Enlightening

A blog on pushing the limits of our reasoning.

At verja hjúnaband?

Jeg veit ikki um jeg fari heilt av leið at siga, at felagsskapurin “ja til hjúnabandið” tekur undir við øllum tey lýsa við á síðu teirra, men reyðið tráðurin á síðu teirra tykist at verða “ja til” siðbundi og átrúnaðarligt hjúnaband (kristi) enn nakað annað. Mín illgruni er eisini styrktur í tí, at teirra orsøk ímóti broytingini er at varðveita eina leysa tulking av einum siðið, sum tey hava bundið, at teirra trúgv. Sum Ja til Hjúnabandið endamálsorðinging lýsir;

Ja til hjúnabandið er settur saman av fólki, sum eru í breiðari semju um siðbundnu kristnu heimsmyndina.

Til eina grein á facebook síðu teirra, har ein samkyndur úr Írlandi, Paddy Manning sigur sína áskoðan ímóti at javnseta hjúnabandið, stendur soleiðis;

“Kjakið snýr seg í veruleikanum um, hvussu týdningarmikið vit halda tað vera, at eitt barn hevur eina mammu og ein pápa í mun til tveir pápar ella tvær mammur… Um vit broyta hjúnabandið, so siga vit sum samfelag, at hesi viðurskifti ikki hava nakran týdning. Tá siga vit í grundini, at kynsliga eindin hjá manni og kvinnu ikki er øðrvísi enn eindin hjá tveimum monnum ella tveimum kvinnum. Tað er tó ein sannroynd, at bert tann fyrsta av hesum eindum kann hava avkom við sær, og tað vísir týðiliga, at hesin boðskapur er ósannur. Ymisk viðurskifti eiga heilt einfalt at verða viðgjørd á ymiskan hátt. Hjúnabandslógin brýtur tí ikki nakra meginreglu um javnrættindi.”

Manning sigur at hjúnabandið snýr seg um børn og familju. Hjúnaband snýr seg um familju, ja har kann jeg verða samdur, men sum so eisini onkursvegna er eisini tvítýtt, at innibera børn, tó ikki neyðturviliga. Í grundini, harafturímóti, snýr tað seg um tvey myndug menniskju, ið hava samtykt at at løgfrøðiliga vátta teirra parlag (uttan mun til teirra kyn), so har skal ein leinkja afturat orðingina hjá Manning og Ja til Húnabandið. Sum óivað gongur ímótið teirra átrúnað!

Týdningarmikið er óivað, at børn hava eina mammu og ein pápa, ella somuleiðis líka, ella meira týdningarmikið at tey hava góð og ábyrgdarfull foreldur uttan mun til teirra kyn, ella um tey eru lívfrøðiliga í ætt við hvørt annað. Kjarnufamiljan er ikki neyðturvilig og ei heldur nýtilig, tá ið tosað verður um børn og teirra tørv í einum góðum familju umhvørvi. Sum øll kenna og vita óansæð um tey eru fyri ella ímóti, so er familjan fjølbroyt! Men um tað áðurnevnda er ein próvførsla fyri at varðveita síðbundna og kristna hjúnabandi, sum nakað betri og skal verða galdandi fyri øll, so slær tað feil. tí hjúnabandið er ongin trygd fyri hasum mynstrinum, ella fatanin harav. Fólk kunnu skiljast, fólk eru einstøk foreldur, eitt foreldur kann doyggja, og mangt annað.

At siga, at kjarnumynstrið gert onkisigandi, tá ið samkynd javnsetast í lógini, tí at samkynd pør ikki kunnu lívfrøðiliga sínamillum fáa børn, er at halda lítið um sítt egna uppáhald og ein rong niðurstøða! Har er eingin leinkja, sum sigur at tað er ein sannroynd, at týdningurin í hjúnabandinum syndrast, tá ið samkynd kunnu vígast, tí tað ikki er framíhjárættur hjá hinskyndum meir. Ongin hevur biðið nakran trúgvandi broyta sín persónliga fata av ella tann týdning hann ásetur hjúnabandið. Somuleiðis, so er eingin frágreiðing, sum ávísur tað er neyðturviliga betri fyri børn enn í øðrum umstøðum. Mín spurninguri er so; hava børn tað minnið gott í øllum øðrum viðurskiftum? Um tað er týdningarmikið, at varðveita tað eina mynstrið í hesum stovni, so mugu prógv ávísast, at børn hava tað verri, tá ið mynstrið ikki er galdandi ella syndrast.

Við kvøðum,

Jens Arni Leo Hammerfoss

Advertisements

A new curtain.

 

putin-propaganda-russia

It has been 25 years since historic occasion of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the turning point in Eastern European totalitarianism, the fall of the closed – society – empire! Yet 25 years on, Russia has again turned to forming an oligarchy, closed itself to the outside world, and all along, its border there awakens the old dichotomy of East and West, which now cringe at each other.

