Pleasure, we love it, but who to trust?

Hey, let’s not talk about religion, philosophy or heavy shit for once, lets just dive into the pool of loveliness, and talk about pleasure! When it comes to pleasure, I find it important to have it as awesome as possible. I won’t hurt others (much) just for my own pleasure, but there are anyways definite things we need to think about when it comes to maximizing pleasure!

And it comes down to what we can trust.

Let’s just establish a few facts first! We humans love pleasure. We love ourselves. We love a certain few people around us. We have everyone else. Everyone else has no right to benefit from my pleasure, fuck them!

So we can’t trust people in general then, so are we supposed to only go to those near us to learn about the pleasures of life? No, I think not! Not just because they probably don’t have enough knowledge of the world, but since they are so close to me, they probably hare my world view, at least more than those who live in different parts of the world or whatever. So I think it I necessary to reach out to strangers to learn about the pleasures of the world. And right now, I just have to mention than I’m not talking about anything specific, but knowledge of pleasure in general.

My agenda in this text is, by the way, to defend classical music and wine, especially red wine, I love red wine, and you can’t stop me! Call me pretentious when I drink red wine and discuss Japanese literature at Sivertsens, but you might notice after reading this that you are a mindless twat.

So we have humans, and humans need to live. To live we need food (among other things), and the way of getting this has been to work. If you have certain kinds of work you don’t have to work that much, so you have time to sit down and enjoy… something…

If you have such a job that you have spare time, you probably suffer from a profit. And a profit needs to be spent. And since we already know people like stuff, you better spend them on stuff, stuff that brings you pleasure. And since buying whores have been frowned upon for quite some time now, people have spent money on fine food and wine and even going to shows.

Why is it relevant that people won’t share? Because people will keep something for themselves and exclude those with other motives, damaging motives. When you have an elite paying for exquisite art, you will always have the pack which wants to impress these elitists and try to emulate their behavior, and not being critical. By not being critical, the artists will not be pushed to their limit, and the art coming from them, will be good enough to please those who don’t really give a fuck about true n\are, but will be good enough for them to look sophisticated whilst listening to it. This of course of bad. You want art to evolve, but only under pressure. You don’t want the artists to have freedom, you don’t want them to sell to whomever they want, you want them to want their paintings in the fanciest galleries and their music played in the most gold covered music halls in the world. And if you don’t have true judges there, the legitimacy of art will disappear. So that’s why poor people has no  right to be there!

Me as a kind of poor guy, I’m not poor, but nor do I have any money of my own, the bank owns me, and at the moment it doesn’t look like I will win that battle, yes me, I, I would want to enjoy fine art, food and drink. But, I am happy about being locked out, as it will keep imposters out aswel, keeping the artists on their toes for famous shitheads and real skilled people who will judge them and give funding to whoever is deserving of it!

But we, the people, you and me my brothers and sisters, we will not be without pleasure of art. We will accept art when it is leaked through cracks in the walls of the golden music halls, and we will look through the frosted windows of the galleries. We will see the art happening. But we will not judge it.

Fine art, food and wine are long traditions, and is being kept alive by rich folks. These rich folks have spare money and use it to protect culture.

For when it comes to culture and pleasure, we know that people will do what it takes to preserve what they love, and if they love art, they will make sure poor people keep their greasy fingers away from it, and make sure it lives on to the next generation. (Of some reason rich fucks are extremely interested in the idea of heritage, even if they say to value hard work to earn their living, and building up these mansions created from the pubic hair of virgin koalas.)

Through centuries, this elitist art will be protected and judged by the elite, and maybe discarded and handed over to the people and most probably consumed and shat out. And thus another piece of art was broken.

To sum this shit up: It is about whom sees value in the object. Why do they see value? Who do they see the object as valuable for? For what purpose? If the answers to these questions brings you to the conclusion that it was just for please, not profit or manipulation, you’re safe, and you can go on being pretentious with your French wine and food. Trust in peoples self preservation!

Sweet dreams little ants

Hypocrisy of religion

A quick one here for ya. I know it’s not revolutionary stuff, but just to kind of create a complete “TRK’s criticism of everything he feels like criticizing”, I feel its appropriate to write this little thingy here:

LIES, HYPOCRICY, HATRED AND ARROGANCE!

…is what I’m writing about.

Especially hypocrisy.

But let’s begin with the basics first!

You have an obligation towards yourself and those around you to improve you’r life, and afterlife if you believe in that shit, as much as you can without breaching other rules, right? You’re not supposed to try to improve your life if it will affect other people very negatively. The details here can be discussed, and different moral codes have each their answers, but as long as you think it’s nice to have a nice life, I believe we can all agree on the first sentence in this paragraph. (I’ll give you a few sec to read it again in case you’ve forgotten what it was)

…………………………………………….

