Truth?

Hi!

Do you think politics looks for truth or common wealth? Honestly I don't think so, and with the politicians we have in Italy, frankly it'd hard to believe the contrary.

But, my talking today isn't focused on a the classic italian-bar-chitchat which we love to do.

I love to search a valid opinion through the meanings of the word, their origin, that's why today I'm going to analyze the basic word on which the entire building of politic-fare is made.

Compromise.

Not the whole politics in the world follow this rule of course, but I feel like mocked while watching television or comparing blogs and official journals or gazettes, or any other institutional production.

The point I get, is that when there is a serious dispute among political parties, we can see all the farers hurring to negotiate and most of all : to find a compromise, in order to save the nation (which in italian is translated as "their asses").

Com-promise. Even if much time passed, the latin form hold its original form in italian, english and french as well.

Though you don't know anything about latin, you can easily remark that the prefix "com" is shared with many other words like "connect" or "convoy", from latin "cum" which means "with".

So com-promise stands as "to make promise to more than one/to make promises coexisting promises" concerning various matters.

Often it is assimilated into a negative form, to something which must be done to preserve something else, but that can leave us unhappy, disappointed, unsatisfied.

Doing a compromise is always a loss for both part, and it is curious to remark that the same exact word is often used to describe something that has stopped, or broke, or simpler something that is not anymore functioning, for example "my project has been compromised by...........(something)".

That's it! A compromise is something that denaturate the initial intention, which is not possible pursue anymore due to external contingencies with which you are forced to deal with, and cannot anyhow avoid.

Politics.

Society Shift

As sportman like I am, I do care about the food I eat.

Mostly to maintain the rightful and providential equilibrium between the most correct feeding during the week, and the alimentation's mayhem that I regularly consume in the week-end. Yeah, I know, doing this way I'll never be a truly proficient athlete, but who cares! I mean, my goal isn't to win olympiades, I just want to remain a bit fit and can also have fun without many thoughts... after all I'm a 24 years old guy... in Paris... can't do anyway.

But, I'm not here this evening to talk about my night or day life in Paris.

I just want to focus on a social aspect that what I just said implies. Awareness about feeding. Many people is seriously giving importance to this, even if a huge amount of other ones simply don't care and firmly goes to McDonald each week, sometimes more than once.

On the contrary, there are also a lot of people who are becoming a kind of addicted to diets, gyms and all of that stuff. Here, I just want to do a plea to girls : please, don't reduce yourself to a grass stem by avoiding food and physical activity.

It's just a matter about reverse the circle : many girls eat a nourishing lunch of celery and compressed air, with the obvious consequence that they simply don't have energy to perform any activity, with the obvious consequence that they might suffer of muscle and bone's weakness, with other unpleasant consequences that I don't need to list.

Reverse the circle : eat more, eat well, start to do physical activity, throw away your tv and let's take a run, a walk, a jog, a swim, a hammering classroom, karate, gym, whatever.

You can see the results on whichever girl who practice sports.

And an awesome thing in plus is that you can eat as much as you want, but only feeds among healthy foods and not kinds of crappy-like things , like snacks and similar stuffs :))

So, cheers, I'm going to have a 15km running :)))

We talk about religion

Not about God this time.

I'll talk about religion. I admit that the discussion with Steven on the other post has activate my curiosity about a term used commonly in all of latin-derived language, at least for what concerns the vocabulary.

"Religion" is a word that doesn't need presentations, even if you reader are spanish, or portuguese, french or even if you know a little english you surely know this word.

Just don't make notice about its official etymology for now, let's take a look on it. What is your answer to this question : what's religion?

I'd answer that we're talking about an ensemble of rules, of habits, of manners, done for a non-material need. And the religion's strength comes from the strong belief that the community has for it. It isn't something proven, is something believed and respected, even if we do not have any proof of it.

So, from my point of view, the real origin (or at least, the properest) is always from latin "re+ligare" which literally means "bind something more and more times". Notice that the word "delegate" has the same root and it can easily means "to bind to someone some responsibilities", it doesn't sounds good maybe, perhaps it's not english at all, but it gives the picture.

And moreover it perfectly gives me the idea of what religion is : a system of rules which binds somehow a concept which can't be easily explained nor understood, a system of rules which is necessary arbitrary due to immeasurability of the subject.

That's why I strongly believe in God but do not believe in a single religion, neither hinduism or buddhism, because believing the concept behind is always the same, as same too are the rules to follow. It'd be useful and wise to study them, I don't deny this, on the contrary, I'm always willing to study and to apprend how the religions work.

But I definitely prefer to find the right way for my own, rather than follow someone else's rules, let's put in a better way : if I really can't avoid to bind God's basic concept into a system of rules, I'd really prefer to create them for my own, spending maybe all my life in this, instead of follow someone else's rules which I'll never completely understand and make a part of me.

Vastness of means

Today i'm going to talk about a certain word which has caught my attention.

Everything has begun because I read on Facebook this question "Do animal waste their time?".

I immediately thought that the first thing which had to be cleared was the meaning of "wasting time". Even if we can easily understand what it means, I think we can't just limit to use the human scale and proportion to Animal World.

I searched through the web for the word's etymology and it seems that the word "waste" comes from the latin's word "vastum", which primarily means "vast, extended, wide, desert" and so on.

And so, from this word naturally comes "devastate" , "to make a place empty/void/desert" because, de + verb" in latin was a prefix normally used to strengten the sense of another certain word.

