The tale of the two brothers, part 2

Cain grew sad at that, for once again he was alone. He stood from the table and walked towards the great balcony that had a view over the entire land. And he saw the barren wasteland of Nod, and the sun sinking behind the mountains. And he heard the howling wind speeding through and watched the foundations of the great palace he lived in. And watching the barren land with the sinking sun behind the mountains and the cold, grey stones of the palace, and hearing the howling wind speed through, Cain was reminded of how lonely he truly was. He turned to go back inside and as he reached the door there was a sudden burst of light. Cain turned and he saw, floating at the arch of the balcony, a great figure. He had golden wings and the sun seemed to shine even brighter behind him, and his eyes seemed as if made from gold. And turning on Cain he spoke. “Son of Adam, son of Eve, your brother has forgiven you for your crime. Will you repent to our Lord and let me guide you to your just reward?”
And Cain knew the angel for who he was, and he knew he offered him penitence to have a place in heaven. But Cain didn’t repent. He had grown angry and bitter for the injustice he had seen. So, looking at the angel in the eyes he spoke with a voice as cold as stone. “I am who I am, and I did what I did, and never shall I repent. Go back to our Lord and tell him that Ill be judged by my actions, as he once said.”
And turning, Raphael left.

The next evening, while Cain dined alone, another angel appeared. He had wings grey as stone, and was covered in a white mantle and his eyes seemed as if made of silver. He walked towards Cain and embraced him. And looking at him, spoke. “Son of Adam, son of Eve, your Father has forgiven you for your crime. Will you repent to our Lord and let me guide you to your just reward?”
And Cain knew the angel for who he was, and he knew he offered him to kill him to have a place in heaven. But Cain didn’t repent. He had grown angry and bitter for the injustice he had seen. So, coming out of the angels embrace he spoke with a voice as if fuelled by all the anger in the world. “Go back to our Lord and tell him that Ill not repent for what I have done. I did what I did and never shall I bow to any for forgiveness.”
And turning, Uriel left.

The third night, while Cain ate watching the dying light behind the mountains, he thought about the words of the angels that had visited him. He had been offered a place in heaven, next to his brother, and had refused it. He began to cry at that, for he had been offered what he had wanted. But Cain vowed that he would never repent. And that until the day his Lord came at him for forgiveness he wouldn’t go back to his family as an equal. And just as he stood to leave, the room seemed to get quieter. And in the distance Cain heard as if a million trumpets were blown. And Cain saw the sun come back from behind the mountains and shine stronger than before. And standing in front of it, Cain saw an angel. He had brown wings, and his eyes were black, and his body was as the body of a soldier. And his voice was calm, but it resonated as if the entire earth spoke through him. “Son of Adam, son of Eve, our Lord has forgiven you for your crimes. Will you repent to Him and let me guide you to your just reward?”
And Cain knew the angel for who he was, and knew he offered to take his soul to its rightful place. But Cain didn’t repent. He felt betrayed at how everyone had treated him and, although he craved to be with them, he wouldn’t until they asked him for forgiveness. So, taking a step back from the angel he spoke with a voice as convicted as any angel. “Go back to our Lord and tell him that I'll not return to my brother nor Father, nor to Him as an equal until the day they come to me for forgiveness. For it is them and not I who have done wrong, and they who must seek penitence.”
And turning, Cain expected the angel to leave, but he didn’t.
“Son of Adam, son of Eve, your words are filled with rage, and it saddens our Lord to hear them. But as you asked, by your actions shall you be judged.” Cain turned when he heard these words, and looking at the angel he waited.


“I come before you,” continued Michael, “sent by my father to tell you His will.”
With this, Michael unflunged his wings and hovered up to the air, and his next words were not calmed as the previous ones, but strong and deep. And they resonated across the wide chamber, and all the other noises seemed to silent themselves to let this new voice speak.
And then Michael, hovering in the air, threw his finger at the first-born, and with this the fires went wild, as his hair did, and the sun behind him seemed to intensify, sending it’s rays so strongly that Cain would have been blinded if it weren’t for Michael, who blocked them, making his silhouette contrast against the bright of the day. Then Michael, with his sword in one hand and his other hand aiming at Cain, spoke. “Cain, son of Adam. Your sins weight heavy upon your soul. Of your crimes, God finds you guilty. He offered you atonement, yet you refused it. He asked you to honor Him, yet you refused Him. He asked you to turn from your wrong ways, yet you refused it. For these sins, Cain son of Adam, God condemns you. From this day forward you shall be known as the Traitor, the one who brings ill. From this day forward you are exiled from Heaven, and cast away from the light of your Father, as Adam was before you. Death will never find you, and you will never find it, but sadness will always be by your side. From this day forward, as long as you walk this earth, you and your kin will know no love, no satisfaction. You will eat only ashes, you will drink only blood. You will stay as you are now, never dying, living on. You may find riches inside the earth, yet you’ll always remain poor. Your house will always walk in shadows, and all you and they touch will crumble to dust, and it will weight upon your hearts. This is the will of our Father, and so you shall follow it.”

Said this, Michael disappeared with a flash, and the noises returned, and the fires calmed down, and the rays of the sun returned to their normal bright. But Cain wasn’t calmed. His heart hurt, and confusion crept over him. For he did not understand. His Lord had asked him to sacrifice that which he loved the most, and so he had done, yet now he was punished. Abandoned by his Lord and by Lilith, Cain sat alone in that big chamber in the empty land of Nod.

****

In these part of the story we see Cain grow blind out of his pain. His focus on the injustice God commited upon him blinds him to the fact that he also erred in killing Abel. In the end, Gods seeks to unite everyone, but Cain refuses him the three times. We must try to remain calm in life, only that way can we truly think. If Cain had stopped to reason, he would have seen the folly of his stand. But he let himself be guided by his emotions instead of his mind, and that was his fall.