Ok, Ready?

Good!

So as a person who accept the paradigm of the idea of god actually existing, or spirits existing, or most importantly here; afterlife existing, erm…that person should make sure he gets into the best kind of afterlife, or gets the most benefits in this life which can be given by the gods or spirits.

Let’s forget about spirits and shit and just focus on gods, or just a god, since the plague here’s been just the one, and the new disease is also just the one. So the believer should (what he should do is forget the fuck about being religious and just get the fuckon with his life, that’s what he should do!) make sure he follow the correct god so he can get into heaven, paradise or whatever. Because he will spend eternity there, and that’s a long time (you know, birds, sand grains and beaches etc)

How should he then make sure he gets into heaven? He must find the truth. How does one find the truth? One asks questions. But are you allowed to ask questions? NO! Especially in Islam, you are supposed to believe the Qur’an literarily, and never question it at all, if you do, you are not truly a Muslim. A Muslim should bend down to Allah and accept the “truth” he is presented with in their book. So how is a Muslim supposed to make sure he gets into heaven? He still has four major religions which presents their own version of the truth, but he is not allowed to question the truth presented to him in the Qur’an. Of course; the fact that he is not allowed to ask questions implies Islam must be correct, because if he was allowed to ask questions in spite of the Qur’an not allowing him would mean the Qur’an was not the carrier of truth. And this does not make sense, of course. It is all god damned bullshit!

This is just the Muslim way, I’ve learned from a “good Christian” that anyone who questions Christ is the anti-Christ, so I guess if you’re just that fundamentalistic, you will be a hypocrite. There is no way of logically defending not asking questions, and I think it’s sad that people are liars and hypocrites and proud of it.

But now I got a cheap bottle of red wine to finish and a hell of a lot packing to do. I will see you soon.

Ciao

The correct judgement

When dealing with an issue, there is always a best way of solving it. There may not be a 100% correct-in-every-way way of doing it, where everyone agrees and hugs it out, but within its context, there is a best way of doing things.

Within its context

Because, we have to deal with the issues we face in its context. The context is our society, our physiology, and psychology, and whatever-the-fuck you think can be relevant. Because you have to qualify what is relevant to each issue. The context is rarely self-explaining. The funny thing is how people tend to go either to one extreme or the other when trying to define the context of an issue.

Either, they bring in shit that is so far out of context that it becomes a parody. “So gays should be able to adopt? But what do I tell my kids, when they hear that Billy has two moms?” Simply reply: “DUMBASS”. And then you can look at the other extreme where the issue of freedom of speech is discussed; where some are positive to the suggestion that w should always censor hate-speech. The context they forget to think about is the presidency this sets in future cases.

These are just examples, and I hope you get my point, it’s not about going to the extremes, or to set a line somewhere, its about defining the context correctly in every case you meet. Every time you need to solve an issue, you have to go through the circumstances, find the correct context and see which factors in our practically infinite universe that counts, and needs to be a part of the equation.

Does this make me a relativist? Yes, it does. But when there is no object morality, how can everything I’ve blabbered about in previous texts have any value? Well, thank you for that good question, past me. The answer is that relativism, the way I understand it, does not claim that everyone are different or that every society is different, when it comes to morale. When it comes to morale, it boils down to the simplest parts of human thinking. Can we be empathic? Can we want the best for someone? Can we use our freedom is such a way that it does not limit other people’s freedom? These are questions with different answers, as humans do evolve, and our rational minds will see these questions differently, but right now, with humans being on practically the same level, we can argue for a shared morale. It is not objective, but it is shared. We humans have the same morale.

Deep inside that is

Deep inside we have these abilities, but we chose not to follow our true moral code, because we believe we will prfit more from calculating gains and losses by dealing with consequences and not maxims. Only through process of finding the correct maxims you can plug up to the common morale we share with all our brothers and sisters scattered around on this blue ball.

So… relevant how? It is relevant in this way: You might search for an absolute truth, and when there is no absolute truth, you will throw it all away and look for some answer which will please you, please your hunger for an absolute answer. You have to look at the world, as it actually is, and not the way you demand. If you can’t get the answer you want, is it justified to make shit up? Or is it best to look for the best possible answer reality can bring fourth. So what do you do?

Recipe:

You bring in everything you can imagine can be related to this shit, and then you study each little factor, determine if its relevant, and thereby building the context of your issue. Your experience, your views, other people views and experiences and a rock with a face-like pattern in it. And don’t dismiss a factor too quickly simply because it doesn’t lead you to an answer. If it is relevant to the issue, it is a part of the context and only through the correct context you can get a good answer for your issue. Even if this means postponing while figuring out the context.

As a student of law, I am hypocritical if I don’t think there is a best solution to any problem that may arise. And I do believe, that there is a best solution to every issue which can arise, but I do admit that many of these solutions are not the morally best ones. I do not believe it is morally right to lock someone up, but within the context of society, physiology and psychology, this is sometimes the best way of doing it.

