The Daedalus Barrier

Something known as the Drake Equation describes the probability of human-like intelligent life in other parts of the Galaxy as being very highly likely, if not indeed, virtually certain.

The Fermi Paradox questions why, if the Drake Equation is correct, we haven't encountered it yet.

I need not go too deeply into these two concepts here – with the internet these days, any reader can, if they aren't already fully familiar with either concept, read up on them quite exhaustively.

However to me there is a great deal these days that passes for science and intelligent thought, that is in fact really nothing more than present-era folklore. Yes, these sorts of ideas contain some mathematical contructions that are meant to reflect or even represent the situation that is being looked at. And these constructions can be quite complex and impressive and look the part. But this is a kind of a trick, a way to infer legitimacy by associating a weak conclusion with something external that is solid and strong itself.

A Monstrous Bull

My own concept borrows a great deal from an ancient Greek, and by our own family folklore, an ancestor of mine – a certain Daedalus, of Ithaca. This Daedalus once made an incredible maze for King Minos, in which was kept the deadly and horrible monster the Minotaur. Once a victim entered the maze, they would never be able to discover the way out, and were forced to go further inwards, into the centre of the maze, where the Minotaur was, and where they would meet certain death – according to the most common versions of the tale.

Humans appear to have this remarkable inclination to create mazes of the mind for themselves to wander around in, where none actually exists in the outside physical reality. Reality consists of a large number of shapes and sizes of a very large number of things: some things are smaller than we can easily see, some too large individually for us to perceive what they are as a whole complete thing. Some things we know of as the result of many of them appearing together and thereby becoming more perceptible to our senses at our own human level, some we know of only one face or aspect of them at a time since they are quite gargantuan in their complete form to our human level of sense and perceptions.

The immensely complicated maze of Daedalus was overcome through the device of a simple ball of a single string that the holder unwound as they went into the maze, and then could wind back up in order to retrace their steps and find their way back out again.

Without such a device to assist us to 'cheat,' as it were, the complexity of 'the maze' - whatever that maze is - our perceptions and intellect are at the mercy of potentially overwhelming odds that run against us: fear of the monster in the dark, fear of our own demise, doubts about the clarity of our senses, the problems of perspective that confront us when matters are not on the human scale, and the fundamentally gravitic forces of crowd mentality... The problem of encountering other intelligent human-like life in the Cosmos is not resolved by the Drake Equation, or any better understood by the Fermi Paradox, because in the way of our perceptions is the Daedalian Wall.

Of course the original myth of the Minoan Maze contains a lot of complex psychology – and certainly, the sacrifice of virgins to propitiate the monster is a recurring theme throughout human history. In another post soon, I shall, I am sure, voice some of my own views about things like the Golden Apples of Hera, and the black sailed ships returning from Minos. And the virgins.

Best, Calvin J. Bear.

Good-Looking Russian Models

Maybe because I have now been sucked into playing the “From Russia With Love” Sony PSP game, I think I am going through a Russian-stuff phase.

I mean yes, it's true I still have a few friends left in the post-KGB world... Who tell me by the way, that every Russian outside of Russia attributes all the good things there to Putin, and every Russian inside Russia blames him for all the bad things.

Well, in all events, I remind myself that I have always had some regard for the work of the Russian designer Slava Zaitsev and recently I had the chance to see some of his work again in a private showing in South Africa. Zaitsev distinguishes himself from the rest of the European design/fashion world by engaging models who are both not dead, and not ugly. Granted a lot of what he does is not suited to the places I find myself in most of the time – hot, dry, or hot, humid, and monsoon-y. But the workmanship he accesses and the fabrics and materials are first-class. And his vibe is more positive and uplifted than perhaps the economics of Russia is entitled to necessarily reflect. On the other hand it's funny how some things of quality and standard seem to survive the worst of times and get swamped more often when the broader environment is awash with a lot of simply dumb money.

Zaitsev's vibe is also more complex and intellectual than many other designers'.

So... 'Complex, intellectual, high standard, quality ingredients...' That's obviously the stuff that turns off the denizens of the noisy media these days. They prefer stridently common, zombie-eyed, near-to-death scrawny, and dystopic, persons and visions – with a lot of noise, cursing, and chaos thrown in, literally. I saw the BBC movie critic's Mark Kermode's rant about Disney's 'John Carter Of Mars,' and immediately figured that this might be reasonable entertainment. Every single movie I've seen panned by popular media critics has proved to be the exact opposite of what was said about it and JCOM is no different.

