People want to experience drugs to alter their state of mind and perceptions to transcend physicality. But I want to do so through psychotic disorders and mental illness. I wish you can “catch” a mental illness like the way you catch STDs.  I would definitely inject into my brain with every “mental viruses” imaginable and experience them ALL AT ONCE. 

i’ve been wondering what the primitive people in tribes think and contemplate about.Without formal or Western education to shape and mold their brains into certain ways,what are their imaginations like?How do they think? Perhaps their style of thinking and thoughts come closer to the language of thought itself and can, without their minds being “polluted”, come closer to the pure essence of consciousness itself.

 

Western/modern society is verbally and mathematically based. There are other forms of intelligence at work in primitive societies such as Naturalistic/Kinetic/spatial intelligence. Maybe if you take a reductionistic view of intelligence, it’s all just about computational powers and algorisms and neurons firing and making new connections and processing information and manipulating symbols in its core, in the purest sense. Different cultures require different manifestation of such computational activities and algorisms, but in and of itself, objectively and taken out of the subjectivity of concepts and context, it’s still just electric signals and chemicals doing their stuff.

So is playing the violin more “complex” than hunting and gathering? Perhaps. It depends on the complexity and speed of the computations in each of the activities and the amount of information processed and the desired and specific outputs. You would also have to take into account different process mechanisms within each individual brain. If you take a world class violinist and put him in the wild, it might take a huge amount of computational powers just for him to figure out the difference strategies of survival, perhaps even more so than playing a concerto all the way through just because his algorisms in his brain has adapted to the given situation.
 

 

There’s nothing intrinsically good or bad about a movie or a book in and of itself. The quality of work of art arises out of the on-going interaction and transaction, as well as the dynamic and dialectic process of receiving and projecting between the work and the audience. This is why I always look at the people looking at art in an art gallery as much, if not more than looking at the work itself.

 I hate going to the theater because you can’t pee anytime you wanted to, you can’t masturbate to sex scenes, and you can’t pause or rewind on the parts you missed.  I much prefer watching DVDs on my laptop, but the only reason why I go to the theater is so that I can look back at the audience’s faces during the most crucial/suspenseful moments instead of watching the film itself and try to figure out what went on in the scene based on the audience’s reactions and comments and facial expressions.  Actually I would like to watch an entire movie this way.  There could be a row of seats that face the opposite directions that are designed particularly for this purpose. 

The audience is just as important as the work itself…the two arise and emerge as opposite forces simultaneously to bring out the existence of each other under the given condition and context as the object and the subject.  The ME that is looking at a De Kooning would never have existed if De Kooning never painted that particular picture in that particular way, and vise versa.   The artist’s job consisted of merely 50 percent of the final work as a whole, for the other half of the work is done and created by the audience and their dynamic act of perceptions and feedbacks and how they choose to interpret the work and fill the blanks with their own thoughts (which is a creative act in itself).  

Interestingly, a movie or a book is said to be more “sophisticated” (better than )their shallower or less sophisticated, more “mindless” counterparts if it requires more thoughts or engages more emotions.  Yet the difference is entirely arbitrary and subjective, for quantitatively, the different is merely the amount and rate of neuronal firings/connections in the physical brain, and how much blood/oxygen is flowing into the cortex through the act of perceiving, as well as the distinct reconfigurations and patterns that give rise to the amount and kinds of neurotransmitters emitted.  


2 things I would like to see invented.  One is a mind-reading machine that could pick up EVERY thought and image a person has in his brain and broadcast it somewhere for people to watch.  Maybe there could be a special kind of TV where you get 7 billion channels and you could watch the thoughts of every person on the planet from your living room couch.  Or a special kind of theater that broadcast thoughts of famous and insightful people.  These people could even get paid for just thinking up thoughts for others to pick up.  You could broadcast the thoughts of a knowledgable professor in a big theater filled with students who want to learn from him.  You get not only his knowledge and thought processes but his darkest secrets and fantasies.  Lectures would be much more exciting this way.  The second invention is a mind-movie – something that gets plugged into our brains so that a movie can be played inside your head.  I think this is where movies will be going…the next step from the 2D to 3D revolution.  It would feel just like we are dreaming, but the difference is that you get to choose your own dreams (or nightmares).  People would all just sit on the couch for days and get plugged in and enjoy images coming directly into their brains and watch their lives away and get as fat as they could possibility get.

Now if you combine the 2 inventions together then it would really be something else.  You can get a couple to lie next to each other and each one of them would take a plug to enter into each other’s heads and just watch each other’s every thought and feeling and image while having sex.  This would end up as a self referential act because they would really end up just watching themselves while getting off (that and whoever your partner secretly fantasizes during sex).  This to me is kind of like masturbation.  But if you break it down reductively, masturbation is nothing but masturbating and getting aroused to your own neuronal firings and chemical neurotransmitters.  You may be thinking about your ex girlfriend when you masturbate, but you are not really thinking about her at all, but your are really just getting off of your self and your own brain cells and cerebral matter, for you are thinking of the images that YOUR brain is generating FOR YOURSELF.

You might say, people wouldn’t like to have every single one of their thoughts exposed.  Hell, there are even thoughts that we are afraid to admit and reveal and think to ourselves, why would people want to broadcast their deepest thoughts to anyone else?  I agree to that.  But personally, I would feel more comfortable with myself and more secure in front of others if all my thoughts are revealed to them because then I would have no where to turn and nothing to hide. It would be like having nothing to lose.  Just think of the act of stripping naked in front of someone who you are not really comfortable with yet because that person hasn’t seen you naked.  You feel insecure about the imperfections of your body.  But once you get over that hump and reveal your whole naked ass completely to the other person, you no longer feel any embarrassments.  You feel safe, secure, and comfortable.  And it is at that point that you can fart in front of the other person and not feel awkward about it because you truly have nothing to hide, and nothing to lose.   

Advertisements