Oh the 80's.
Arnold, Sly, Seagal, Van Dam, Willis and Dolph. The 80's had its own action movie style that can be described in one word, cheese. For some reason I love it, it has a flavor that just isn't reproduced now days. The same story over and over, guns, muscles and awesome one liners. Explosions and a simple plot are a necessity. The bad guys are pure evil, there is no need to guess who is in the right in these flicks.
Arnold was my favorite back in the day. Predator, Total Recal, Terminator and the Conan movies. But when I was a kid nothing could top 'The Running Man'. It had everything, a singing electrical fat man, a hocky player with a razor hockey stick and the guy with the chainsaw. When I was a kid I din't understand what the movie was about, but I got the action.
Recently I have been catching up on all the old action flicks I missed as a kid, especialy the Stalone flicks.(Apperently my Dad wasn't a huge fan of Sly) I am actualy enjoying them more than I thought I would. Stalone seems to have been trying for a little more intelegence in his movies, Arnold was going after the paychecks (Especialy in his later career and you can tell).
I vividly remember my fathers tape collection. He taped movies off the TV, and later off other tapes and he had a fairly large number of movies. Any time my parents left the house I would throw in a tape and watch random movies, and then one day I put in something called "Robocop", and pressed play. Well as the body parts were blown away from a guys body in the first few minutes, my brain was blown. I was disturbed and intreagued, my dad watches this stuff? This kind of stuff exists??
And so I watch. I prefer the cheesy stuff over gore and explised stuff and the 80's is great for the cheese.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Science Vs. Spirituality
Sight is a wonderful thing. It is one of the main ways we understand the world around us. Shapes colours, faces, danger, size the list goes on and on. We can see the face of a loved one and it will make us happy or see a shark in the water and send adrenaline pumping through our bodies.
We could get by with one eye. We would see just fine, the same colours and faces. Everything would be the same except, we would be without stereo vision and depth perception. Somehow our brain takes two different images and fuses them into one that we can understand and get more information out of just the one image alone.
Perhaps I am just slow, but as far as I can tell, science and spirituality are ways of understanding the world. As humans we have very limited senses. Our eyes can only see so far, our ears can hear only limited frequencies, our noses are almost useless and we can only feel something if we touch it. Apparently we have taste buds to make us fat.
Humans being a somewhat inventive species, have figured out ways of extending our senses with machines. We can take information we would otherwise not be able to detect and translate it into something we can understand. (radar makes it possible to see things we cannot see, as do telescopes and microscopes etc. etc.)
I could go on with this, but I am lazy. My point being science tells us about things we can see and detect, in other words it tells us about the material world, the macro and the micro world that affects us everyday. Using this science we have found that the probability of spontaneous life generation is 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. That is a one with a 100,000,000,000 zeroes behind it. Essentially, impossible. I wish I knew how reputable this information is but unfortunately I don't. I have read it from a few sources, but they could all lead back to some fundamentalist wacko, so be warned.
Spirituality is how many people like to see the world and make sense of it. From the ancients who didn't really know any different, to modern man who knows that some of what he believes is suspect but firmly believes in the principles that have been passed down generation to generation, and know that there is some fundamental truth to most faiths. How do we know there is truth in faith (or God)? My short and simple answer is, we are still here, and so is faith, so something about it works.
I don't truly understand the problem between Science and Faith. They both meld in my brain and form my understanding of life. How I should think and act are informed by my understanding and thirst for more understanding from both of these wonderful subjects. I think the main friction between the two comes down to POWER and CONTROL. Something neither field should be dabbling in but both seem obsessed with. The power over minds and control of money time and resources.
And, stop.
We could get by with one eye. We would see just fine, the same colours and faces. Everything would be the same except, we would be without stereo vision and depth perception. Somehow our brain takes two different images and fuses them into one that we can understand and get more information out of just the one image alone.
Perhaps I am just slow, but as far as I can tell, science and spirituality are ways of understanding the world. As humans we have very limited senses. Our eyes can only see so far, our ears can hear only limited frequencies, our noses are almost useless and we can only feel something if we touch it. Apparently we have taste buds to make us fat.
Humans being a somewhat inventive species, have figured out ways of extending our senses with machines. We can take information we would otherwise not be able to detect and translate it into something we can understand. (radar makes it possible to see things we cannot see, as do telescopes and microscopes etc. etc.)
I could go on with this, but I am lazy. My point being science tells us about things we can see and detect, in other words it tells us about the material world, the macro and the micro world that affects us everyday. Using this science we have found that the probability of spontaneous life generation is 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. That is a one with a 100,000,000,000 zeroes behind it. Essentially, impossible. I wish I knew how reputable this information is but unfortunately I don't. I have read it from a few sources, but they could all lead back to some fundamentalist wacko, so be warned.
Spirituality is how many people like to see the world and make sense of it. From the ancients who didn't really know any different, to modern man who knows that some of what he believes is suspect but firmly believes in the principles that have been passed down generation to generation, and know that there is some fundamental truth to most faiths. How do we know there is truth in faith (or God)? My short and simple answer is, we are still here, and so is faith, so something about it works.
I don't truly understand the problem between Science and Faith. They both meld in my brain and form my understanding of life. How I should think and act are informed by my understanding and thirst for more understanding from both of these wonderful subjects. I think the main friction between the two comes down to POWER and CONTROL. Something neither field should be dabbling in but both seem obsessed with. The power over minds and control of money time and resources.
And, stop.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Reading revisited
Yesterday I started writing a blog about reading, my love for it and what books I am reading. I reread what I was writing and said to myself,' Wow that's boring.' So now I start over again.
I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about reading and writing. Probably more than I should, and surely more than your average person. I love reading for many reasons. I think you absorb a little of a persons point of view when you read a book. Whether you agree with it or not I think it is good to see life from multiple angles, and think about what you saw.
Reading is my main way of recharging. I pick one of several I am reading at any one time, sit down and jump in, fiction, non fiction, doesn't matter. If I don't want to exert myself too much I pick up a comic(so called Graphic Novels), if I feel like a challenge I pick up a 'classic'. I usually find classics to be hard to get into, and more word to get thru, but they tend to have more to them in terms of content, sometimes. Occasionally they are simply garbage (Naked Lunch, anyone). Anything 20th century or after is usually not too bad.
I must say one thing tho. If I don't like the book in the first two chapters I stop and don't bother with the rest. I am very picky about my reading time, I don't like wasting it on trash.
More on reading later. At the moment I HIGHLY recommend a book called The Book of Absolutes by William Gairdner. Every time I open this one I am blown away.
Peace
I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about reading and writing. Probably more than I should, and surely more than your average person. I love reading for many reasons. I think you absorb a little of a persons point of view when you read a book. Whether you agree with it or not I think it is good to see life from multiple angles, and think about what you saw.
Reading is my main way of recharging. I pick one of several I am reading at any one time, sit down and jump in, fiction, non fiction, doesn't matter. If I don't want to exert myself too much I pick up a comic(so called Graphic Novels), if I feel like a challenge I pick up a 'classic'. I usually find classics to be hard to get into, and more word to get thru, but they tend to have more to them in terms of content, sometimes. Occasionally they are simply garbage (Naked Lunch, anyone). Anything 20th century or after is usually not too bad.
I must say one thing tho. If I don't like the book in the first two chapters I stop and don't bother with the rest. I am very picky about my reading time, I don't like wasting it on trash.
More on reading later. At the moment I HIGHLY recommend a book called The Book of Absolutes by William Gairdner. Every time I open this one I am blown away.
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)