It is not an accusation nor is it speculation to say that Russia has failed as a democracy, but a reasonable observation of its behaviour both internally and externally. There is no denying that the integrity of the Federal Russian State has been less than rock solid since the collapse of the Soviet Union though that does in no means warrant the use of force. Its border republics have pushed the federal government for more autonomy or even independence though the Federal governemnt has responded in to old Soviet diplomatic fashion, i.e. warfare and oppression to quell any opposition to the centralized power, such as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

It is noteworthy to mentioned that it is here where democracy failed before it even began, the people were never given the opportunity to vote, and the Caucasian republics of Russia have since late Soviet times tried to do just that whereas Russia continued imperialist behavior reminiscent of Soviet oppression.

I will return to the Caucasus. Since those times, countries of Eastern Europe slowly but surely have become liberal and democratic becoming members of the EU, or more general moving westward and have cast off the influence of Russia’s imperialism. Yet, Russia has gripped tight on to some nations, Belarus the last dictatorship of Europe has remained wholly in support of Russia and its diplomacy, others have remained pro-Russian, but when those pro-Russian entities fell out of favour with the people, Russia has responded. Primarily through force!

War in Chechenia, War in Georgia and now War in Ukraine, with military presence in other former Soviet republics. In essence, Russia has each time kept this satellite states in check with its armies and denied people of the region self-determination were Russia’s dominance has lost favour through popular vote or democratization. Moscow maintains the empire and its totalitarianism.

A sad state of affairs, yes but I believe the problem lies in the fact that Russia goes on unchecked, that is, the consequences are minimal but also that its society is closed. The Iron Curtain is gone but a Soviet veil remains. This return to obscurantist Soviet argumentation, for example, the Crimean Referendum was held during an abrupt occupation by Russian troops who with the vote bypassed the Ukrainian constitution, but Russia was adamant that this was democracy’s finest hour. One might wonder if, the many in the former Eastern-Bloc have any idea what democracy means exactly.

The process and outcome of the Crimean vote is debated but its foundation was fraudulent, backed by the might of the Russian Armed Forces, hardly an acceptable free process, but all this, and near complete approval of the Russian “people” and media, has its politician in thunderous applause to the process of their so-called free vote.

The root in this resurgence of totalitarianism is nationalism, specifically that of Russia, Orthodox Christianity and the idea of Empire. All of which play their role to create a new totalitarian regime altogether. A closed society of course needs a divide and being that Russia still highlights the issue as the dichotomy between east and west, it seems that that is precisely the divide that sets them apart, or half-wittedly phrased; the curtain – evidently further east – is shut once more.

“We may hope that in the 21st century we shall not be obliged to fight Russia. But it would be foolish to suppose that we shall be able to lie beside this dangerous, emotional beast in safety or tranquillity.” – Max Hastings, 2007

It is evident that we have been foolish in our suppositions.

Max Hastings article

Scottish independence.

Today it all happens, 48% for yes and 52% for no, which is excluding the undecided votes on the Scottish referendum on whether or not it should be an independent country. Both sides are still making a final push before voting begins, in what can only be described as intense campaigning; the party leaders from Westminister rushed north acrossed the border to appeal to union identity, whereas the opposite side campaign for self-determination.

One thing is evident, however, and in whatever the argument one might be proposing, if it is unionism, nationalism, historicism, economics or oil, like all campaigns in politics have all fallen to prey rhetoric and fallacious, or untrue facts. Facts just slightly bent or wholly bent matters little, for the conclusion is uncertain, if not ambiguous.

The yes campaign have used positivism of self-determination and differentiation of national identity as their most potent arguments, and in many cases true isseus of the independence remain unsaid, or at the very least remain somewhat undetermined on what exactly will be done once independence is achieved. Still, this referendum does not instantly lead to independence, it will be a process which de-evolves powers fom Westminister to Holyrood.

The no campaign has resorted to silly and very often offensive slogans, which pertains to the certainty that the vote would go their way, for it was not until it became a point in difference between yes and no, that the campaign started to step up their efforts. They left behind their straight forward pretentious demeanor and began a positive shift towards highlighting family and unionism. Though in my opinion like some of the uncertainties surrounding the yes campaign, the damage done by looking down on voters, and using scare tactics had already beend done.

We await an outcome come Friday, and either yes or no, eventually we’ll see a more autonomous Scotland, and perhaps seperation of Westminister and Holyrood.

This time round same-sex unions were denied.

It has been some time since I wrote about this matter. It is mostly because time has not been kind time, or just plainly elusive.

