Political Idealism – Real/Pragmatical.

First, let us define our terms of reference:

Ideal is what is regarded as the perfect outcome “ends”, in the pursuit of the good “agatho”.
Real is what is of essence “ousiwdes”, “epi tis ousias”.
Pragmatical is that which is of essence in its nominal sense, “epi twn pragmatwn”, nominally.

In Politics and Foreign affairs, what is really ideal and what is pragmatically ideal? Can a policy or an attitude be ideal in both real and pragmatical terms? But what separates the essence from the form? The nominal from the real?

The real contains more constraints, less degrees of freedom. The nominal; in the society and era we live in the is the image governed by and offered to the media. The one based on our appetites. It takes many forms, either pro or anti to a specific cause, but always it is irrelevant to affecting the outcome of the event. It just reports.

The real is what is actually playing behind the scenes.

One example, to clear things up. Let us take Americas war on Iraq as an example. Pragmatically/Nominally the ideal outcome would be for the Iraqis to form a stable government, based on democracy and “laissez-faire” principles, in order to join the developing nations of the Planet. This is what is pragmatically ideal for the American foreign policy office.

But is it really ideal for the American office?

First of all, if Iraq, succeeds in doing all that America is asking, a) Crack down terrorism and fanaticism. b) Become stable and democratic, then there wouldn’t be any reason for American troops to be in the area. Which is a good thing, both for the troops, and their societies back home. And it is pragmatically ideal for the American office as well.

But if we look one step further outside of Iraq, we will see that America is building up a circle around Iran. The encirclement rule is mentioned as “Rule number one” in every single military strategy handbook.But if Iraq, become democratic, and the troops go home, the circle will lose a part of its radius.Which according to any military hand-book, if something like that happens it would be devastating, especially for the ground forces.

So Pragmatically, the American Foreign Policy Office, wants a stable and democratic Iraq.

But do they Really want it?

This simple paradigm aims to define the difference between nominal/pragmatical and real.

Now let us see how the phrase “the ends justify the means” can fit with our example.

As we illustrated, pragmatically, America, used ugly means, war tactics in order to justify its noble ends, the Freedom of the Iraqi People. In our daily literature, we should appraise America, for taking on such a hard, and costly task for the sake of Iraqi freedom and lest not forget for Gods sake as well.

But really, America, we should ask ourselves, is that the ends they pursuit? Or is it the strategic oil resources, and military encirclement of the anti-American Nation aka Iran?

If these are the real ends? Are the means Justified? Again we have 2 pictures one is the pragmatical and the other the real. Pragmatically, they are not justified, because the public opinion as portrayed by the media does not approve such ends, a precipitating Third World War. Pragmatically such ends are not justified neither by the American Office, and hence their denial.

But are these the real ends? To attack Iran and precipitate a Third-World War? Ofc not, the pragmatical ends they say, is to pressure Iran to abide, with the same rules, that they reject. But heck, Iran cannot be trusted and must abide, while America, the pillar of Goodness, does not need to abide, because it can be trusted after all. But hey, lets not move away from the subject. Pragmatically, we need to make Iran a nuclear-free country, and Iraq, a terrorism-free country. Both pretty good ends, if you ask a 7 year old pure child. So the means, pragmatically are justified. But are they really? A Democratic Iraq, as we saw, will not help America to pursue its “wet dreams” on conquering the world, because it would put an end to to their hard-earned presence in the Middle-East. And a nuclear-free Iran, means that they will have to turn technology back in time, and increase the CO2 emissions, that opened the huge hole in the Ozone layer. Both not good. Neither pragmatically, nor really.


We are left with one and only ends, which is Americas urge to achieve the full potential of its military strength. A pragmatically unjustified ends according to Global Attitudes and Trends.

But a really justified one, if we take into account the Golden Rules of Economics. a) Resources are Scarce. b) Available Resources are destined to achieve equilibrium by pursuing their full potential.

So, do their means justify their ends? Is their policy, pragmatically ideal? Is it really ideal?

Is aiming to achieve your full-potential, a noble-enough cause to justify your ugly means, in this case; War?

Opinions are nonuniform here as well. How much does a life cost? How about 2 lives? Is there a discount if i buy a dozen?