Note: Some of you may see similarities between this part of the story and the vampiric mythology of Vampire: The Masquerade. This is, of course, entirely on purpose. This story wasn't written all at once, I first wrote the part were Michael curses Cain as my own interpretation of the story that appears in the chronicles of the Book of Nod. I made some changes from the official story. In the narration of the Book of Nod, each angel throws a part of the curse of vampirism at Cain when it is turned down (Michael the vampiric vulnerability to fire; Uriel the "eat only ashes, drink only blood" and "never dying, living on"; and Raphael the "stick to shadows because the sun will bite you". Gabriel, a fourth one I don't mention, offers Cain the path of Golconda, which allows a moment of peace from the curse).
Years later I wrote the first part and the visit of Raphael and Uriel (which happened in a different order in the Book of Nod. There Michael visits first, Raphael second, and Uriel third). This first part wasn't made to continue the story, but to write a new one; an alternate story of the one told in the Genesis of the Bible, where Cain kills Abel out of love (which is what happens in the Book of Nod, but I didn't do it with Vampire: The Masquerade or Requiem in mind). The original part was added because I liked it and didn't want to discard it, and it gave a dramatic end to the tale.

Una nota sobre el constructivismo

El constructivismo es la plaga de nuestros días. No hay peor infección en el modo de pensar que el de “yo tengo mi verdad y tu la tuya”. Esta supuesta tolerancia (que como explicare mas adelante no es tolerancia) esta de moda en la forma de pensar moderna, y lo peor es que dada su naturaleza, no es tan fácil de corregir.

El constructivismo es una corriente por naturaleza anti-filosófica (entendiendo la filosofía como la materia que se encarga de explicar la realidad y buscar la verdad sobre esta). ¿Y porque es esto? Su mismo nombre lo indica, el constructivismo busca crear un constructo -una pantalla, mundo virtual o “propio”- en el cual la persona de desarrolla. Niega lo que es, prefiriendo poner un “velo” entre los ojos del individuo y el mundo exterior. Un velo que modifica lo que la persona ve y lo moldea a lo que quiere ver. La persona y su filosofía no se adaptan al mundo, el mundo se adapta a la persona. Y cada persona vive feliz y contenta en su propio mundo imaginario.

“Para mí es de esta manera, para ti es de esa manera.”

Un mensaje bastante tolerante a primera vista, ¿no? ¿Pero lo es en verdad? Aquí entra lo que siempre digo, hay que pensar las cosas. ¿Qué es la tolerancia? La tolerancia es aceptar los otros puntos de vista. Las otras opiniones. Si yo digo “a mi lo mío, a ti lo tuyo. Yo respeto tu opinión y no la cuestiono tu respeta la mía y has lo propio”, ¿Qué estoy diciendo? Veamos.

Estoy hablando del respeto y de las opiniones (en este caso los constructos). Le estoy pidiendo que respete y no se meta con mis opiniones. Respetar, entonces, es mantenerse alejado, no interactuar. Eso no es respetar. Respetar es no insultar, degradar, o interactuar de manera negativa con alguien o algo. Uno puede ciertamente respetar y cuestionar. Uno no excluye al otro. De hecho, el respeto es lo que permite el cuestionamiento. Sin respeto no puede haber un dialogo. La opinión también es necesaria para esto. De nada sirve tener una opinión si esta no va a ser cuestionada, si no va a ser enfrentada a otra. Tener una opinión para guardarla no sirve de nada. Las opiniones están para ser el punto de partida en la búsqueda de la verdad. El constructivismo falla por dos motivos. Primero, niega la realidad, segundo, busca evitar la confrontación de opiniones, destruyendo el propósito de la filosofía: el cuestionamiento. Y creo que queda claro porque dije que por su naturaleza es difícil de remover. El cuestionamiento es el único camino a la verdad. Si tu filosofía niega el cuestionamiento, entonces es imposible llevarte a ella. Es necesario quitarse los velos, ver el mundo como en verdad es. La gente tiene que entender que el enfrentamiento no es malo, como se enfrenten es lo malo. Pueden respetar y cuestionar sus opiniones. Puede que en algunos casos no sea placentero, si, pero es necesario; y como adultos, tienen que tener la madurez para entender que no porque algo no sea placentero no se debe hacer. Es necesario que se quiten la apatía e indiferencia que el constructivismo trae, y empiecen a usar su cerebro como debe ser. Piensen al respecto.

****

Esta nota fue escrita en un post un poco mas abajo, en el de la relatividad y objetivismo. Un amigo me sugirió que esto iría mejor como un post separado, asi que eso es lo que he hecho. Blogspot, sin embargo, no me esta dejando editar el post del relativismo para quitar esta nota, por lo que se quedará ahí hasta que solucione el problema.

The tale of the two brothers, part 1

The sun shone pale and lazy through the grey clouds as the two brothers made their way up the hill. Winter was receeding, and the first green blooms of spring could be seen struggling through the rock. The days, although cold, had began to warm up, and as was the custom their Father had appointed, they went to present their respects. The first one of them carried a sheep, its feet bound together to make it easier to carry. Although undernourished because of the winter, it was the best he had, and he offered it joyfully. The second one of them carried a leather bag, full with the best harvest of the month. Although poor because of the winter, it was the best he had, and he offered it joyfully.

They reached the top of the hill, and each placed their gifts at their right side. In front of them there was a stone tablet. They both gathered the little lumber they could find and started a fire. The brothers waited until the flames were at their brightest and a grey column of smoke rose to the air until it was confused with the clouds.

Then the first one placed the sheep on the stone tablet. Drawing out his knife he tore the best sheep open, and burned its insides in sacrifice to his Lord. And his Lord was pleased, and he looked with good eyes to his son and his sacrifice. Then the second one placed his leather bag on the stone tablet. Opening it he took the best harvest of the month, and burned it in sacrifice to his Lord. And his Lord was not pleased, and he didn’t look with good eyes to his son and his sacrifice. Then the brothers ate their offerings, and the first brother was pleased, and ate much; but the second brother was heartbroken, and he ate little. Then they stood and left for their homes.