Earlier this year a vote at Føroya Løgting the amend to change the marriage law to incorporate same-sex unions was denied 11 for and  20 against the motion. Democracy did its work, something was proposed and it was voted for, however in this instance something was very much amiss, one might assume. The coalition consisting of the Union Party (Sambandsflokkurin), People’s Party -Conservative, (Fólkaflokkurin), Christian Democratic Conservative Party (Miðflokkurin), had agreed as part of  forming the coalition to vote unanimously either in favor or against such notions, which were deemed “ethical” matters by Miðflokkurin.

Whatever ethical means in this, is whatever thing, which falls within the thinking of Christian conservatism, and since same-sex is both against conservative and christian dogmas it was deemed, of course, ethically wrong. The coalition agreement therefore demands that everyone agrees with Miðflokkurin, however, a few raised the concerned that one’s own right to assess the ethical proposition with their own conviction. These few were in the end not enough and the poposal was denied.

My own thought on the matter is, that the next coalition will pass a suitable amendment to this law, but again that depends on what the people vote for. In retrospect though, the shortcomings of the current coalition would make it a disturbing turn of events if they were re-elected because their merits speaks to the contrary of what nay reasonable person deem fit to re-elect.

Still, the Faroese people have a tendency to vote due to tradition, or more commonly due to habit, which can have the most inadequate people re-elected time and time again, but the next coalition will see changes no matter which political parties it consista of.

Activism gone lazy?

Mention the killing of baby-animals and everyone becomes a Facebook or online – rage activist; over-generalizing nations, terms, people and protesting to boycott unrelated products made in those countries.

The intellectual laziness and loss of perspective of these annoying re-occurrences is dumbfounding, to say the least. I say it is intellectual laziness because the majority of these so called activists have not taken any time to read any article regarding the matter. That is, to assess entire story and its moral approbation and disapprobation, and whatever other implications it might entail. In their essence these posts are riddled with oversimplification worthy only to the capacity of those human beings still attending kindergarten. To make it worse, they have more false facts highlighted than any true one’s can be discerned.

The root of this, I propose is in how they use most of their time, they skip and superficially glance at the pictures or tiny descriptions on their social media, which for the most part is accompanied by some photo. The realization of the lazy but hasty onlooker is followed by a hasty emotional reaction, and perhaps an emotional reply before moving on to the next puppy picture, or baby partaking in some mundane activity. But all in all for the purpose and activity to exclaim “aww…cute”, or “NN country is big shame”, and boycott this and that. Then they remain silent for the better part of a year until they finally leech of another story from some article they didn’t read carefully.

The aforementioned follows on to my second point, that is loss of perspective. While the activists’ short momentary attentions are enraged because one incident highlighted in the media, the destruction of bio-diverse ecosystems both on land and at sea are being destroyed. Some irrecoverably. Animals hunted to extinction for game, trophies and some for homoeopathic nonsense that keratin is a supplement for medicine, or the destruction of rainforests because of agriculture or logging. Many, many more examples of our attentions and efforts crucially needed for preservation. As any healthy minded person can see, the perspective of these so called activist becomes nothing more than a small microcosm only attentive to momentary pop ups on social media’s, whereas true problems or environmental, societal issues remain wholly in dark.

Get them while they’re young.

“If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather then by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called “education”. This last is particularly dastardly, since it takes advantage of the defencelessness of immature minds. Unfortunately it is practiced in greater or less degree in the schools of every civilised country.”

– Bertrand Russell in Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954)

This is also true for conservatism both in basic beliefs and within political ideologies. If conservatives were to base their beliefs upon reason, their arguments, as Russell puts it; would go against them. A reason why conservatism and its attempts at arguing for its premises avoids rationally structured arguments in its entirely, which is evident in the application of obscurantist political rhetoric in argumentation instead. Ultimately, one can infer the following pattern explained by Russell.  In western societies it follows entirely as in the latter part of Russell’s explanation, that is, by means of education, or in a more foreboding term and form, it can be described as indoctrination that conservatism is accepted as seemingly reasonable. Partly, I think is due to the fact in some sense conservative politician have successfully made the term somewhat equivocal to both Laissez-faire and Individualism, which subsequently implies liberalism as a consequence.

And partly becuse people who fervently promote such ideals indeed do not realize – partly – consciously that their arguments are useless, moreover, their beliefs, which have been with them throughout their entire upbringing and education in their attempts to apply reason it, becomes defensive for the purpose of its own preservation. That is, we are inclined to defend our particular views and beliefs not for any rational based reason or in use of our reason, but for the sake of repetition of what we believe, and have come to do so in acceptance of our tutelage.

Entanglement and Wormholes!

20131204162607-0Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon when pairs of particles, or more are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each member must subsequently be described relative to the other. Quantum entanglement is a product of quantum superposition. However, the state of each member is indefinite in terms of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. in a manner distinct from the intrinsic uncertainty of quantum superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counter-clockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.

A diagram of a wormhole, a hypothetical “shortcut” through the universe.

Read the rest of this entry »