Now Playing Tracks

Making Peace

By Denise Levertov

A voice from the dark called out,
“The poets must give us
imagination of peace, to oust the intense, familiar
imagination of disaster. Peace, not only
the absence of war.”

But peace, like a poem,
is not there ahead of itself,
can’t be imagined before it is made,
can’t be known except
in the words of its making,
grammar of justice,
syntax of mutual aid.

A feeling towards it,
dimly sensing a rhythm, is all we have
until we begin to utter its metaphors,
learning them as we speak.

A line of peace might appear
if we restructured the sentence our lives are making,
revoked its reaffirmation of profit and power,
questioned our needs, allowed
long pauses… .

A cadence of peace might balance its weight
on that different fulcrum; peace, a presence,
an energy field more intense than war,
might pulse then,
stanza by stanza into the world,
each act of living
one of its words, each word
a vibration of light—facets
of the forming crystal.
carbonstuff: Let’s talk about the dark night. Yes this post is about Batman. Our common assumption is that the night sky is supposed to be dark with only few dots of light. But then, aren’t there supposed to billions upon billions of stars in the night sky emitting light. Yes, they are very far away, but, there is nothing stopping (like air or glass) the light from reaching us. So, shouldn’t all those stars make the night sky (very) bright and not dark ? This is actually called Olbers’ Paradox.  Let’s look at the problem in another way. We can divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, being 5 light years thick. Thus, a certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,00,000 to 1,00,005 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale (i.e., static), then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell between 2,00,000 to 2,00,005 light years away. But, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear four times dimmer than the first shell (intensity is inversely proportional to the square of distance). Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell. Thus, the argument is that if the universe were static and filled infinitely with stars, the night sky should be much brighter than it is now. I think you guessed the loop hole here. I said if the universe were static, which it clearly isn’t. The Big Bang explains this paradox by saying that the universe started at a point, and expanded from that point. Thus, it is not static. We know that the expansion is accelerating. So, two things happen.  One is that, those stars in the night sky are moving away from us and the distance between them and us increases. This increase the time for to see them and eventually it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us. Second, which is the more important reason, is that these starts get redshifted away. Redshifting is when the wavelength of an object moving away from us goes towards the red side of the spectrum and eventually, it goes into the infra red, which we cannot see. It is like we listen to a honking truck passing by at great speed. As it moves away from us, the the sound becomes softer and softer and eventually it is inaudible. So, because of these reasons, we never get to experience the real night sky light. But, it may be a good thing, as otherwise our eyes would be blinded by the light ! Image via Wikimedia Commons
Zoom

carbonstuff:

Let’s talk about the dark night. Yes this post is about Batman.

Our common assumption is that the night sky is supposed to be dark with only few dots of light.

But then, aren’t there supposed to billions upon billions of stars in the night sky emitting light. Yes, they are very far away, but, there is nothing stopping (like air or glass) the light from reaching us. So, shouldn’t all those stars make the night sky (very) bright and not dark ?

This is actually called Olbers’ Paradox. 

Let’s look at the problem in another way. We can divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, being 5 light years thick. Thus, a certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,00,000 to 1,00,005 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale (i.e., static), then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell between 2,00,000 to 2,00,005 light years away.

But, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear four times dimmer than the first shell (intensity is inversely proportional to the square of distance). Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell.

Thus, the argument is that if the universe were static and filled infinitely with stars, the night sky should be much brighter than it is now.

I think you guessed the loop hole here. I said if the universe were static, which it clearly isn’t.

The Big Bang explains this paradox by saying that the universe started at a point, and expanded from that point. Thus, it is not static.

We know that the expansion is accelerating. So, two things happen. 

One is that, those stars in the night sky are moving away from us and the distance between them and us increases. This increase the time for to see them and eventually it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us.

Second, which is the more important reason, is that these starts get redshifted away. Redshifting is when the wavelength of an object moving away from us goes towards the red side of the spectrum and eventually, it goes into the infra red, which we cannot see. It is like we listen to a honking truck passing by at great speed. As it moves away from us, the the sound becomes softer and softer and eventually it is inaudible.

So, because of these reasons, we never get to experience the real night sky light. But, it may be a good thing, as otherwise our eyes would be blinded by the light !

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Heavy Summer Rain - Jane Kenyon

The grasses in the field have toppled,
and in places it seems that a large, now
absent, animal must have passed the night.
The hay will right itself if the day

turns dry. I miss you steadily, painfully.
None of your blustering entrances
or exits, doors swinging wildly
on their hinges, or your huge unconscious
sighs when you read something sad,
like Henry Adam’s letters from Japan,
where he traveled after Clover died.

Everything blooming bows down in the rain:
white irises, red peonies; and the poppies
with their black and secret centers
lie shattered on the lawn.

Petition

By Dilruba Ahmed

What god will catch me
when I’m down, when I’ve taken
sufficient drink to reveal
myself, when my words are little
more than a blurring
of consonant and vowel?

I’m drunk on spring:
branches of waxy leaves that
greet me at my driveway,
a family clutching
trays of sweets.
How can I sing of this?

If I cannot sing, then
make me mute. Or lend me
words, send me
the taste of another’s prayer,
cool as a coin
newly minted on the tongue.

jtotheizzoe:

explore-blog:

Remarkable animated visualization of every meteorite since 861 AD from The Guardian.