The thing that is most unfair about this particular production is the sheer lack of respect for the hard work given by the cast – Lynn Collins in particular sells her role in the film through commitment to the producers and a commitment to credible adult belief about her character, and it works. The whole thing works and I believe there is not a single expletive throughout the entire movie either.

I could say something really nasty about people like Kermode, but I won't because for one thing I know for sure that – and I have said this before, the Rothschilds are not Zionist Illuminati World Domination-seeking bastards – but that there are certain ideological alliances and slants by the poster children of the gutter media and the popular yellow press is quite clearly evident to me. People ought to aim their conspiracies at this crew! And it's all about the material power that has gone to their collective heads, and not to any allegiance to a political or a national or a religious or an ethnic or a racial cause. Do I think that movie critics are seeking to be the financial powers behind the movie producers' thrones? Oh yes I sure do. But, as many of you already know, I have always been a strong supporter of the words and sentiments of Julia Phillips when it comes to the film business. Her words are complex, intellectual, displaying personal flaws and weaknesses, yes – but true enough for those who can fathom them. She seems to say that ego and the arrogance of unchallenged power drives the animus of the rulers of the channels of mass communication – of which I would say movie critics rank as a set of such 'rulers.' And unlike Robert Parker, the seriously flawed wine critic, movie critics have produced nothing at all of relevance and value to the role into which they have inserted themselves in everyone's lives.

Best,

Calvin J. Bear

Great God Pan Is Dead

What led me to this is my five year-old profoundly autistic son, who recently has made us watch that scene in Kubrick's '2011: a space odyssey' – you know, the one with The Blue Danube Waltz behind it – over and over, and over again.

And then, he (the kid) took over my main computer and has been watching Vladimir Malakhov dancing with the Austrian State Ballet – The Blue Danube Waltz...

Obsession must be in the genes; everyone knows I talk a lot about Kubrick!

Anyway. I can't dance but my mother was a good ballet dancer and teacher as well. So I'm going through this 'Russian' phase right now, and watching Nureyev and Zakharova and so on.

Meanwhile, over a few days that movie 'Zeitgeist' has been on one of the local channels. I'd have to agree with this flick that there are a few problems with the 9/11 official story – to say nothing of the fact that back at the time I had been plagued for months by market traders in the US and Euro pushing scuttlebutt about another 'go' at the World Trade Center, seeing as how a year earlier there had been a car bomb incident carried out in one of the basements.

However, I have to disagree about some of the other conspiracy stuff voiced in Zeitgeist. Hey, I mean it would good if these conspiracies were really there and run by brilliant geniuses who can pull the wool over everybody's eyes all the time. As it is though, the catastrophic Euro Central Bank and euro currency just underlines what a bunch of idiots they all are, who supposedly 'run things' and conspire to control everything and have power over everything and everyone. Here's why I say this: you can't have a fiat currency without a discount risk-free bond market – otherwise what you have is not money but only unfinancialisable tokens. And we are seeing and will continue to see until its demise, the dysfunctionality of the euro because of this. This fatal flaw - and failure – has already shifted power away from the dimwits previously at the top. Germany, unlike the popular notions about its supposedly bullet-proof position, is an accident waiting to happen. Germany, is nowhere near as financially strong as the media has been portraying and as the Euro-centric technocrats have convinced themselves that they are.

Zeitgeist uses this following phrase to outline the grand conspiracy that has been rolled out over the last, more than two thousand years: 'mainstream religions are based on fantasies and mythical stories and invite the masses to believe in a superstition or even many superstitions in order to enslave them.'

And that all sounds quite possibly true and great and all except for this thing about human mentality and intellect and I would say even consciousness:

See, I believe that Rudolph Nureyev could fly... ...and that isn't a superstition, even though it is a myth though one that I regard as having been turned into a myth for ordinary people because it was actually a material fact that is too difficult for ordinary people to accept or comprehend. Every serious appreciator of classical dance knows that Nureyev could certainly fly and it's a waste of time saying otherwise to them. This is the meaning and essence of art. And it is the transcendent aspect of the human. There is nothing romantic or mythical about the hard work of the living human in being able to acquire the art of flying...

Muslims believe some magical horse flew Mohammed up to heaven... And maybe they have a good reason to believe this; I have a good reason to believe Nureyev could fly - I've seen him do it. So why should I deny the Muslims their little nonsense? And like Jesus, Nureyev was both a god and a man!

