The windows of the soul

Some people say that if you want to really know someone, look in the eyes. This is because the eyes are some of the most expressive features of the human. With some people, just a look at the eyes is enough to make you know the entire character. And so sometimes, we get some irrational reactions to complete strangers right from the first look - of either friendliness or hostility. This is intuition at work. It is also an expression of your sublime personality.

Artists have always known the profound importance of the eyes in defining a human. When I used to do portraits, I'd always start with the eyes. I knew that if I got the eyes just right, the face would come out alright, regardless of how little detail I put to the rest of the face. Hence I could spend about 15 minutes on the eyes, and only another 20 minutes on the rest of the face.

To realize just how important eyes are in recognizing not just a face, but also the personality behind it, try wearing colored contact lenses, and look at yourself in the mirror.

Hymn of the Pearl

Within the Acts of Thomas is an extraordinary Syriac poem,The Hymn of the Pearl (also known as the Hymn of the Robe of Glory and the Hymn of the Soul). The poem is thought to be older than the Acts of Thomas. It is inserted in different places in different versions of the Acts found among early Greek and Syriac Christian traditions.

Within the Hymn of the Pearl there are a few lines of poetry that are intriguing. These lines, referred to as the “two images segment,” seem to have been inserted into the hymn. This is one common translation of those lines with optional interpretations (other translations appear after the fold):

Suddenly, I saw my image on my [burial] garment like in a mirror

Myself and myself through myself [or myself facing outward and inward]

As though divided, yet one likeness

Two images: but one likeness of the King [of kings]

The big bang versus string theories

An issue was raised in an earlier post about The Big Bang and The String Theories. I think that a few things need clarifying:

The Big Bang Theory should be percieved as the begining of all existence, according to science. It explains how everything came into being from absolute nothingness, in a cataclysmic explosion, 12-18 billion years ago. Scientifically, creating something out of nothing is technically possible, if you see nothingness as but a combination of matter and antimatter. And just as you can get 2 out of zero by subtracting negative 2 from zero, you can get matter from nothingness by separating it from antimatter. The process that generated this occurence is much too complex to detail here. Suffice it to say that due to it's delicate nature, approximately 3 billion units of matter and antimatter were annihilated for every unit of matter that came into being. The process also produced a cosmic asymetry that has only one direction. This asymetry is now known as Time. Time, as we all know, is mono-directional, propagading only towards the future.

Now String Theories are a different kettle of fish altogether. They are among a larger group of theories that are hoped to one day help build a Grand Unifying Theory (GUT). The Grand Unifying Theory shall be able to unify all the 4 major forces of the universe: the Strong Force, The Weak force, Electromagnetism, and Gravitational force. String Theories are, to a great extent, a product of observations at the sub-atomic levels. At these levels, also known as Quantum levels, the Space-Time Continuum changes property, and time itself behaves like a fourth spatial dimension. Due to these kind of phenomena, scientists have hypothesised the existence of upto 8 extra dimensions at the quantum levels.

In short hence, the relationship between String Theories and The Big Bang Theory is not chronological: one didn't precede the other, or precipitate the occurence of the other. Both theories are still in active application now, for their basic tenements do not conflict. Far from it, they seem to complement each other.

Determinism

The human, in my perception, has two paradigm orientations: deterministic and indetermininistic.

Now the deterministic mind frame is fatalistic: believing in fate, and accepting occurences as part of a grand plan, which can not be altered. And hence deterministic humans tend to be passive in their reactions to their environs: things happen to them, and they rarely happen to things. And when things happen to them, they say that it is fate - that it was predetermined. Deterministic humans tend to be deeply religious - religion being the epitome of fatalism.

Indeterministic humans, on the other hand, percieve themselves to be in complete control of everything happening to themselves. They don't believe that external forces control their destinies: they don't accept predeterminsm. Hence they tend to be more aggressive and proactive in their bearing, believing that their present condition is a culmination of their past decisions and actions up to then. They believe that the future is totally within their control, and hence set about configuring it - so to say.

What kind of a person are you - deterministic or indeterministic?

The significance of paradigms

I once had a rather illuminating conversation with a creationist about evolution. Personally, I tend to think that both views, creation and evolution, have a role to play. Their view points, after all, have survived generations of intelligent, rational people. But this creationist's view was steadfast, and hinged on a rather comic pivot. This is what he told me:

"I don't believe in evolution. You know why? Because I have never seen a monkey turn into a human being! The whole idea is absurd!"

For a moment, I was speechless. But later, thinking about it, several questions arose: Just how much do our presumptions hinder our perseptions? Scientists insist that paranormal occurences are just but evidence of incomplete knowledge by the humans. They insist that given time, every last mystery in existence will end. And when that happens, religion will become meaningless. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. But in the mean time, inexplicable phenomena abound: telekinesis, forebodings, telepathy, seances, levitations... to name a few. Yet, strangely enough, few of these events ever tilt the balance between creationists and evolutionists.

Is it that we choose to ignore that which contradicts our paradigms at such a basal level? And if so, are our paradigms working for us, or against us? Are they helping maintain our sanity, or are they hindering knowledge acquisition?