How I Met Your Mother vs Rules Of Engagement
Seinfeld vs Married With Children
Ok, folks. Here's how it is for me. I like ROE better than HIMYM. Why? ROE is less exaggerated than HIMYM, ergo the intrigues are more plausible. ROE uses diverse range of cell phones, unlike HIMYM, where they use only iphones. The flash backs spammed in HIMYM have gotten really annoying for me. I like the cast of ROE better. Patrick Warburton is such a great actor, and Jeff suits him like a glove. Oliver Hudson playing innocent and dumb Adam is so damn funny. Adhir Kalyan is brilliant in his role, and David Spade (aka Russel) needs no embellishment. HIMYM lost its appeal, at least for me, when it became a soap opera.
Now, Seinfeld vs Married With Children. I like Seinfeld better. Why? Every episode is about a different thing. It's not repetitive, like MWC. Peg's lines always revolve telling people how Al ain't good in the sack and how his feet, socks, shoes smell. Bud is constantly trying to get laid. Kelly is always in the role of the dumb hot blonde. Al always revolves around fat women who want to buy smaller nr shoes. He always wants to catch a break vis-a-vis food and money. Marcy is a hell of a character, and the feminism thing doesn't get all that annoying. However, the constant hooters bar theme does. The constant bathing suit chicks theme does. The jokes in MWC are repetitive and the show not only uses very implausible intrigues, but overuses hot chicks wearing little clothing. In Seinfeld, it's always about the characters and their context. The characters remain organic and produce sympathy, in spite of their idiosyncracies. Every episode is a new context, in which they grow. The writing is far superior, and because of that the actors yield a better performance.
Friday, 18 January 2013
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Here are some titles my wayward mind has come up with, "Captain Ahab and the sand worms," "Gulliver stays home," "Cthulhu isn't returning my calls," - though, this one is pre '23... not a public domain character - "Big Blue Riding Hood," "The Artful Dodger and his make-a-wish foundation," "Dracula is spelled with a K" All of these sound very good, and I claim copyright, lol. ^^
Thursday, 10 January 2013
The most disrespectful thing against GOD is religion. Religion has imposed on the Supreme Ultimate, on the prime mover, on the clock maker, on the principle which subsumes the universe, the ideas that god has a favorite corner of the universe, a favorite planet, a favorite people, a favorite religion, a favorite sex, a favorite sexuality, a favorite familial system, a favorite political-economic system, a favorite country, a chosen one or prophet, a favorite calendar, a favorite hat, a favorite day, a favorite “vicar on earth”, a favorite army, a favorite constitution, favorite leaders, parties, factions, and policies – that god has nothing better to do than catalog, prioritize, and discriminate between selfish human prayers. Religion is a sin against god and all creation.
That being said, it’s time to tackle atheism. Agnostics are not even worth mentioning, neither are the pantheists, who believe that the creator and the created is one and the same thing. By that reasoning, nature is god, and we are god. Last time I checked, the carpenter was not the same thing as a carpet. Nature derives from god, but it’s not god. God is the first spark, the first cause. In lack of this you only have circular logic. Leibniz’s clock maker example is the best. If an observer would shrink himself to go inside a clock to see how it works, all he’ll witness is the wheels working in perfect synchronization. The observer witnesses correlation not causality. The true cause lies in the one who made the clock, and winded it, in order to set its wheels in motion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If I have all the pieces of a table, and pile them up together, I’ll still have all the elements of the table, but I won’t have the table. What’s missing? The principle of organization.
I’ll just sum it up like this: even radical empiricism accepts the possibility of the existence of transempirical beings. But given their superior nature, such things are not worth the pursuit. That’s the view of radical empiricism. So if you’re an atheist and you’re being posed the question, “Is it possible for god to exist?” don’t say NO, and don’t try to beat around the bush. Say that transempirical entities may exist, and if they do, they’re certainly not the almighty, wroth, bigoted, patriarchal, human incarnated, or buddha characters of religions. But if they were, would you seriously pray to them and worship them? Would you pray to a human being who’s managed to go beyond his finite and weak form, and achieved another plane of existence? I, for one, wouldn’t. I’d rather invoke the words of dead men and or principles which define my character and beliefs. To quote Dante Alighieri, “Consider your origins, you were not meant to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” Virtue and knowledge cannot work as separate notions. Having virtuous people, who lack knowledge, who are ignorant, make for perfect slaves/obedient workers. However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward. So a virtuous and ignorant people will sooner or later descend into barbarism. Knowledge without virtue is as perilous. Why? Because such individuals are solely clever devils. They’ll use knowledge only to further their own ambitions, their greed. They won’t care about the consequences of their actions. They’ll use all the means to steal, guard, protect knowledge, and attack all others who want to possess it as well. Progress and peace can only be achieved through the observing and practicing of virtue and knowledge.
The only likeness between the human being and the nonreligious concept of god, is the human being’s willful creative reason. Just as the biosphere is organized by a higher principle, and has a fundamentally distinct quality compared to the abiotic sphere, so does the noosphere (the sphere of human ideas/thoughts) over the biosphere. Living matter is distinct but not separate from inanimate matter. Ideas are distinct from matter, but not separate. To quote Gottfried Leibniz, “Everything that is in the mind came first through the senses, except for the mind itself.”
Therefore, whilst we are part of creation, we’re also a willful creative force inside that creation.
Note: I can’t stand those who don’t believe, seeing themselves superior to those who do believe. And I can’t stand those who believe, seeing themselves as superior to those who don’t believe. Thus, religion (aka institutionalized faith) is the greatest affront to the Supreme Ultimate.