But the root, "vast" it remained the same as a name in french and italian, in english on the contrary it slowly changed into a verb, which, saw from the literally mean, it perfectly gives the picture of the meaning.

So, "wasting time" is to make the own time "void/empty/deserted". We, as human beings, feel this unpleasant sensation when we're caught in apathy, which, if prolonged for a quite long amount of time, may flows into depression. To avoid this, we work, we do art, we search through the world what amuse us, we set goals to achieve, we explore, we try, we experience. Animals don't. Apparently they don't have any "missing part" in their spirits, they don't feel any lackness about anything.

That's why I don't think animals waste their time, just because we're talking about two different natures, two different ways about how to live.

Logic demonstration of God's Existence

Hi there!

I always been thinking about that. God i mean. I started from the atheism, I was somehow convinced that couldn't have been any biblical God, any super-natural entity, any trascendental power in the Universe.

I talked for many times with believers of different religions, and I always tried to counter their arguments. Many times I succeed.

After years of researches, I totally changed my mind, as much that I'm a strong believer while writing.

There have been several different episodes whose helped this process, there have been too many curious discoveries in too many different both scientific and religious matters, and due to those episodes, I slowly begun to believe in something. I always tried, and still trying, to falsify what i think, but there is an argumentation that I pose to you, which I guess to be accorded to science's laws and logically flawless.

I spare others prologues and start with the demonstration.

It is agreed that :

1. "God", I mean a trascendental being (either abstract or concrete, can't determine) that made the Universe, "tuned" all the Nature's rules and that now is somehow detached, not anymore involved IN the Universe's facts. It doesn't matter of what it is made, because either he's trascendental, and because here I can't and I don't want demonstrate his (its?) qualities, but just his existence.

2. the consequence of Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, as you may know, is that an isolated system, with the maximum disposal of time, shall reach the thermic perfect equilibrium.

Accordingly on what I said, we have to deduce that our Universe had necessary a start. It has been generated by a Principe, a Force, a God, call it as you prefer, but there are two options:

first : our Universe has been generated.

Second : our Universe hasn't been generated.

Let's analyze the second one.

If our Universe hasn't been generated, it necessary means that it exists since an endless amount of time.

By putting this, we contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because this law mentions that having a sufficient amount of time, we will have a thermic equilibrium as well, and I definitely held that an "endless amount of time" it's a kind of sufficient.

But our Universe isn't evidently so, because my body is not in thermic equilibrium, I can move, I can transfer heat to the chair where i'm sitting, the Sun is giving heat to our planet, and as long as my body and the Sun are a part of the Universe, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the Universe isn't in thermic equilibrium. This, brings logically to the conclusion that our Universe exists from a determined time, and so it has been generated from nothing.

Let's analyze the first one, instead.

Here we can have two options:

a. It has been generated from God

b. It has been generated from another Universe, or from another non-trascendental thing.

In a, we don't have any contradiction, our Universe is just like it is.

In b we have the same contradiction of before, because if our universe has been generated from another Universe (it'd be also another concrete thing, let's put an universe just to semplify the reading), then, the question is once again posed : it has born from where? And so, if we assume our Universe has been created from another, this question is automatically posed again and again ab infinitum.

So, at this point, we have two options :

First : there is an end to the universes' chain, a Creator, no matter how long the chain is.

Second : the universes' chain goes endlessly backward.

In the first case we don't have any contradictions.

In the second case, we have the same thermodynamic problem as before.

Because, assuming that the "chain" exists from and endless amount of time, it'd be in perfect thermic equilibrium, but our universe isn't in that status, and then this position is unbearable.

POSSIBLE CRITIC :

A critic that has been moved to this theory is : "you can't assume that there aren't extra-universal laws whose changes somehow the energy's total quantity, allowing the RE-generation of universes". This doesn't contradict the Conservation of Energy Law, because the critics are moved from true believer, so we're not talking about physics and logic.

No, I didn't, because i'm basing my theory on scientific and logical arguments, and admitting this would mean to admit arbitrarily the existence of an extra-universal force that can't be explained, that can't be controlled, and can't be determined, in a word : God (due to what we said at point 1).

But IT WAS ME the believer! Nice paradigm shift :)

SECOND CRITIC :

Defining equilibrium. I do not take count of Brownian motions, because for "equilibrium" is meant a complete stop in a portion of matter, but I don't take count about motions IN the

particles for the following reason.

For equilibrium it is agreed the meaning : uniformly-distributed particles in space and heat.

As far as we see, the Universe is so big that if there'd be an equilibrium, each single particle should stay at light-years of distance from another one. So, even if the Thermodynamic Laws don't count in micro-distances, it doesn't concern this theory.

Just to be precise : it's OBVIOUS that there must be motion in the particles, and so we are not having a perfect stasis, simply each particle in the Universe will continue to exist, having it's own particle's motions, otherwise, it there'd been a complete stasis the temperature would be the absolute zero, and this means automatically masses' absence, so no matter and energy at all, and this contradict the Principe of energy's conservation.

Leonardo Maria Miliacca

Who i am, where i work, what i do.

Hi there!

I'm Leo, an italian guy who's currently working in Paris, for Emergenza Festival . I've choose to work here, because since some years, i have the passion about music, and i always said to myself that working in the music would have been my future... for a certain amount of time!

There i'm occupied with making internet promotion, especially on France's area. I have to manage twitter, facebooks accounts, mails, contact with bands. It's pretty cool! :)

Do you already know Emergenza? What do you think about?

Cheers,

Leo