Another Time we can discuss that as well.

Cheerios for reading.

© copyright noemon.net

Re: Harmonious Distribution

After conducting a careful research in my primary Hypotheses:

a) Numbers extend to infinity.
b) Numbers follow a perfectly Harmonious pattern/distribution.
b) Letters/Phonemes do not follow a perfectly Harmonious pattern/distribution.
d) Grammatical construction does not extend to infinity.

I concluded that the detailed analysis of my hypotheses and the respective conclusions shall not be made public.

I will, nevertheless make up for it, with a different subject, that popped in my head.

Political Philosophy and Strategy is coming up next. With a careful examination of the teleological infamous phrase : “the end justifies the means”

© copyright noemon.net

Harmonious Distribution aka Perfection

Today i was thinking about language and music, and i thought that which music is or can be regarded the best music in the world?

In my mind, the one that approaches perfect harmony. But what harmony? Harmonious in what sense? Well, in maths harmony is achieved when x=0, But, when does x=0?. In maths we have the odd and the even numbers, 1 is odd, 2 is even. The first 4 numbers 1+2+3+4=10, which according to Pythagoras it is the perfectly harmonious number. Also observe that in order to reach to the perfect number, the number 10, 2 odd and 2 even numbers are used.

2 odd and 2 even, this i can say is rather interesting. Also the first 10 numbers, which happen to be the basis for all the rest, follow a harmonious distribution, 5 odds and 5 evens make up the whole system. So, Harmony is achieved when x=0, Well, as you have guessed already 5-5=0 In other words we can say that 5 odd and 5 even numbers create all this harmonious system.

One can reflect on that for hours and create various syllogisms, but i just thought, in language which letters represent the odd and which represent the even. How can a language be perfectly harmonious? I would assume that odd are the consonants and even the vowels, don’t know why, but this is how i would classify them. Now, how can a language achieve perfection? Probably, the same way that maths achieve perfection(Number 10 or 0), by using an equal amount of odds and evens. In other words, by using an equal amount of vowels and consonants. I will just baptize it in order to use the term for future reference in the blog or elsewhere: to the Relative Perfection Ratio ω = x/y , where x the amount of vowels, y the amount of consonants and ω represents the Harmonious Distribution of sounds of any given alphabet. When ω= 1, we can say that the Language is perfect. Or when ω1 > ω2, then ω1 is a relatively more perfect language than ω2.

But, lets put that into practice, i will examine the ones that i am more familiar with, the English representing the Latin ω1, and the Greek ω2. Bear in mind, that i will use only the unique letters of the alphabet, i will not include the diphthongs in this particular case, in order to keep it simple. Also, this examination takes place by 2 languages of the same Parent Group, the Greek, in which the alphabet contains vowels. But what happens when we compare it with the Pro-Canaanite Language group, from which Hebrew is derived from, a group which is vowel less. Hm, this is tricky, but i guess that even though vowels are absent from the group in their writing system, they are not absent from the phonetic system, and therefore these, can be taken into account, the a, the e, the i, the o and the u, which are universal phonetic sounds. Or maybe the whole Hypothesis, of the vowels representing the even numbers and the consonants respectively the odd numbers could be flawed, and the separation, can take place some how else. Maybe, but lets see what happens, in my Hypothesis.

The English(Latin) Alphabet is composed of 26 letters, good by now, the number is even just like 10, and it is possible that it can could be formed by 13 vowels and 13 consonants. But is it?

Last time, i checked 6 were the vowels and 20 the consonants, so according to my theory, this language can never achieve the perfection that the math language can.




What about the Greek?

The Greek alphabet is composed by 24 letters, 7 vowels and 17 consonants.





In words, the Greek Language cannot be perfect either. But what do we conclude from this? First of all ω1 < ω2, which means that ω2(Greek) is relatively more perfect, with a more Harmonious Distribution. Secondly, why does the ω2 equals to an indefinite number? Does it mean something? Propably. And also, maybe this Relative Perfection Ratio explains our “original sin”, our imperfection, our calculating inabilities compared with calculators? Our never Harmonious programming languages, could be the root of the cause.

I will come back to this. Thank you for your time.

© copyright noemon.net

Responsive action to “provocare”-sophism?