That night the second brother couldn’t sleep. He had failed to show his respects as his Father had taught them. He rolled in his bed, wondering why his Lord hadn’t seen him and his sacrifice with good eyes. His heart ached, and his stomach turned, and tears flowed through his face. The pain was too much, and his doubt was unbearable. The brother got out of his bed and went out to the open. The night was dark and cold, and the brother hadn’t taken his staff and mantle, but it didn’t matter. He made his way to the hill, and climbed it until he was in front of the stone tablet. The brother hadn’t taken his leather bag filled with the best harvest of the month, but it didn’t matter. He stood in front of the stone tablet, and had nothing to put at his right side, but it didn’t matter. The brother gathered the little lumber he could find and started a fire. He waited until the flames were at their brightest and the fire was like a beacon in the black, featureless steep. Then he knelt, and still crying and covered in mud, called out to his Lord. His voice ringed with pain and sadness, and his Lord heard it, and was intrigued. He saw the second brother kneeling at the stone tablet, a bright fire in front of him. He saw he hadn’t brought his leather bag full with the best harvest of the month. He saw him crying and covered in mud, pounding in frustration the hard, cold soil. And He came forth.

And so the Lord asked him:”Why do you grief, son of Adam. And why is your face covered in tears, and your body dirty with mud? Why have you come here in the darkness of the night, naked and without your leather bag filled with the best harvest of the month?”
And Cain looked up, and his answer was full of grief and anger. “I came when the day grew warmer, when the first green blooms of spring began to struggle through the rock. I brought my leather bag, filled with the best harvest of the month to show my respect as was taught by our Father. I walked alongside my brother, and gathered the lumber with him. Together we started a fire, and waited until the flames were at their brightest and a grey column of smoke rose to the air until it was confused with the clouds. I saw my brother offer joyfully his best sheep in sacrifice, and you were pleased and looked at him with good eyes. Yet when my turn came, I offered joyfully my best harvest in sacrifice, and you were not pleased, and didn’t look at me with good eyes. I ate at the side of my brother afterwards, and fed from his sheep as he fed from my harvest. Yet only he ate in peace by your deed.”
“Why do you worry, son of Adam? If you have been just, won’t you be rewarded? And if you have done wrong, isn’t sin at your side? You rule upon your house, and by your actions shall you be judged.”
Then the Lord left, and the fire died, and the brother returned to his house in the middle of the night.

The next night Cain still couldn’t sleep. He couldn’t understand why his Father hadn’t looked at him and his sacrifice with good eyes. He had been taught to offer the most important thing he had, and so he had done, yet the Lord hadn’t appreciated it. Thinking his work fruitless, he didn’t work the land that day. Instead, he went over to his brother’s home. He asked him to come with him, and they both went to the top of the hill.

They reached the stone tablet, and neither had any gifts to place at their right side. And Abel turned to his brother and spoke. “Why have we come here, brother, without any gift to offer to our Lord?” And Cain answered, “Not every gift comes from the earth, nor walks the land as cattle.”
Then he turned and gathered the little lumber he could find and started a fire. The brothers waited until the flames were at their brightest and a grey column of smoke rose to the air until it was confused with the clouds.

Then Cain took a rock from the hard, cold soil, and turning against his brother he attacked him in the head. He picked his brother up and, crying, placed him on the stone tablet. Then, drawing out his brother’s knife he tore him open, and burned its insides in sacrifice to his Lord. Tears of blood flowed from his eyes, and he pulled his hair in grief. He fell to the mud made by his brother’s blood, and he rolled in it. Then he stood and left for his home.

The next day his Father came, and turning on him spoke. “Where is your brother, first son? His house is empty and his fire is out, and his cattle roam the steeps freely.” And Cain answered “I’m not the guardian of my brother. I had wanted to, but weren’t deem worthy to be at his side.” And he turned to go back to his house, and his Father looked at the knife, but said nothing, and left.

He went to the stone tablet, and there he saw the remnants of his second-son, and knew what had happened. The following day he called his son, and Cain went to his Father’s house, and in front of his brother and mother, waited. Then his Father spoke. “What have you done with your brother, first son? The hard, cold soil is stained with his blood, and his soul demands vengeance.” And Cain said nothing, for he couldn’t find anything to say. Then Adam stood from his chair, and looking at Cain, spoke. “You are a defiler of souls. Damned be you for your crimes. From this day forward I exile you from the land you tainted with your brother’s life. You will leave as an errand, and as an errand you will spend your days. The earth will not give you its fruits, and will be harsh upon you.” And Cain turned, and took his staff, and left, for he knew his sin was too big to ask for forgiveness. His heart was in pain as he took on the road, but he felt also anger. Twice had he given his best offering, and twice had he been punished for it. As he walked from the side of his Father he didn’t turn back, and his step was quick and sure.

For months Cain walked, until he reached the Land of Nod, in the east of Eden. There he found a palace, and in the palace he found a woman. She invited him to stay, and every night they gathered in a great chamber, with a view over the entire land. And as the sun sank behind the mountains, they dined together. And for the first time since his exile, Cain knew peace.

The woman introduced herself as Lilith, and told him she was a sorcerer of great power. She told him that once she had been close to God, but that he hadn’t treated her fairly, so she had left. She told him that in the beginning, she had been an angel sent to Paradise to be Adam’s companion, but he had treated her like a servant and not an equal. Then, instead of taking her, Adam had asked the Lord for a wife, and the Lord gave him one. Lilith saddened when she saw this, and when the Lord ordered her to serve her too, she refused. Grieving and hurt, she had gone to a friend of hers. She told him about Adam’s new companion, and about the way he treated her, and his friend listened. He told Lilith about a tree that was God’s most sacred possession, and taught her how to entice Adam’s wife into eating from it. And so Lilith left, and looking for Adam’s companion, she found her alone. She enticed her to eat from the tree the way her friend had taught her, and she did. But things didn’t go as had been planned. Lilith was betrayed by her friend. He went to the woman and convinced her to make Adam eat from it too. Then Adam and his wife were thrown from Paradise in punishment, and the Lord turned against her. Fearing his power, and hurt by her friends betrayal, she fled to the Land of Nod, where she built the palace and lived away her days, without reason or motive.