Nonsense is of course quite wonderful. It is entirely human and what makes us interesting and worthy of sentiment. And Jesus, of course, according to the clever Greeks who wrote about him, is Love itself. And Love, is certainly not, a superstition; that is to say, to believe in Love is not to believe in a superstition.

Modern, fashionable, atheists spend a lot of time worrying about the sexual evils of religious organisations, and the moral and ethical corruptions of these organisations – and they insist that no god, properly defined, could permit such organisations to proceed in the name of that god, and therefore, that there is no god at all. And they pretend to speak about the scientific facts to justify their view.

But that would be like saying that Nureyev could not fly, which is a way of trying to belittle a very great miracle, of which they who do so are entirely possessed only of a mere jealousy about, because it is not something they, nor anyone who cannot believe without qualification or equivocation about the fantastic-turned-into-reality, can ever achieve themselves.

To be a real atheist one must be genuinely objective, and not so propelled by this emotional and biting animus against the Superior.

But you see, therein lies the whole point - some human beings understand art and transcendence including artistic transcendence, whilst others simply do not have the soul to do this no matter how much of a show they put on for superficiality's sake in order to claim they have any depth at all. And certainly, for those, who do not have this type of soul, they neither need a god nor is the existence of a god necessary for them to exist. Because that is all they do too, exist. Until they die and then, nothing. And why not. Nureyev, however, said this of himself and of his approaching death, 'the lights will go out and it will be darkness, but I will live again and I will dance again.' According to everything experts accept and say of him, he was a notoriously promiscuous, gay male, who also had sexual relations with women sometimes too and, if you go by religious fundamentalists and probably Dr. Phil as well, he's certainly nobody you should take as a prophet of any decent god!

But for me - for someone who can fly, to say that he will overcome Death is something coming from a person with a sound scientific understanding of the superhuman, the miraculous, the infinite – and worthy of taking very serious note of.

It's become very fashionable to be an atheist, because of the supposed advances of science and as a contrary position to a sexually compromised swathe of churches. These modern fashionable atheists are just as prurient about sex as any dogma-bound religious fanatic is. Luckily for me, I'm an Ithacan whose god (the one who often resides in Ithaki and favours the sons and daughters of that place) is often at odds with the other gods, and is not generally as nice, nor always as peaceful or polite, as the modern, fashionable 'experts' on god, seem to think that a god must always be, in order to be 'a real' god at all. To answer the deepest questions on this subject, one requires to be like the Nureyev of the Mind – able to leap and to fly with grace and land again without hurting oneself. Very difficult. Very mysterious. Though not completely impossible. And something within the scope of the human to be able to do. Though not just any and every human all the time.

Oysters a la Russe

Calvin J. Bear

Composition In Design

Okay I have to admit my business has been doing rather well over the last several weeks and that is probably the main reason for the recent slow-up in postings here. It has also been interesting to see what levels of site visits are maintained when the posting rate changes.

The exact nature of business currently undertaken by my consultancy is still not able to be detailed, as it involves publicly listed corporations with direct implications for the related share prices. And such things are quite rare in these difficult economic times; well, when it comes to positive implications things are rare at the moment!

On less secretive matters though there is one area about which I could regale people long and hard on at the drop of a hat: design. Industrial design, creative design, production design – all kinds of design.

Like Karl Lagerfeld, I am not ashamed of superficiality when it comes to beauty. The superficial is important when the word is not being employed to merely convey 'shallow' or 'a facade.'

I think the great secret to the look of a design – and its intrinsic philosophical or intellectual implications – is in composition. Design composition comes from hard work, well-structured thinking, intelligent decisions. The word taste is used by people discussing art and design but the reality is a whole series of actions and choices and decisions that link functions and elements together.

Image composition is the secret to good photographs, and it is also true of any mechanical item where the function of that item is meant to be part of the lifestyle of the user of the item. The Germans like to have ze multi-funktional instrument, but then the market outside of other Germanic-minded people becomes limited if the product is stupidly ugly – but then a lot of producers make that mistake, not just the Germans!

Perfect composition creates greatness in design. Personally, I find the interior design elements of the new Mercedes SLS terribly flawed, and this detracts from the car's potential for greatness. It is true in any case, that many big corporate designers are stuck in the past – the SLS is a streamlined Dodge Viper look melded with the old original Mercedes Gullwing. Still it is visually appealing and that's what counts. It is not avant garde but why does it need to be if it looks modern and new, stylish and streamlined, and – beautiful.

