The Clandestine Flame

Recently, I read about a man who gathered a number of his friends and worked with a high school to repair vandalized textbooks. If I remember the figure correctly, they were able to refurbish more than a thousand texts. Now, I have observed the mindset of the average public school student and discovered that they either are unable, or choose to be unable to recognize a good deed. I have no doubt that some of the books that were refurbished are now filled with vandalism. But was the man's work in vain?



I would be honored to meet this man and his friends. The problem is, I have no idea as to contacting him. But as I was thinking about how to contact this man, I came across a piece of knowledge locked safely in the annals of my memory: The human body has an incredible system called homeostasis. One aspect of this system is a positive feedback mechanism. The positive feedback systems include labor contractions and blood clotting. While these are the only two examples in the human body, they are both rather important systems. A positive feedback system functions by first sending a command to the appropriate body region, say the bloodstream. Obviously, one would not want a single platelet clotting a wound. As a result, the body sends one platelet, followed by another, until the platelets are arriving in the thousands. After the signal is no longer required, the brain stops sending it.


Why, you may ask, is this person talking about homeostasis and how does that relate to this man I read about? I have dazzled you all with my knowledge enough for one post, so here is the question: Should a hero be recognized? Sure, we recognize our armed forces, police, fire, and emergency medical services for their heroism, but what about those other heroes who never have their stories told? If these heroes are recognized, the goal, one would assume, would be to advocate the emulation of heroism in order to further the good deeds. However, In the U.S., we tend to worship celebrities for their fame, not their merit. Therefore, we may reason that heroes should be recognized for their merit, not their fame. But the more fundamental question must be asked: should heroes be recognized at all? Most have heard the aphorism "power corrupts." Seeing as most aphorisms are based in reality, are we willing to corrupt the few heroes that we have?

In my opinion, heroes should not be publicly recognized, but the deed should be. I doubt that this man wants the glory of being hailed a hero, but instead wanted to simply do a good deed for a local school. Should the man be emulated, or should his actions be?

Voxa Inferatus - The Musing

If you read the previous post, "Voxa Inferatus - The Question," then this post should vindicate my point. If you have not read the previous post, please read it before pondering this one.

The key in the last post was that your position was based on your initial reaction. If you thought about it, you may have said that neither is true. Then again, you may have said that both are true. Which is it?

The second statement is true. We tend to think of the Roman Empire as the zenith of the Classical era, and not lasting through the middle ages. When Emperor Constantine took control of the Empire, he divided the land into the Western and Eastern Roman Empire in 324 A.D. The Western Roman Empire established the capitol of Rome, but "fell" over the next few hundred years. The Eastern Roman Empire, whose capitol was the city of Constantinople, survived in the Byzantine Roman Empire until the Ottoman Empire besieged and captured the city in 1453 A.D.


The whole point of this post is to ask: who do we listen to and why? Do we listen to the loudest voice, and the one that we make some automatic connection without giving it much thought? Why do we listen to these voices? Do we listen to and emulate Michael Moore or Bill O'reily because we know the names? Is it not better to listen to the voice that reasons as opposed to the star-studded, syndicated, sensational, or "open" minded voices? Most everyone has heard of Bill O'reily, Michael Moore, or Johnny Depp to name a few. Bill O'reily is the only reporter in this list. But these three names have become more recognized because of partisan praise and discontent, rather than the content of their argument. Michael Moore is a film maker. Having seen a few of his films, I can say an adequate film maker at that. But is he an authority because he attacks the current administration? Johnny Depp is an actor. That one should be obvious. Just because he memorizes lines and takes on various identities (quite well, by the way) does not make him a political authority.

In most of the world, we have come upon our opinions based on the positions of parents, celebrities, prominent figures, and sadly, those who are most attractive. But the one voice that has been speaking in silence is that of reason. We may reach different conclusions from the given evidence, but we may persuade more effectively if we have reason behind an argument. Without reason, all truths are equal. If this is true, it must be false. Can we say that it is true that truth does not exist? We cannot. Therefore, we may conclude that one idea may be greater than another. But it is reason, not popular opinion that determines truth. Even though most of us are not scientists, we should, as a race, be in the constant pursuit of truth. Otherwise, life is meaningless, and thus the race is justified in committing mass suicide.

The above paragraph may seem eclectic and irrelevant. But the question remains: who do we listen to and why? And although truth is not relative, should we not decide our opinion for ourselves?

Voxa Inferatus - The Question

Champagne bottles have an indentation in the bottom to save the company money.

The Ottoman Empire conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD when Constantinople was captured.




Based on your first reaction, which do you believe is true? Why do you think so? Should you think this way?

Why Music?

What is the importance of music? Why is it that a series of sounds travelling at different wavelengths can tell a story? This leads to another interesting question that I will post at a later date. In a literal sense, music is nothing more than variations on the frequency of wavelengths. How is it that variations in vibrations are able to tell stories so intricate and beautiful?

I believe that the answer lies in how we perceive these variations. Certain pitch variations may seem more pleasant to an individual because of the association with a pleasant memory from one's childhood. For example, my mother would always call upstairs that dinner was ready. In her phrase, "Dinner's ready," the word dinner was on the 3rd note of the scale, followed by the tonic, or 1st note of the scale. Because of this, I enjoy hearing the interval of the third (in most cases, that is) spoken or sung.

It would, of course, be different for all individuals, or it may also be that they do not have pleasant associations with music or certain aspects of music. Yet another question concerning music is raised by this, of which I will discuss at a later date.

Music is also one of the only truly universal languages. Of course, one might say that music is not a universal language because the lyrics might be in French, or German, or Russian; three unrelated languages. The problem is that classical music is enjoyed around the world by all sorts of people. Classical music does not have lyrics. Similarly, most jazz, new age, and film music lacks lyrics as well. Yet these are also enjoyed in most parts of the world. One might say that music touches our soul. I think that this cliche is true. Music appeals to the brain and to the human person because of the emotion that it embodies. Very few human creations are as emotionally charged as music is.