Cain was impressed by the story, for his Father had never shared it with him, and he got angrier at him for that. And he turned to Lilith, and told her his. He told her about how he and his brother had gone to the stone tablet at the top of the hill when the days began to get warmer, when the first green blooms of spring began to struggle through the rock. He told her how he brought his leather bag, filled with the best harvest of the month which, although poor because of the winter, was the best he had and he offered joyfully. And he told her also how his brother brought a sheep, its feet bound together to make it easier to carry and, although undernourished because of the winter, was the best he had and he offered joyfully. And told her how they gathered lumber together, and offered their sacrifice, and then ate together. And then he told her about how the Lord had been displeased with his sacrifice, and how he had looked to offer the most important thing he had, and how he had been punished for that. When she heard this, Lilith learned the truth about Cain, and knew he was Adam’s first son, and howling in rage she stood from the table, and she left the castle, and left Cain to eat alone.

****

The bible tells us a story of Cain and Abel. But that doesn't mean that's the only way of seeing it. Many times we fall into polarized views, watching only one side of the issue. Sometimes we recognize theres another one, to varying degrees, but almost never do we stop to really consider them. What if Cain didn't kill Abel out of jealousy but of love? God asked Cain to give his most preacious thing. Cain gave the fruit of his labor, but God wasn't pleased. So, Cain gave his brother -the thing he loved the most- in sacrifice. A mistake? Yes, but not an evil act. And for his sacrifice, Cain was condemned and exiled. This first part of the story is for you to think that sometimes an action seem to happen because of one thing, but it might have happened for something you haven't even considered. It's important in our life to be empathic when observing the world. We must be able to understand the situation before jumping to conclusions. The second part will aim to teach another thing.

El relativismo y objetivismo en nuestros días (y una nota sobre el constructivismo)

Recuerdo que hace unos meses estaba en el pasillo de Humanidades de mi universidad. Había ido con una amiga a acompañar a otra a su clase. En la puerta del salón nos cruzamos con un amigo de la última. Con un entusiasmo y emoción que solo había visto en los niños cuando juegan nos comento que su facultad había organizado una charla de filosofía. ¿El tema? Un debate sobre el generalismo (también conocido como objetivismo, yo voy a usar generalismo en este post) y relativismo -o algo por el estilo, pero ese debate ocurriría de una manera u otra.

Parece ser uno de los debates filosóficos más populares que hay. Ninguna persona que se enorgullezca de sus capacidades filosóficas puede hacerlo sin haber debatido al respecto al menos una vez. Pero, ¿es la verdad relativa o general? En este post voy a dar mi opinión sobre cual es la verdad al respecto.

Cualquiera de ambas posturas puede dar una respuesta convincente a esta pregunta. Y eso es por un simple motivo: ambas son correctas. La verdad es que la realidad es tanto relativa como general. Ahora, algunos podrán pensar que esto es absurdo, o aun mas, que esto hace de la verdad relativa únicamente (dado que si el generalismo esta junto al relativismo, el generalismo pasa a ser una verdad mas). El caso es que no, son ambas. Déjenme explicar.

En la vida todo tiene un lugar y momento. Y este caso no es la excepción. El relativismo y generalismo ocurren ambos siempre (motivo por el cual ambos son verdades) pero en momentos diferentes (lo que permite que cada uno sea una verdad independiente). ¿Cómo así? La mejor manera de explicarlo es con un ejemplo. Tomemos el ejemplo del asesinato (el cual es que uso cuando converso del tema con alguien). Un generalista dirá “el asesinato es malo” o “el asesinato es bueno”. Y según él matar es o malo o bueno, siempre. Lo más común es que diga “matar es malo”, a menos que sea un traumado o sociopata, pero eso es otro tema. Un relativista dirá “depende de cómo lo mires” o, si además es un constructivista, “puede ser malo para uno pero bueno para el otro, depende de cómo lo mires”. Bueno señores, yo creo que ambos están errados. Matar es o malo o bueno, en cada caso la verdad varía, pero en cada caso es una sola verdad. No importa como se mire, ni que es lo que la gente sienta al respecto. Imaginen este par de situaciones. En el caso “A” un ladrón quiere robarle a una señora, y para hacerlo le clava un cuchillo, matándola. ¿Matar en ese caso fue bueno o malo? La mayoría dirá que malo. Algunos relativistas dirán que depende del punto de vista puede ser bueno o malo (imaginen si aun mas, agregan “¿qué pasa si necesita ese collar para comer?”). En el caso “B” un terrorista quiere hacer explotar una bomba en un avión, uno de los pasajeros se le enfrenta, y la única forma que tiene de detenerlo es matándolo, cosa que hace. ¿Matarlo en ese caso fue bueno o malo? La mayoría dirá que bueno. Algunos relativistas dirán que depende del punto de vista del que se vea el asunto. Algunos generalistas dirán que malo, que matar nunca es bueno y el terrorista pudo haber sido amarrado o detenido de alguna manera no fatal. En ambos casos ambos puntos de vista parecen tener validez. Pero el caso es que en ambos casos matar fue o bueno o malo, no ambos, dependiendo del punto de vista; y no ninguno.

Cuando un hecho ocurre y se debe ver si es bueno o malo, se debe entender que no se puede partir de una premisa rígida inicial. La idea de la filosofía no es forzar una verdad a la realidad, sino por medio de la observación de la realidad llegar a una verdad. ¿Qué significa esto? Uno no parte de la premisa, digamos, de “matar es bueno”, y luego busca demostrar que es así. En cada caso, el A y B, y todos los demás casos que pueda haber, la verdad es una sola, pero esa verdad es relativa a cada caso. ¿Qué quiero decir? Que matar es o bueno o malo, si, pero no universalmente, sino en cada situación aislada. En el caso A es o bueno o malo, no uno o el otro dependiendo de cómo se mire. Y en el caso B es o bueno o malo, no uno o el otro dependiendo de cómo se mire.

Entonces, cuando una persona dice “yo soy generalista” o “yo soy relativista” lo que está diciendo es que es un estúpido. Que no piensa, y que no filosofa (lo cual es una vergüenza dado que la mayoría de gente que se etiqueta así son estudiantes de filosofía empeñados en tomar una corriente. Y aun si no lo son, filosofar es algo que todos deberían hacer). Y no filosofa porque si lo hiciera, entendería que la filosofía nace de ver y pensar para explicar, no de pensar para explicar y luego forzar la conclusión en lo que ve. Y aún mas, se daría cuenta que si el otro tiene argumentos válidos y lógicos, su filosofía no puede ser errónea, así parezca ir contra la propia; sino que ambas deben ser capaces de coexistir de alguna manera, explicando ambas –ya sea como equipo o individualmente en sus propias situaciones- la verdad. Y la verdad es una sola, matar es o bueno o malo, pero esa verdad es diferente en cada caso. La verdad es general y relativa a la vez.


