of them.

Architecture is full of rules.

A few of them are unbreakable. For example, gravity, fundamental structural principles, weathering and the like.

Most of them, however, can be broken… but they take know-how to break. They are what architects have called the principles of design since to break these rules is to engage in the very process of design. That is, to understand the way they can be broken and mend them to one’s liking is to be a designer.

Finally, there are rules that beg to be broken. They can barely be considered “rules” since they are always already broken. They are the eggs to the omelet.  To not make these decisions is to effectively cease to be something. This diagram or spectrum of rules can also be thought of as a spectrum of choice from non-choice to necessary choice. Necessary choices are often taken for granted. An example of necessary choice?  In architecture: a building material and a client. In science: what you’re trying to prove. In law: which side of a legal conflict you’re on. These are the eggs folks and if you want an omelet… well, you know.

Its the elastic rules that hold the most interest of course.  It’s our wiggle room.  Our play zone.  As designers/architects we are set apart by our ability to command the elastic rules.  When we decide to make the kitchen the symbolic center of a dwelling we are following some rules and breaking others.  When we decide to ornament the legs of a dinning table we are, whether we like it or not, conforming to certain ideals while rejecting others.Even if we choose to leave the status quo unchallenged (which is actually pretty hard to do) we must realize that it was a choice made and it’s consequences will send a message. Likewise, its message will have consequences.

Even design decisions, the very process and substance of architecture, seem ready-made at times. They’ve been made by old habits and cultural assumptions, by people in powerful positions and by the position of power we grant to fear in ourselves. Lets not forget that the elastic rules and the broken rules are fundamentally parts of one whole. They constitute one body of choice and by their very nature they beg to be made, not overlooked.  The rules beg to be thought about as much as the game begs to be played.

living for the Future, in the Present

What are the logistics of foresight?  Behavioral zoologists say foresight, the ability to see and plan ahead, is an important attribute that defines the line between us and simpler creatures.  Indeed, we can’t help it.  Every step we take it seems is not without anticipation for the next one and where it might place us.  We work ourselves hard for the dividends it pays down the road.  We think and we decide.  We decide and we choose.  We contemplate and then we act (see previous post).

…But what an ironic duality: living in the present, for the future.  We are foresighted creatures with the inability to ignore the consequences of our decision-making.  Yet we are so much more than that.  We get lost in beautiful moments.  We are drawn towards those sensations which are at once the most powerful and the most mysterious.  We also teach ourselves that nothing lasts forever.  The present is powerful.

The very notion of the ’future’ takes for granted a reference point.  That reference point is this moment, the present.  Thus the future needs the present to exist (By “need” I mean conceptual dependence).  Likewise, the past needs the present.  The present is the center of our world, it is the birthplace and eternal resting place of consciousness and of our mind.  Might one call it the substance of our consciousness?  Yes, the moment.  Always fleeting yet always arriving.  Look at a spot on a blank wall late one night after everyone is asleep.  Nothing is moving, nothing is happening.  But if you read past the wall, you will see the white noise of perception… if you listen past the silence you will hear the passing of time.  Is this the future slipping through the momentous present?  Perhaps you might like to think of it that way.  I do.

Yet what is most interesting is what happens when we fully acknowledge the power and gravity of the present… and apply it.

We may want to become lost in it, and indeed we will (and must) become lost in it.  The weight of the moment is never put to waste for man learns quickest when he is lost.  As with psychedelic journeys, there is no waste in becoming lost for as long as you can “bring back the goods”, thats the whole point.  Learning from the moment is really the whole point because the next step is the controlling of the moment and its power over future ‘nows’.  Not now, but now.

Knowing how to preserve a beautiful feeling, knowing how to let it go… only to get it back again.  Thats living in the present, for the future.  Thats power.

a life of Contemplation or Action?

A few days ago I had a revelation prompted by the question “A LIFE OF CONTEMPLATION OR ACTION?”.  It is a fundamental question of my existence and it hits the nail of my struggle dead on its head.  Action alone leads to emptiness and ethical immaturity.  Conversely, contemplation alone cannot achieve wisdom, nor manifest any thing.

As happens so often to us, we forget that which we already know.  They are things we would never have realized we knew unless they were revealed to us by something “out there”, at which point we realize we had known them all along.   I call this revelation.  Sometimes this comes in the form of a good friend’s advice, but sometimes it comes as an elegant diagram catalyzed by conversation (thanks Agatha): A or B?  Action or Contemplation?

This blog is the fruiting body of my shift towards action.

POST 1

welcome one and all to forty9fifty1.  A strong idea.  A world of love.  A futile notion.  A navigation of the mystery.