Again, to quote Lagerfeld: 'a respectable appearance is sufficient to make people more interested in your soul.' I agree with him. A profoundly good and wise and wonderful person may certainly exist behind a rough or roughened exterior within a surrounding context of misfortune, accident, or privation. But I think the choice of the adjective 'respectable' is intelligent, and meaningful. And I have found that in business, in life, and especially in human personal relationships, a 'respectable' appearance will show you a person who will never let you down, but tiny little flaws in what they composed of their own appearance, will announce to you the virtual certainty of failures to come.

A person might show damage, material limitations, or even relative material poverty – but these are not flaws. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a person without visible damage, material limitations, or material poverty, and yet shows countless surface flaws to any student of human nature. You can judge a book by its cover. This book will have a substance seeking to make late middle age chic, an arrogance about who deserves to be wealthy, and a nature that fits easily into blue jeans. Some gun-slingers make their name though, by shooting people in the back. They're the ones who find it easy to smile all the time. They've never faced a real challenge or a fair fight in their lives. Watch a tyrant or a political brutalist: they're always smiling or at least being cocky. Am I right? That's not a respectable way to deal with other people. Give me a serious-looking guy. And always beware the Ides of March.

Best,
Calvin J. Bear

Overcoming The Modern Mental Staleness

In my own personal view of myself, I regard myself as the student of about three or four quite significant and at one time world-famous individuals, although they are mostly not that much remembered anymore. Professor Munro Leaf from Harvard was a tutor of mine for a short while – he created the story behind the first Disney fullscreen colour cartoon: Ferdinand the bull. I got engineering lessons from some people I won't name although one was trained in Nazi-occupied Holland and I'd have to say, gave the impression to me that he was of two minds about what Nazism meant to him.

As far as psychology is concerned I am very proud to say I was something of a disciple of the late architect, psychologist, and polymath Paul Ritter, the man who laid the foundation stones of the original World Trade Center towers.

The one thing that I can distil from having known all of these people is a clear impression – as a result - that today's world possesses a kind of a 'spirit of deliberate mental staleness' and the consequences of this are bound to reflect in its buildings, architecture, social patterns and ultimately in the inevitability of widespread political, economic and social failure.

To build things worthy of the appellation of 'greatness,' is a lot lot harder than the government of Beijing knows, for instance, and it's not about 'doing more big buildings,' and takes a considerable amount of substance more than just the facile supplying of money which can of course be easily accomplished by drug cartels operating in Miami, as much as it can by the central planning committees typical of most contemporary governments.

To be great you have to know how to transgress the protective and self-defensive psychological umbra of other people, be able to get under their skin in a nice way, and make them much more human, rather than simply more 'televisual...' And really, beyond 'more human,' you also have to progress things and propel people into the future. You have to be avant garde.

One of the problems about blandness and intellectual staleness prevalent everywhere today is in the expression of the style and substance of today's woman. I agree, for example, with a few other bloggers about the recent interpretation of 'Irene Adler,' played by Lara Pulver, in the popular new television series 'Sherlock.' At first it seems she's clever – maybe cleverer than Sherlock himself - independent, sexual, and very bad, only for the whole thing to disappear under the idea that she is a puppet of Sherlock's nemesis, Moriarty.

A lot of what is passed off today as interesting, exotic, erotic, and attractive – is simply trite.

And following on from the last post I wrote about the Heineken beer commercial, why the superficiality when they could have extracted so much more from a legitimate mondo-ethnic source like: Bowyer-Yin's “Meet The Tiger.” Playing on the presumed superficiality of contemporary people is a mistake; yes the ad works, but it could have worked so much more. What are they all afraid of, these drips who have been hogging the commercial world for so long? And that includes Rupert Murdoch, who is an old fool. And all the politicians who kow-towed to him for so long are going to have to deal with people like me and the blogs that will go down into history standing in stark contrast to the self-important nonsense that has been written up till now about reactionaries like Reagan and Thatcher and Harry Lee – the nonsense that was mostly put up by themselves and their appointees funded by them to create the propaganda. Lee, for instance, purports in the Wikepedia entry about himself, that he was an interpreter for the Japanese, and no one says a word about it. Well, of course, you won't hear any complaints from the 50,000 ethnic Chinese (at least) who were genocidally massacred by bayonet and knife by the Japanese when they first entered Singapore. So much for the bullshit from Mr. Lee about how he was a great torch-bearer for ethnic Chinese interests.

Calvin J. Bear