Sobre el constructivismo

El constructivismo es la plaga de nuestros días. No hay peor infección en el modo de pensar que el de “yo tengo mi verdad y tu la tuya”. Esta supuesta tolerancia (que como explicare mas adelante no es tolerancia) esta de moda en la forma de pensar moderna, y lo peor es que dada su naturaleza, no es tan fácil de corregir.

El constructivismo es una corriente por naturaleza anti-filosófica (entendiendo la filosofía como la materia que se encarga de explicar la realidad y buscar la verdad sobre esta). ¿Y porque es esto? Su mismo nombre lo indica, el constructivismo busca crear un constructo -una pantalla, mundo virtual o “propio”- en el cual la persona de desarrolla. Niega lo que es, prefiriendo poner un “velo” entre los ojos del individuo y el mundo exterior. Un velo que modifica lo que la persona ve y lo moldea a lo que quiere ver. La persona y su filosofía no se adaptan al mundo, el mundo se adapta a la persona. Y cada persona vive feliz y contenta en su propio mundo imaginario.

“Para mí es de esta manera, para ti es de esa manera.”

Un mensaje bastante tolerante a primera vista, ¿no? ¿Pero lo es en verdad? Aquí entra lo que siempre digo, hay que pensar las cosas. ¿Qué es la tolerancia? La tolerancia es aceptar los otros puntos de vista. Las otras opiniones. Si yo digo “a mi lo mío, a ti lo tuyo. Yo respeto tu opinión y no la cuestiono tu respeta la mía y has lo propio”, ¿Qué estoy diciendo? Veamos.

Estoy hablando del respeto y de las opiniones (en este caso los constructos). Le estoy pidiendo que respete y no se meta con mis opiniones. Respetar, entonces, es mantenerse alejado, no interactuar. Eso no es respetar. Respetar es no insultar, degradar, o interactuar de manera negativa con alguien o algo. Uno puede ciertamente respetar y cuestionar. Uno no excluye al otro. De hecho, el respeto es lo que permite el cuestionamiento. Sin respeto no puede haber un dialogo. La opinión también es necesaria para esto. De nada sirve tener una opinión si esta no va a ser cuestionada, si no va a ser enfrentada a otra. Tener una opinión para guardarla no sirve de nada. Las opiniones están para ser el punto de partida en la búsqueda de la verdad. El constructivismo falla por dos motivos. Primero, niega la realidad, segundo, busca evitar la confrontación de opiniones, destruyendo el propósito de la filosofía: el cuestionamiento. Y creo que queda claro porque dije que por su naturaleza es difícil de remover. El cuestionamiento es el único camino a la verdad. Si tu filosofía niega el cuestionamiento, entonces es imposible llevarte a ella. Es necesario quitarse los velos, ver el mundo como en verdad es. La gente tiene que entender que el enfrentamiento no es malo, como se enfrenten es lo malo. Pueden respetar y cuestionar sus opiniones. Puede que en algunos casos no sea placentero, si, pero es necesario; y como adultos, tienen que tener la madurez para entender que no porque algo no sea placentero no se debe hacer. Es necesario que se quiten la apatía e indiferencia que el constructivismo trae, y empiecen a usar su cerebro como debe ser. Piensen al respecto.

Humanity, Life, and Blogs

When you read this title you probable thought “how are these three things related?” It’s common in people not to thing before acting. Those few who usually stop to think, do so only lightly, not pausing to consider the real implications of what their actions are going to have. This post deals with the problem that has in the long term, no on the person, but on the world around it. The title has to do with this problem. However, before dealing with that, first I have to explain a concept many might find new, Memetics.

We are taught that life sustains itself by adapting of the environment. That a process, called Natural Selection, decides that the strongest and fittest survive. But a species doesn’t seek change, so an external factor is needed to provide it: mutation. There are certain events that randomly modify a subjects DNA, giving results different from what was expected. Change, however, doesn’t occur with the best interests of the specie in mind. A mutation creates a subject different from its predecessor, not better or worse. But lets assume the change gives the subject an advantage over the rest in his environment. This advantage increase his possibilities of survival, and so his possibilities of reproducing. Then, the probabilities that this mutation will spread increase. Given enough time, said mutation will pass into the DNA main stream and become common to the entire species. Meanwhile, those individuals whose mutations gives them a disadvantage in his environment will have fewer possibilities to survive, and so reproduce, so their mutation will eventually disappear. That’s the essence of the natural selection process. Remember, however, that natural selection doesn’t occur for the good of the specie, it occurs because balance is the ultimate goal.

Given this process, there will be more and more species competing between them as they become increasingly more adept for survival. But what is it that’s being refined? It won’t limit itself to the physical realms. It will also contain some coded basic responses, instinct. Instincts are a set of predefined behaviours that activate to preconditioned events. But this can be refined even more. If a subject’s able to create a model of his environment then he can be able to prepare himself to respond to certain events his instincts don’t cover. What does this imply? If a model is generated for an environment, then a model of a subject is also needed. Thus, the subject becomes self-aware and becomes an individual.

When he acquires a consciousness and becomes self-aware, an individual can place himself in his model and prepare to face the real enviorment. This, in turn, allows him to gather more data from the world around him, and so make his model richer, which allows him to experiment with more complex and precise scenarios, effectively making cycling feedback process in which the model feeds the individual and vice versa. But this is not all. In becoming self-aware, the individual discovers others like him in a whole new dimension. Not in a basic level, like a pack of dogs, but on a higher level. He recognizes that like him, there are others who can also be self-aware. He, however, has no way to prove it. At this moment it’s common for an individual to see common elements between himself and others like him. The individual develops empathy. But as said, its impossible for him to know with certainty that the others are like him. He can’t know if they think, feel, or do any of their inner processes in the same way he does. The only thing he can do is assume they do. From this assumption that a group of individuals share the same characteristics a new group of emotions are born, like compassion and a desire to protect the group in a higher level than that of the purely genetic one. Before continuing entertain this idea: What would happen if the process of natural selection were to be manipulated or discarded? What would happen if people who were supposed to have died because of illness or weakness were allowed not only to live, but to reproduce-and so adding their genetic characteristics to the genetic pool? Then the pool of genetic information would become corrupted with defective mutations. It’s a cold and unpleasant thought, but one worth considering.