Provocateur…lets troll the dictionaries.

An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French language, “inciting agent”) is a person who secretly disrupts a group’s activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group.

An agent provocateur is often a police officer that encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime. These are sometimes called sting operations.

One common use of Agents provocateurs is to investigate consensual or victimless crimes; since each participant in such crimes are willing participants, it is difficult for the authorities to discover such crimes without the use of undercover agents.

Agents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Terrorists sometimes act as agents provocateurs when they seek to provoke government repression that they hope will alienate their potential constituency from the government in question, and thus increase support for themselves (as the opponents of the government in question). In this sense, provocation may be combined with endorsement terrorism. from wikipedia.com

Wow, what a word ha?


1. To incite to anger or resentment.
To stir to action or feeling.
To give rise to; evoke: provoke laughter.
4. To bring about deliberately; induce: provoke a fight.

[Middle English provoken, from Old French provoquer, from Latin prvocre, to challenge : pr-, forth; see pro-1 + vocre, to call; see wekw- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: provoke, incite, excite, stimulate, arouse, rouse, stir1
These verbs mean to move a person to action or feeling or to summon something into being by so moving a person. Provoke often merely states the consequences produced: “Let my presumption not provoke thy wrath” Shakespeare. “A situation which in the country would have provoked meetings” John Galsworthy.
To incite is to provoke and urge on: Members of the opposition incited the insurrection.
Excite implies a strong or emotional reaction: The movie will fail; the plot excites little interest or curiosity.
Stimulate suggests renewed vigor of action as if by spurring or goading: “Our vigilance was stimulated by our finding traces of a large … encampment” Francis Parkman.
To arouse means to awaken, as from inactivity or apathy; rouse means the same, but more strongly implies vigorous or emotional excitement: “In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people’s representatives” Felix Frankfurter. “The oceangoing steamers … roused in him wild and painful longings” Arnold Bennett.
To stir is to cause activity, strong but usually agreeable feelings, trouble, or commotion: “It was him as stirred up th’ young woman to preach last night” George Eliot. “I have seldom been so … stirred by any piece of writing” Mark Twain. See Also Synonyms at annoy.

The definition of provocateur has a similar meaning with that of Sophism, the one who uses argumentative reason with emotional intelligence.

The definition of provocare in latin from

Being, time, and Dasein

Heidegger’s philosophy is essentially an attempt to marry two insights.

The first of these is Heidegger’s intuition that, in the course of over two thousand years of history, philosophy has attended to all the beings that can be found in the world (including the “world” itself), but has forgotten to ask what “Being” itself is. This is Heidegger’s “question of being,” and it is Heidegger’s fundamental concern throughout his work from the beginning of his career until its end. One crucial source of this insight was Heidegger’s reading of Franz Brentano’s treatise on Aristotle’s manifold uses of the word “being,” a work which provoked Heidegger to ask what kind of unity underlies this multiplicity of uses. Heidegger opens his magnum opus, Being and Time, with a citation from Plato’s Sophist indicating that the forgetting of being in Western philosophy is a consequence of the fact that it has been treated as obvious, rather than as worthy of question. Heidegger’s intuition about the question of being is thus a historical argument, which in his later work becomes his concern with the “history of being,” that is, the history of the forgetting of being, which according to Heidegger requires that philosophy retrace its footsteps through a productive “destruction” of the history of philosophy.

The second intuition animating Heidegger’s philosophy derives from the influence of Edmund Husserl, a philosopher largely uninterested in questions of philosophical history. Rather, Husserl argued that all that philosophy could and should be a description of experience (hence the phenomenological slogan, “to the things themselves”). But for Heidegger, this meant understanding that experience is always already situated in a world and in ways of being (Husserl’s “intersubjectivity”). Thus Husserl’s understanding that all consciousness is “intentional” (in the sense that it is always intended toward something, and is always “about” something; intentionality has been called the “aboutness” of things) is in Heidegger’s philosophy transformed, becoming the thought that all experience is experience of “care.” This is the basis of Heidegger’s “existential analytic,” as he develops it in Being and Time. Heidegger argues that to be able to describe experience properly means finding the being for whom such a description might matter. Heidegger thus conducts his description of experience with reference to “Dasein” (German Da—there/here; Sein—being or its; Dasein—existence), the being for whom being is a question, a being who is not man but who is nothing other than man. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, thrown into the world, is therefore thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one’s own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one’s own existence, is the basis of Heidegger’s notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the “vulgar” temporality of calculation and of public life.

