Cy's Mind

It's interesting how most people, when told a great truth, don't understand the enormity of that truth because most great truths are very simple.

If you dwell on that great truth as stated in simple terms, then it is quite likely that you understand the great truth in the intellectual mindset, and not in your core. I think that without seeking, and exploring for the great truths, you cannot fully understand them. You've got to go through the hard work of thinking through these truths. Accepting a new belief without testing it leads to a fanatic faith which then leads to a worse world for us all.

I believe I have found the greatest truth of all, and I feel truly liberated. It is very simple, yet very complicated.

So in sharing it verbally with several people I have found that they understand it intellectually, however I don't perceive the sense of awe that the truth deserves. Maybe I expect to much. At least I know it for myself.

I'm alive. I like that. I could write continuously for months here. Everyday, all day. But what would be the point? I'll have to think about that one.

Paralysis of the mind should always involve alcohol.

Fear. Living in fear. A constant pain that causes the animal to amputate the soul through knawing. Make the pain go away.

Hemmingway in many ways was a hack. Oh, how he could turn a phrase! He was gifted in writing, just not in creativity. So limited by pain, he couldn't allow the mind to create from positive energy. So how can I say that? He became famous, and wealthy; recognized by peers as a great writer. And who am I? Some writing ability, lots of creativity, and not driven by pain to be obsessive enough to throw away family, friends, and a great woman for the sake of writing.

Those that we hold up as "famous" tend to be mentally focused driven by obsessions. We enjoy the results of their obsessive focus. However, I believe that this also inhibits them from reaching the pinnacle of possibility in their creativity. Society ultimately rewards them through adoration, and purchase of the obsessive works. So which is correct? And which is substance? And does it matter?

If I were the obsessive, then I would continue this entry today for much longer. However, I'm not that obsessive. Besides this is just for cathartic reasons. Get it?

Wake up Steve Jobs! Be excited about the iPhone, and be even more excited about Apple TV!!!

When I was the Chief Software Architect at a small extremely well-funded IP streaming TV company in 1999, I made a prediction and started working toward my vision. The rest of the management of the company didn't understand my vision, and I left the company. That company is gone now, and my vision died when the Internet depression hit us in 2001.

Apple, Inc. has implemented 90% of my vision, and they have no idea that they have. The iPhone will make a lot of money, and Apple TV will make much more through the iTunes store. All they have to do is complete my vision using Apple TV and iTunes.

OK, now the vision: my TV shows and no #$%# commercials. Sounds ho-hum huh. This is one of those ideas that doesn't sound like a big deal until you experience it for the first time. It is just like sex: until you experience it for the first time you really don't get it, and then once you do, you can't get enough.

For months I've been rolling my own evening's worth of entertainment from iTunes. I have to watch it on my computer and that is the downside. Now with Apple TV I get it on my TV (now I need to go purchase a TV - long story). Last night my honey and I watched Night Gallery, The Outer Limits, intermixed with some music videos. AND no commercials, and we just paused it when needed, and skipped over the end credits, and skipped over a show we thought we might like and didn't. Wow, man it was great!

By the Numbers

So each episode costs $1.99, and last night cost me about $8 with no commercials, and unlimited re-runs, and I control it. Your average cable bill is about $50/month with commercials and NO CONTROL. I only spend about $60/month doing it this way. And it is sooooo worth it.

Do you have any idea how time is spent flipping channels? The commute time between a show I want to watch is such a waste. A few things need to be changed to provide me what I want

Labels: apple tv iphone advertisements

Why is it that we can easily do those things that aren't good for us, and it is difficult to do those things that are good for us?

Webster's says the following about faith:

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust.
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Context is very important. In the context that I write about I'm referring to the etymological root: "to trust". Following that is now the Webster's definition of trust:

Etymology: Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b : one in which confidence is placed

So following this definition leads us to true:

Etymology: Middle English trewe, from Old English trEowe faithful; akin to Old High German gitriuwi faithful, Old Irish derb sure, and probably to Sanskrit dAruna hard, dAru wood -- more at TREE
1 a : STEADFAST, LOYAL b : HONEST, JUST c archaic : TRUTHFUL
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs "true description" (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled true b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed true dimension of the problem d : CONSISTENT "true to character"
3 a : properly so called "true love"true faith true stomach of ruminant mammals b (1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as true but not a typical mammal (2) : TYPICAL true cats
4 : LEGITIMATE, RIGHTFUL true and lawful king
5 a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern : ACCURATE

In the context of which I refer, true is something that accurate and consistent. But accurate and consistent according to what standard or reference? It seems that the key is the consistent portion of the definition. Repeatable. So looking at the words we use to define faith it seems to boil down to this statement: Faith is to believe in something that is consistent. Again another definition, for consistent:

Etymology: Latin consistent-, consistent, present participle of consistere
1 archaic : possessing firmness or coherence
2 a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction "a consistent style in painting"

Hmm, free from variation or contradiction. Seemingly, then to be consistent is to have a repeatable test to prove that the attributes remain the same in each test. Gee, that is science.

Scientist have faith in the tests that they perform. That they can "see" with their eyes, and sense with their other physical inputs into their brain: Touch, hearing, smell, vision, and taste. So science relies only on these five input devices to determine what us true...for them.

I consider myself a scientist and a person who has faith. You can't be a scientist without faith. Faith in your instruments of measure. When you go outside of the Earth off into outer space then not all of those instruments operate as expected on Earth. Context again.

Science disregards emotions. So rarely do scientist think about them. Psychology is not considered a "pure science"; instead it is a "social science". Many people think that it is a science. In academic circles it is not a "pure science". Most people tend to have picture of a "pure scientist" in their head when science is mentioned. Psychology deals with the mind which of course includes the emotions.

The most interesting aspect of the fight between faith and science is that science doesn't realize that faith is required to be a scientist, and religion doesn't realize that it needs to apply scientific principles to it's dogma to find and keep the truth. If religion would do this, then they would all resolve to the same conclusions and hence a single view of religion.

Science and religion simply don't have the answers that people really need.

There is circumstantial evidence for religion and religious faith, but not proof that can be detected with the five senses that science uses. Science can't depend on it's current set of conclusions because have new discoveries that dis-prove scientific absolutes. People are drawn to religion because they can base their lives on the absolutes that religion provides them.

They real truth is there are no absolutes. Gravity has been part of the Earth since it's formation. Someday our sun will go super-nova and the Earth will be destroyed. It will probably be in billions of years, but it will happen. It is an absolute...maybe.

Hence, the only way to live is to have "faith" that generally things work out most of the time for the best for yourself. Life is just a roll of the dice on the craps table. It works pretty good as long as you bet on 6 and 8. 7 and 11 are higher risk. I guess that is why gambling is so popular throughout the world. Las Vegas is the real spiritual center of the world.