But what does this have to do with memetics? Genes are the replicating unit of life in our planet, but that does not imply they are of the entire universe. Its not too farfetched to think there can be planets were life is not based on carbon. What could prevent that in a thousand years, when astronauts land on other planets, they find life forms not based on carbon and water? What if they found a life form based on metal and electronic circuits instead of flesh and blood? Would there still be a universal characteristic of life? Obviously I don’t know the answer, but if I had to bet, I would say there is. And that’s the law that every life form is based in some type of replicator unit that maintains and spreads it. The gene, the DNA, happens to be the replicator unit of our planet. But there’s nothing that prevents other replicator units from existing in other distant places of the universe. In his book “The selfish gene”, Richard Dawkins says you don’t have to look so far into space to find a new life form based on a different replicator, it already exists here in our world, even though it’s still taking its first evolutionary steps in its “primordial soup”; but that these evolutionary steps are so big that they leave genetics way behind in evolutionary speed.

This new primordial soup is the soup of human culture. But a new name was needed for this new replicator. Richard Dawkins took the name “Mimeme” from Greek, but wanting something that resembled more the word gene he changed it to “Meme”. The meme, then, is the new replicator in this soup of human culture. A meme is a unit of information. A song, melody, language, idea, word, quote, poem, theory, law, way of constructing a bridge, even this post, they are all examples of memes. And just like genes, memes also pass through a discriminating system. A system Dawkins calls Cultural Selection.

In genetics, a gene is born from another gene, but the copy isn’t perfect, there’s always a mutation. As it’s been said before, if the mutation gives the individual an advantage, this makes him stronger, and so survives. The same happens with memetics. A meme jumps from brain to brain. If the meme is strong, the host retains it (the meme, like a gene, survives and reproduces), then this new meme shapes and is shaped by the already resident memes.

How do blogs enter in all this? Remember that I told you above to consider what would happen if non apt individuals were allowed to live and reproduce? Then the process of natural selection would be discarded, and every gene would be included without discrimination into the genetic pool, weakening it. The same can apply to memes. Memes are filtered by jumping from brain to brain, mind to mind, and proving strong enough for the individual to retain them. But what would happen if instead of jumping from brain to brain, the meme instead jumped from brain to an intermediary source before jumping to anotehr brain? Even more, what would happen if this source were able to hold indefinitely and share indiscriminately every meme it receives with everyone who comes into contact with it? This new source is the internet, and being the blogs the main channel through which people deposit their thoughts in the internet, it’s the main factor in preventing the process of cultural selection from happening. There are more and more blogs every time that instead of sharing useful memes, share memes that only serve to stupidize people.

And it's here where what I said in the beginning fits. People don’t stop to think about what they’re doing. And the few who do, do so only superficially. Most people only think about the fun or calm or whatever it is they seek when they put a new post online, without stopping to consider what they’re really doing. A gene is born from another gene, but its modified by all the information of its predecessors. The same happens with memes. According to Freud, every experience is absorbed by the human mind. Those with a stronger impact stay in the conscious level of the mind, but the great majority is taken to the subconscious, the main source that dictates our behaviour. So, when a person receives a meme from a stupid blog, this meme corrupts, even if it’s discarded immediately, every other meme the individual has. But discarding it doesn’t kill the meme. The internet keeps the meme and continues to share it with every individual who crosses it.

How to solve this? The answer isn’t as simple as saying “no one post anything”. That would be wrong for two reasons. First, because there are useful memes in the Internet. Second, because it would go against a persons freedom and freedom of speech. Besides, stupid blogs have purpose, they help establish a person’s individuality and identity. The problem is people use them excessively. So, in one side you have the macro good, the one in the society and species level, which requires a fascist bloquade of posts. And on the other side you have the individual good. As it’s been observed throughout history, what is good for the individual isn’t good for society, and vice versa. The solution, I think, is in finding a balance and start thinking before acting, opening our mouths, or writing. In accordance to that, don’t take this post as an immediate truth. Think about it and reach your own conclusions, only like this can people stop being stupidized.

La Humanidad, Vida, y los Blogs

Al leer este titulo, probablemente pensaste “¿Cómo se relacionan estas tres cosas?” Es muy común que la gente no piense realmente antes de actuar. La mayoría de veces la gente actúa automáticamente. Los que se detienen a considerar lo que están a punto de hacer suelen darle solo una repasada ligera. No pausan para considerar las implicancias de sus acciones. Este post trata sobre el problema que eso tiene a largo plazo, no en la persona, sino en el mundo que la rodea. El titulo tiene que ver con este problema. Sin embargo, para tratarlo, antes tengo que explicar un concepto que para muchos puede ser nuevo, la Memética.

Se nos enseña en el colegio que la vida se mantiene por medio de la adaptación al ambiente. Se nos enseña que un proceso, la selección natural, decide que los más fuertes y aptos sobreviven. Pero una especie no busca el cambio, por lo que un factor externo es necesario para darlo: la mutación. Hay ciertos eventos que modifican aleatoriamente el ADN, dando resultados diferentes al esperado. El cambio, sin embargo, no se hace buscando mejorar a la especie. Una mutación crea un sujeto diferente a su predecesor, ni mejor ni peor. Pero asumamos que el cambio le da a un sujeto una ventaja sobre el resto, permitiéndole tener mayores probabilidades de vivir, y por ende reproducirse. Entonces, las probabilidades de que su mutación se propague aumentan. Dado un tiempo suficiente, esta diferencia va a pasar de ser una mutación a una característica de la cadena general del ADN. Mientras tanto, aquellos individuos que portan mutaciones que los ponen en desventaja para sobrevivir en una ambiente dado van a tener menos probabilidades de reproducirse, por lo que su mutación va a morir con el tiempo. Esta es la esencia del proceso de selección natural. Recuerden, sin embargo, que la selección natural no busca el mejoramiento de la especie, solo el balance.