How are all these connected:

Final definition

After having solved all these puzzles, that is to say the interrelation between being, not-being, difference and negation, as well as the possibility of the ‘appearing and seeming but not really being’, Plato can finally proceed to define the sophistry. In other words, sophistry is a productive art, human, of the imitation kind, copy-making, of the appearance-making kind, uninformed and insincere in the form of contrary-speech-producing art.

The art of manipulating terms begins with the agents provocauters, needed for our daily consumption along with milk, coffee, cigarettes and toilet. Some troll for fun, others for salary, and others for Eros

Do you believe? – A Higher Energy..

I have been asked this question so many times that i have actually lost counting. This question and the answer accompanied by, is usually ” Are you affiliated with a certain religion?” And if not, then you got to be an “atheist”.

Well, that’s not true. Not true at all.

Bottom line, why should i bow to Savaoth, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Buddha or whatever in order to prove to my interlocutor that i believe in a Higher Energy? Why should i accept the definition given to this Higher Energy by other individuals or organizations?

But if i don’t, i am automatically either an atheist or an agnosticist?

Is that which degree exactly of stereotyping, or what?

But what is belief? What is faith? Is faith that which religious organizations believe that it is?

Why? 1)Because of their volumes follower’s? 2)Because of their History? Or 3)because of the energy retransmitted by them through the Concentration of their subjects?

“The faith of many people to something does not guarantee its truthfulness”, even the Ugly Socrates 2500 years ago observed the blindness of the mass.
In other words, as far as i am concerned, Scientific method alone, is allowed to perform such statements of True or False. And their history, is worst than Mao Ce Tung’s China….

But what about box no3? That’s a tricky one isn’t it?

According to this line of thought, the more followers one has, the more influential is in the Divine domain, since the followers in their own way, create through their faith a Light in the Darkness. Not because of their affiliations but through the power of their meditative minds.

So, here we have another relationship similar to the State-Citizen relationship, everything the citizens do, the government takes credit for. And it should, since it provides a competitive framework for its subjects to elaborate in.

So, maybe i should choose a religion and fast for that matter?

But wait a second, since when did “pure energy” become a tradable commodity which can be concentrated and retransmitted?

I guess we should have to wait until science answers David Chalmers Hard Problem.

Until then, take your chances, and i shall take mine.


© copyright noemon.net

The Waco Massacre

In order to change the subject with all these Ancient Material, i would like to narrate you a story that i became familiar, with only a while back; the Waco Massacre.

Waco in its name, “waco” in its sense as well.

The Waco Massacre is the climax of an unfortunate turn of events that took place in Mount Carmel in Texas, USA. The ignition took place when David Koresh (born Vernon Wayne Howell) (August 17, 1959 – April 19, 1993) became the leader of a Christian Cult former excommunicated by 7th Day Adventists called the Branch Davidians.

Koresh ascended to leadership when he established an affair with Lois Roden, the prophetess and leader of the sect who was then in her late sixties, eventually claiming that God had chosen him to father a child with her, who would be the Chosen One.

In February 27, 1993, the Waco Herald-Tribune started a series of articles titled the Sinful Messiah accusing Koresh that had physically abused children in the compound and had taken under-age brides, even raping one of them. Koresh was also said to advocate polygamy for himself, and declared himself married to several female residents of the small community.
According to the paper, Koresh declared that he was entitled to at least 140 wives, that he was entitled to claim any of the females in the group as his, that he had fathered at least a dozen children by the harem and that some of these mothers became brides as young as twelve or thirteen years old.
A video clip of an interview between Koresh and an Australian television station notes that he was accused of impregnating the aged widow of the founder of Branch Davidianism. He sarcastically said that if the charges were true, if he had

“made an 82 year-old woman pregnant… I do miracles, I’m God!”