(ᔥ Open Culture)

This is awesome! It really hits “death from the skies” level near the end. Which, coincidentally, is the name of a book by Bad Astronomer Phil Plait all about the science behind the ways the world might end (and the ways that it most certainly won’t … like Planet X)

There’s no reason to think that we really have more meteorites hitting Earth these days, like you see in the viz. We just happen to be better at writing things down/not attributing them to sky demons.

(Source: )

zoekeating:

I know, you’re thinking….why is Zoë posting a recording of the Star Spangled Banner???

Let me explain. It’s a long story. Sorry.

Two years ago I got a call from Chris Wiltsee of Bandpage. He was on the board of the SF Chapter of the Recording Academy (you know, the GRAMMY folks) and said, “Hey, there’s an opening on the board in the next election. You should apply!”. I never paid much attention to the GRAMMYs honestly except for the years that Imogen Heap was nominated (I was on tour with her in Europe when she got the news in 2007, and onstage with her again when she got the news for 2010), but my post-production friend Count was already on the board. So was Minna Choi from the Magik Magik Orchestra and some other music folks I vaguely knew. I live far from the city in the forest and often my only interaction with other artists is through the interwebs. I said yes.

Since then, separately from the Academy, I’ve unwittingly become involved in larger ongoing discussions on topics like statutory royalties, streaming payouts, DIY careers, etc. I don’t think my position on issues, when I have one (usually I’m just figuring things out for myself), lines up with that of any organization, as far as I can tell. It’s hard to say what I am: an advocate for the little guy? a gadfly? a naif? It is certainly true that it is easy for me to be a ‘renegade’ when I’m not dependent on anyone and very few people are dependent on me. But I like it that way.

Anyway, I am curious about how sausages are made, and of course I have opinions, so when the opportunity came up to go to Congress for the Academy’s annual Grammys on the Hill event, I signed up. Yeah, I want to meet my elected representatives! I planned to blend in with the rest of the SF Chapter and get a glimpse of what lobbying looks like. I don’t blend in very well apparently, because shortly after I signed up to go, Daryl Friedman, the Academy’s advocacy chief in DC, asked me if I would play the national anthem at the awards ceremony the day before.

I think I’ve talked about this before, but fancy galas and I are not a good fit. Put me in a meeting room or a beanbag lounge where we can talk big ideas, but to stand awkwardly in a party with a cocktail in my hand making polite smalltalk? Let’s just say that I’ve been known to hide in the bathroom. Luckily, I have this thing I do with the cello and I totally use it as a crutch. Playing the cello at an event is like getting magic fairy dust sprinkled on my head. Suddenly, I have confidence! I can go and talk to anyone! I said yes.

But now I had to learn the national anthem. I have a difficult relationship with patriotic songs. Maybe it started when my family moved to America when I was 10 and I didn’t want to go, but in high school I stubbornly refused to sing the anthem and opted out of the Pledge of Allegiance. So first, I tried playing it straight, in a variety of key signatures. This was unsatisfying. The music just didn’t mean anything to me and I couldn’t muster up the necessary amount of cheese and bombast to pull it off. It’s that kind of piece: major key, essentially a hymn. Maybe I wasn’t patriotic enough to play this thing? Then there are the words. Boy, did I pore over those words. How to match the music with the meaning of the words? Eventually I tired of playing the melody (everyone in the house was tired of it too) and I started improvising. But when I focused on rendering those words into notes, I ended up with horror movie music. I decided to give it a rest for a week and work on my own damn music, which arguably is what I should be doing anyway.

Over the weekend I thought maybe I should educate myself in how other people had rendered this vexing song. I fired up Youtube and watched Jimmy Hendrix, Whitney Houston, Alicia Keys, Nirvana (theirs was my favorite actually…a staggering Kurt Cobain plays the anthem while the rest of the band trashes all their gear). Watching the endless variations I came to the realization that the most patriotic way to play the Star Spangled Banner is to make up your own damn version. Only in America can you remake the national anthem to fit YOU. That was the permission I needed. I spent a day (the horrible day after the horrible Boston Marathon) working out a looped and layered version of the Star Spangled Banner.

The result is rough around the edges, has moments of hopeful exuberance, doubt and a little bit cheese in the middle. Just like me. Just like America.

We have our issues, but this is a great place to be.

(p.s. this is essentially a live recording and isn’t mastered or anything proper like that, so listen at your own risk.)

Next post, my day in Congress…..

Must Watch: Dawkins, Nye, Tyson, and Stephenson Discuss Science and Storytelling

science-junkie:

Highlights include:

  •     Ira Flatow greeting Neil deGrasse Tyson with a fist bump.
  •     Richard Dawkins being Richard Dawkins
  •     Bill Nye being Bill Nye
  •     Starry Night
  •     The importance of educating women in science
  •     Neil deGrasse Tyson flipping out at Lawrence Krauss and Brian Greene about the motivations behind big-budget science
  •     Tyson and Krauss bickering about pretty much anything (there’s a lot the two don’t see eye to eye on)
  •     When you should and shouldn’t respect other people’s opinion
  •     The role of science-/speculative fiction in communicating and understanding science (Dawkins, for one, claims he came to understand information theory through SF. Bill Nye thinks contemporary scifi cifi could stand to return to its days of intense optimism, as characterized by Star Trek.)
  •     And much, much more
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.’ We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people will not feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Marianne Williamson
A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of “A Course in Miracles”

So you think that money is the root of all evil? … Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

For the New Intellectual

Ayn Rand
“The Meaning of Money,”
For the New Intellectual

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union