Dado este proceso, habrán cada vez mas y mas especies compitiendo entre si y volviéndose mas aptas para sobrevivir. ¿Pero que es lo que esta siendo refinado? No se va a limitar solo al ámbito físico. También contiene ciertas instrucciones básicas de supervivencia, el instinto. El instinto son funciones programadas para que el sujeto responda de una manera precondicionada a una serie de eventos dados. Pero esto puede mejorar aún más. Si un sujeto es capas de crear un modelo de su ambiente este podría prepararse para responder a ciertas situaciones que el instinto no cubre. ¿Qué implica esto? Si se genera un modelo del ambiente, también se tiene que generar un modelo del sujeto. Entonces, el sujeto adquiere conciencia de sí mismo y se vuelve un individuo.

Al adquirir una conciencia de si mismo el individuo puede colocarse en su modelo de ambiente y prepararse para cuando se enfrente al ambiente real. Esto, a su vez, le permite adquirir mayor información del ambiente, el cual puede incorporar a su modelo y así mejorarlo. Al mejorarlo, situaciones mas complejas y ricas pueden ser ensayadas, formando un ciclo de mejoramiento continuo. Pero eso no es todo. Al adquirir auto conciencia, el individuo descubre en una dimensión completamente nueva a otros como él. No en un nivel básico, como una manada de perros, sino en un nivel más elevado. Reconoce que como él, otros pueden ser concientes de si mismos. Sin embargo, no tiene manera de demostrarlo. En este momento, es común que un individuo vea elementos en común entre él y otro individuo, y se vea, así, reflejado en él. Entonces el individuo genera empatía. Pero como ya se dijo, es imposible que el individuo sepa con certeza que el otro es igual a él. No puede saber si el otro piensa, siente, o realiza cualquier otro proceso interno de la misma manera que el lo hace. Lo único que puede hacer es suponer que así es. Entonces, dada esta suposición que un grupo de individuos comparten la misma manera de pensar y sentir nace una nueva serie de instintos grupales, como la compasión y preservación grupal, en un nivel mucho más elevado que el puramente genético. Antes de continuar, considera que pasaría si el proceso de selección natural fuese desechado o manipulado. ¿Qué pasaría si a personas que deberían haber muerto por debilidad o enfermedad se les permitiera vivir e introducir sus características a la piscina genética? Entonces la piscina de información genética se contaminaría con mutaciones defectuosas para la especie. Es un pensamiento frío y no agradable, pero vale la pena considerarlo.

¿Pero que tiene que ver esto con la memética? Los genes son la unidad replicadora de vida en nuestro planeta. Pero eso no implica que lo sean en todo el universo. No es descabellado pensar que pueden haber planetas en los que la vida no este basada en el carbono. ¿Qué evitaría que en miles de años cuando los astronautas aterricen en otros planetas, encuentren formas de vida basadas en el cobre y armonio en vez de carbono y agua? ¿Si se descubriera una forma de vida que esta basada en metal y circuitos eléctricos en lugar de carne y sangre, seguiría habiendo algún factor común a estas formas de vida? Obviamente no lo puedo saber, pero si tuviera que apostar al respecto, diría que si lo hay. Y es la ley de que toda forma de vida esta basada en algún factor replicador que la mantiene y propaga. El gen, el ADN, sucede que es el factor replicador en nuestro planeta. Pero no hay nada que evite que otros factores replicadores existan en lugares distantes del universo. En su libro “El gen egoísta”, Richard Dawkins dice que no hay que mirar tan lejos en las estrellas para encontrar una nueva forma de vida. El postula que una nueva forma de vida, basada en un nuevo factor replicador, ya existe en nuestro mundo, aunque aún está dando sus primeros pasos en su “piscina primordial”, pero que esta dando saltos evolutivos a tal paso que deja el proceso de evolución genética atrás.

Esta nueva piscina primordial es la piscina de la cultura humana. Pero se necesitaba un nombre para este nuevo replicador. Richard Dawkins tomo el nombre “Mimeme” del griego, pero queriendo algo que se parezca mas a la palabra gen (gene en ingles), la convirtió en “meme”. El meme, entonces, es el nuevo factor replicador en esta piscina de la cultura humana. Un meme es una unidad de idea. Una canción, melodía, lenguaje, palabra, refrán, poema, teoría, ley, formas de construir puentes, incluso este post, son todos ejemplos de memes. Y al igual que los genes, los memes también pasan por un sistema de discriminación. Un sistema que Dawkins llama Selección Cultural.

En la genética, un gen nace de otro gen, pero la copia no es exacta, siempre hay mutaciones. Como ya se dijo, si la mutación le da una ventaja al individuo, esta lo hace fuerte y por ende sobrevive. Con la memética ocurre lo mismo. Un meme salta de cerebro a cerebro. Si el meme es fuerte, el huésped lo coge y retiene (el meme, al igual que un gen fuerte, efectivamente sobrevive y se reproduce), entonces este nuevo meme afecta y es afectado por los ya residentes.

¿Cómo entran los blogs a todo esto? ¿Recuerdan que hace unos párrafos les dije que consideren que pasaría si a individuos no aptos se les permite vivir y reproducirse? Entonces el proceso de selección natural es descartado, y todo gen es incluido sin discriminación a la piscina genética, debilitándola. Lo mismo puede pasar con los memes. Los memes se filtran al saltar de cerebro en cerebro y demostrándose lo suficientemente fuertes para que el individuo los retenga. ¿Pero que pasaría si en lugar de saltar de cerebro a cerebro, el meme saltara a una fuente intermediaria? Y aún mas, ¿qué pasaría si esta fuente fuese capaz de retener indefinidamente y compartir indiscriminadamente todo meme que recibiera a todos los que entran en contacto con ella? Esta nueva fuente es el Internet, y siendo los blogs los principales medios por los que la gente deposita sus ideas en el Internet, es el principal factor en impedir que el proceso de selección cultural ocurra. Cada vez hay más y más blogs que en vez de compartir memes útiles, comparten memes que estupidizan a la gente.