In 1992, a UPS delivery driver alerted the local deputy sheriff that empty grenade casings had been delivered to Mount Carmel (this was and still is legal under federal law). The sheriff notified the ATF and requested their help. This led to an investigation of the Davidians that lasted several months, and ultimately resulted in allegations of weapons violations by the Davidians. In addition, former Davidians told the ATF that Koresh had taught his followers to be prepared for a government assault. The ATF began planning a raid, and search and arrest warrants were issued in early 1993.
The Waco Tribune-Herald pressured authorities to take action against the Davidians. Some Waco residents were wary of the growing number of people and weapons in the Mount Carmel complex. Rumors of child abuse, which a Child Protective Services investigation was unable to confirm, were floating around. The day before the raid by the ATF, the Waco Tribune-Herald criticized the law enforcement agencies for failing to take action.
Carol Moore, author of the 1994 “The Massacre Of The Branch Davidians—A Study Of Government Violations Of Rights, Excessive Force And Cover Up”, published by The Committee For Waco Justice, writes:

Rick Ross told the Houston Chronicle that Koresh is “your stock cult leader. They’re all the same. Meet one and you’ve met them all. They’re deeply disturbed, have a borderline personality and lack any type of conscience. No one willingly enters into a relationship like this. So you’re talking about deception and manipulation (by the leader), people being coached in ever so slight increments, pulled in deeper and deeper without knowing where it’s going or seeing the total picture.

Kimberly Post, a sociology student working on a class assignment for University of Virginia Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, wrote in 1997:

Relying heavily on reports from a few former members of the Branch Davidians such as Marc Breault (who claimed to have stood armed guard despite being legally blind), and self-proclaimed “cult expert” Rick Ross, Aguilera’s affidavit delved into topics not under the jurisdiction of the BATF or part of the initial investigation into firearms violations, such as allegations of child abuse. His affidavit and the assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton.

The ATF began surveillance from a house across the street from the center, but their cover was inadequate (the “college students” were in their 30s, not registered at the local schools, and they did not keep a schedule which would have fit any legitimate employment or classes), so it became an open secret that they were government agents. Likewise, the agent who infiltrated the Branch Davidians discovered that he had been identified when Koresh spoke to him about the assault force then assembling across the farm fields near Mount Carmel.
Holding evidence that the Davidians had violated federal law, the ATF obtained search and arrest warrants for Koresh and specific followers on weapons charges due to the many firearms they had accumulated, and they planned their raid for March 1, 1993. However, they moved it up a day in response to the start of the Waco Tribune-Herald series.

The Beggining of the End

Agents approached the site on Sunday morning, February 28, 1993, in cattle trailers pulled by pickup trucks owned by individual ATF agents. Any advantage of surprise was lost as reporters asked for directions from a USPS mail carrier who was one of the Branch Davidians, and the assault team assembled within view of the upper stories of the Mount Carmel main building.

The first shots during the raid are reported to have occurred at the double front entry doors; ATF agents stated that they heard shots coming from within the building, while Branch Davidian survivors claimed that the first shots came from the ATF agents outside.

During the raid, a Davidian, Wayne Martin, called 911 pleading for them to stop shooting. The resident asked for a ceasefire, and audiotapes clearly caught him saying “Here they come again!” and “That’s them shooting, that’s not us!”, though these claims are unsubstantiated.
After the ceasefire, the Davidians, who still had ample ammunition, allowed the dead and wounded to be removed and held their fire during the ATF retreat.