How can I defend a system which is not morally guided? Like I said, its about the context, and being slaves of morality is being weak, in the context of society, and the world, being amoral can save us, so that we can live on, being morale. But that is a calculation of consequences… Yes, I might have written myself into a corner here, so let me try make shit clear before I end this, I am also getting hungry, and I’m thinking of making some simple egg-dish as a late lunch kind-of-thing.

There is always a best solution to an issue.

Finding this solution demands you look at the context.

Finding the correct context will lead to you finding the correct solution.

The correct solution may be a moral solution, depending on the context.

You should always look at the moral side of things, as a guidline when finding the correct context.

Morale is relative, but within the human movement, it is shared, therefore inter-objective.

There is such a thing as necessary injustice.

Good day.

- TRK 

PS: Try imagine an image of a gavel where, maybe it's beating down some people, or some more abstract kind of thing, I just cant be assed to find a put in a good image.

Afterthoughts of year 2011

This is really a text about 2011, and not just the events of 22^nd of july

But lets be honest, the events of 22nd of July stands out like no other event in the history of Norway. I could rise my gaze and look outside the borders and see how the events in the middle east and north Africa easily overshadows the events in Norway, but fuck that. I might about the "Arab spring" later, but right now I wanna write about shit related to 22^nd of July, 2011.

The thing that kept me up at night that summer was the thought of one man having such greater power, he saw himself as a man who has the right to take lives, o choose who lives and who dies. And that is in the cold hard world true, everyone has the power to kill, we all choose who lives and who dies, only our very limited physical abilities limits this power. But this is no way to base a philosophy of life. I have written a shabby text about this, called “POWER”, I think, read it if you feel like it.

Anyways, in the few days after 22^nd of July, I didn’t have the stomach to write about these kinds of things, so I made a crude painting about what was going on in my mind. And the main theme was fragility of life; we live our lives according to good rules and laws, but still, there is nothing that keeps us from breaking these, if we choose so. Our moral is no absolute stop sign between us and our actions. Because of our awesome intelligence and capability to do awesome actions we cannot be stopped by our morals at all times, that would keep us back. Sometimes the best thing to do is not the “right” thing to do, but, this only goes so far. But because we can turn off our empathy we leave ourselves open for attack.

The one who has no empathy has a “power” to do sickening great actions, and us, or them, who are bound by morals, we cannot. We are the answer, but there will always be those who challenge us. They will appear to have great power, they will appear to have great faith in their cause, and we will be lured to join them. They will be angels of totalitarianism, glorious totalitarianism. False promises of freedom and no true responsibility or guilt. When the cause is this great, no action is wrong when it leads towards the righteous goal.

They will appear as all knowing angels. They will be leaders of men, advisors of gods. And even more, they will think they are. Between their disgusting actions they will ensure their disciples of the righteousness of these actions. When they have explained their actions often enough, when the message is inflicted upon their disciples enough times, the disciples will becomes apostles and the message with be spread further.

The other part of society will be at the mercy of these angels and they will be deciding if we live or die. Their power in the physical world will be much greater than ours. We then have a great quest. 

We must stop them.

Even as we hang by the robes of the angels, not to fall into the flames of hell, we must fight them. Even if we have the barrel of their guns pointed towards our temples, we must fight back. At any second they might pull the trigger, but non-the-less we must fight them. We speak as one great voice and we can do nothing else than trust in the humanity of our brothers and sisters.

We do not trust prophets, we do not fall for lies. We, through our human abilities of rationality and empathy can make it work. We don’t need all knowing angels, no omnipotent gods, nor the lies. We are done with their lies.

We are done with the lies.

I wish you a good year and peace

Despair

I'm looking for a good interpretation of the emotion despair.

I search through deviantart for a good image. But, how come they're all the same. They are alle either understated, or anonymized by the person holding his or her arms infornt of his or her face. But true despair, isn't that more intense? In true despair you don't look emptily into the lens, you don't hide your face, do you?

Despair is extreme, there is no such thing as extreme despair, all despair is extreme. So how come all interpretations are so normal. When a person blows up, the inside is on the outside! Personality and image blends into one! How can they all look the same?

We must not confuse despair with shame, we must not feel shame about our despair. only when youre are in true darkness you can see the true aurora borealis, don't look down.

Lie on your back and let it all out, let it breathe the beast needs air to live. But it will not die when it is choked, it will only go back, dig itself into your spine.

Shame comes when we see our actions not matching the expectations of the ones creating the norm. Or rather, when our actions don't match the norm, as the norm makers rarely follow the norm, hypocrites.

Don't lie to yourself in dark moments, who knows what secrets may get lost in the darkness.