Y es aquí donde entra lo que dije al inicio del post. La gente no se detiene a pensar en lo que esta haciendo. Y los pocos que lo hacen, lo hacen superficialmente o de pasada. La mayoría de personas solo piensa en la diversión o tranquilidad o lo que sea que busque a la hora de postear en su blog, sin detenerse a considerar lo que en realidad esta haciendo. Un gen nace de otro, pero es modificado por toda la información de sus antecesores. Con los memes pasa lo mismo. Según Freud, toda experiencia es absorbida por la mente humana. Las de mayor impacto se quedan en el conciente, pero la gran mayoría de ellas van al inconciente, la fuente principal que dicta nuestra conducta. Entonces, cuando una persona recibe el meme de un blog estúpido, este meme corrompe, así sea descartado casi inmediatamente, a todos los memes que la persona ya tenia. Pero descartarlo no termina con el. El Internet mantiene el meme y lo sigue repartiendo a todos los individuos que se cruzan con el.

¿Cómo solucionar esto? La respuesta no es tan simple como decir “nadie postee nada”. Eso estaría mal por dos motivos. Primero, porque sí hay memes útiles en Internet. Y segundo, porque atentaría contra la libertad y al libertad de expresión de las personas. Además, los posts estúpidos sirven otro motivo, y es que ayudan a definir la individualidad de las personas. El problema, es que la gente lo ha llevado al exceso. Entonces por una parte esta el bien a nivel macro, de la sociedad y especie, que requiere este bloqueo fascista de los posts. Y por el otro lado esta el bien individual. Como se ha visto a lo largo de la historia, lo que es bueno para el individuo no lo es para la sociedad, y viceversa. La solución, creo yo, radica en encontrar un balance y empezar a pensar las cosas antes de actuar, abrir la boca, o escribir. Como ya dije, no tomen este post como una certeza, sino mas bien piensen al respecto y lleguen a su propia conclusión, solo así se puede evitar que la gente se siga estupidizando.

¿Por qué el nombre?

Me pareció prudente usar el primer post para explicar los nombres que elegí para este blog. Después de todo, el nombre debería hablar de lo que el blog se va a tratar, ¿cierto?

Falso! (Al menos en este caso.)

Missath –El nombre no significa nada. Hace unos años cree un personaje llamado Missath y desde entonces uso este nombre como nick para casi todo.

Absentis Sententia –“Ideas Ausentes” en latín. En inicio no significa particularmente nada. Solo necesitaba algo que sonara chévere para poner en el link. Me pareció que sonaba poético, así que lo use.

Mas tarde, mientras pensaba sobre el nombre (ayer fui a una reunión donde estuve extremadamente aburrido buena parte del tiempo así que tuve bastante tiempo para pensar) me di cuenta que podía referirse a las cosas que la gente usualmente no piensa. Entonces, decidí que el blog llevaría este titulo en lugar del titulo que había pensado originalmente para el, pues acá escribiría cosas que considero importantes y que la gente debería considerar.

Con respecto a lo que el blog será, va a cumplir principalmente tres funciones. Primero, como ya dije, lo voy a usar para compartir ideas que considero importantes. Odio los blogs que hablan de estupidez y media, así que no van a encontrar posts acá de críticas sin sentido a sonseras banales. Segundo, lo voy a usar para postear mis cuentos cortos (tanto los que ya escribí como los que escriba) y mi intento por escribir una novela de fantasía. Con suerte, este blog me va a dar el incentivo que necesito para continuar escribiéndolas. Y tercero, lo voy a usar para compartir cualquier foto y dibujo que tome/haga/encuentre durante mi vida diaria.

Como verán, hay otro post que dice en esencia lo mismo que este pero en ingles. Algunos se preguntarán “¿por qué tomarse la molestia de escribir en ingles cuando vives en un país en el que se habla castellano?” La respuesta es simple. Dado que la idea es que la mayoría de gente posible lea mi blog, y considerando que el ingles es un idioma mas hablado que el castellano globalmente, muchos de los posts que ponga tendrán una traducción al ingles (o los del ingles al castellano). Probablemente vayan a haber posts solo en castellano, al igual que posts solo en ingles. Depende del humor que tenga para traducir en ese momento y de la importancia del post.

Espero postear artículos continuamente, no como mi ultimo intento de hacer un blog hace unos años, que fracasó miserablemente a las dos semanas. ¡Así que es con gran entusiasmo y expectativa que escribo mi primer (aunque técnicamente segundo, pero es la traducción) post y espero escribir el siguiente pronto!

Rafael

Why the name?

I thought it prudent to use the first post to explain the names I chose for this blog. After all, the name should represent what the blog will be about, right?

Wrong! (At least in this case)

Absentis Sententia - Latin for "Missing Thoughts". It doesn't really mean anything; I just needed something that sounded cool to put in the link. I thought it sounded poetic, so I went with it.

Later, while I pondered about the name, I realized it could refer to the things people don't usually think about. Thus, I decided to replace the original title I had thought for hte blog with this one, since in here I would write about matters I think are important and people should consider.

As to what the blog will (I hope) be about, it will serve three purposes. First, as I just said, I will use it to write and share whatever meaningful ideas I come across. I hate blogs that go on and on about stupid stuff, so you won't read posts here about "why some restaurants give too few napkins" or "hear" me rant angrily about some random stupid action someone did today. Second, I will use it to post my short stories and attempts to write a fantasy novel. Hopefully, this will give me the incentive I need to continue writing them. And third, it will serve me to share any interesting picture or photo I take/draw/stumble upon during my daily life.

Now some might be wondering "why write a blog in english when you come from a spanish speaking country?" Well, most of the world speaks english, and since the idea is that many people will read this, writing it in english makes more sense. That doesn't mean I will not write in spanish. I expect some posts will be in spanish, and some that are in english will have a spanish translation and vice versa. But yes, mostly it will be english.

Hopefully I will post stuff continually, not like my previous attempt at making a blog some years ago which failed after two weeks. So it is with great excitement and expectation that I write this first post, and look forward to writing the next one! Until next time.

Rafael