If #covid19 has asymptomatic transmission then the only thing we can do cut the chance of exposure with masks and general avoidance with people. Respiratory exhalation (talking and singing) seems to increase likelihood of transmission.
Japan is a culture where talking (socialising) seems far lower than the West, and could be one reason for lower transmission rates. Certainly, physical contact is not the cultural norm. I doubt I would physical come into contact more than once a day with people I live or work with. This is a cultural thing not an expression thing. Love or any other expressions of feeling are done in other ways.
I have been riding a bicycle everyday for about three weeks now. I hadn’t gotten exercise for a couple years and I was getting out of breathe just by climbing two flights of stairs. But now the stairs are easy and my body recovers quickly.
Modern life is the opposite of fitness. Everything is made to make things easier. And for this easiness one has to exercise instead. Is this not double the work. Should not the things we do in life be also pet of your fitness. Should it not require effort so as to help maintain your fitness.
Isn’t doing things the long way really a way to kill two birds with one stone?
It is true though I cannot always do manual labour. White collar work is simply too static that one needs to do exercise outside of the labour. Unless I can incorporate physical work into teaching (without being sued for slavery) I have no choice but to bike.
But biking is not so bad. it is definitely fun. And it is a change in scenery to my indoor existence.
Once and for all I shall rid myself of absolutes. Not in the real sense for absolutes firstly do not exist other than in the mind. To say in mind is to give it substance for which is has not. Such is the power of language. Of the mind is better but still not adequate.
Without the process of thought there is no idea or concept of absolute. For it to be conceived is for it to be thought. In this sense Descartes is right – I think therefore I am. And for Berkeley to be is to be perceived is a leap of faith too far in my opinion.
The notions of rationality and idealism are in the end notions of process not notions of corporeal things. As much as ideas are in language countable they are nowhere to be found. Neither are their minds independent of the very metaphorical machines that produce them.
The unexperienced reality is no different from the experienced one. I can say then that the mind produced by the body is as much part of the reality that it inhibits. But I cannot say that it exists outside of the process that produces it. The Rylean categorical mistake is thus to believe something exists because it is named.
Unless a concept is turned into an object – a noun – we cannot talk about it. We cannot escape the the idea of it being an “it”. Notice the countability of “it”. This move or ability to convert a concept into a countable, tangible thing is one of the most powerful and useful tools to us – the human being. It defines us and at times separates us from other beings. So much so, that it may elevate us about gods or even God. This is not a new idea. Nietzsche had said so much with the phrase “God is dead”. But let us go further and talk about what it is like where God may be talked about in the past tense, to be able to talk about a time when God was alive. The fact that God was, is and will be yet is only ever discussed in terms of the present or presence (as it were) should set off critical and philosophical alarm bells. Fundamentally, we must see through the power (and weakness) of language which had once moved us forward but is now holding us back.
where is the law
when the law
is standing over you
and standing on you,
that a man can die
for no better reason
than for his colour
simply is unfathomable.
one has to wonder
why so little
has been learnt
all this time,
all these centuries.
how can someone be a threat
when one is cooperative,
patient and forgiving
only to be toyed with
then killed, murdered
as it were
in the darkness
that was apparently
not dark enough
for it to be captured
on film, as if
we do not have enough
that racism is still
hiding in the shadows.
I experience, therefore I am.
There is nothing more to say … other than you were wrong, Monsieur Descartes.
Following partially Berkeley’s conclusion, Hume also concluded that we have no access to the thing-in-itself. It is always indirect knowledge. It is always the representation. Schopenhauer concluded that we have access to one special thing – the self. It being so, this being the will, as opposed to representation. But I will contend that the will is also secondhand access.
Like the things “outside” we can know it only through sense perception. The self “inside” is also known only through sense and perception. The feelings and emotions are only ever representations themselves.
Two things, then. There is no direct access to anything, including to the self. And secondly, there is strictly nothing to be inside or outside.