ATF agents established contact with Koresh and others inside the building after they withdrew. The FBI took command soon after, placing the FBI SAC of San Antonio, Jeff Jamar, in charge of the siege. The tactical team was headed by Richard Rogers, whose had previously been criticized for his actions at the Ruby Ridge incident.
For the next fifty-one days, communication with those inside was by telephone by various FBI negotiators (who reportedly were not always in touch with the tactical units surrounding the building). Outside the building, tracked vehicles pushed aside vehicles from parking areas and began circling the building. Loudspeakers were used to broadcast sound at the building to tire those inside.
The Davidians hung banners from high places in the building seeking outside help. Their only source of water was rain which was collected in buckets put outside windows. After eleven days, all power was cut off.
As the stand-off continued, Koresh negotiated more time, allegedly so he could write religious documents he said he needed to complete before he surrendered. His conversations, dense with biblical imagery, alienated the federal negotiators who treated the situation as a hostage crisis. The Davidians released videotapes to agents during the siege in which children sat by Koresh, asking among other things if the agents were going to come kill them.
The children’s willingness to stay with Koresh disturbed the negotiators who were unprepared to work around the Davidians’ religious zeal. However, as the siege went on, the children were aware that an earlier group of children who had left with some women were immediately separated, and the women arrested. This destroyed any faith that the children might have had in the FBI.
During the siege a number of scholars who study apocalypticism in religious groups attempted to persuade the Justice Department that the siege tactics being used by government agents would only create the impression within the Davidians that they were part of a Biblical End Times confrontation that had cosmic significance. Thus, would likely increase the chances of a violent and deadly outcome. (In a subsequent stand-off with the Montana Freemen, the Justice Department incorporated this advice to end the confrontation peacefully).
Many of Koresh’s statements about religion that baffled government negotiators were understood by religious scholars as references to his idiosyncratic interpretations of the Book of Revelation, and his claimed role in the End Times battle between good and evil.
A videotape made by the Davidians at the request of negotiators was supposed to be released to their families. The tapes were not released at the time and several years later survivors had to go to court to obtain the tape that they had made and of which they held the legal copyright.
Several mothers sent their children out of the complex following promises by the FBI that they would be placed with family members. Unrelated senior citizens who had gone with the children were arrested and the children were taken into state custody and then placed in a religious children’s home.
The mothers of these children voiced concern about them and the treatment they were receiving. In reply they received a video sent by the negotiators. The mothers were disturbed that their children were being fed things forbidden by their religious diet and (in their view harmfully) were being allowed to run wild with minimal supervision while watching television. This violation of the promises destroyed any possibility of further trust of the FBI, making the negotiators’ job all but impossible.

The End

The then-newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno approved the recommendations of tne FBI to mount an assault after being told that conditions were deteriorating and children were being abused inside the compound. Because the Davidians were heavily armed, the FBI’s arms included .50 caliber guns and armored vehicles known as Combat engineering vehicles (CEVs). These vehicles had booms that were used to punch holes in the walls of buildings and then pump in CS gas to try to flush out the Davidians without harming them.
After more than six hours no Davidians had left the building, so one of the CEVs attempted to drive through the gymnasium to clear a pathway to the central part of the building, partially collapsing the gymnasium. A second CEV used its blade to open up the front doors, which the Davidians had blocked with a piano, to open up an exit for people who wanted to leave.
At around noon, three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. Even then, as the fire spread, few people came out. One woman jumped from a window, her back on fire, and was arrested by FBI agents after the flames were extinguished. Another second woman emerged but then went back into the building. An FBI agent ran after her into the burning building and dragged her out to ask her were the children were, but she refused to tell him.
Most of the Davidians remained inside as fire engulfed the building, with footage being broadcast worldwide by television. In all, 74 died. Jeff Jamar prohibited fire crews access to the burning buildings until after the blaze had burned itself out, due to the danger of explosives within the fire and possible weapons fire from surviving Davidians.


The events at the Branch Davidian property at Waco, Texas have engendered strong reactions among those following the case. Many people view the events at Waco as egregious violations of the civil rights of the Branch Davidians—an entirely inappropriate, illegal use of executive and judicial federal power. The opposing view is that the events constituted an appropriate take down of a child-molesting, radical cult that ran a drug laboratory and threatened local people with automatic weapons. Some facts validate each point of view, but many of the facts are disputed, and some evidence has been lost or destroyed.


In this article we shall examine the term Poem. Our adventures through these analysis aims to restore the value to those important concepts in order to save the alienation of our culture.

Every day we use terms that have changed from their initial purpose into something abstract, they have been bastardized through the fusion of languages and cultures, leading us to further widen our cultural gaps since the points of reference alter continuously. And as it seems it is harder to keep up with the continuing shifts in the terms of reference than studying the true point of reference. Paradox? Maybe….our lives are full of paradoxes, one more wouldn’t really hurt us, or Would it?

So to begin our analysis with the term poem, lets examine its root: The rhema(verb) POIEIN.

Poiein literally means in Hellenic “to create”.

Socrates in his elaborative arguments said that Poiesis (creation) is that which occurs “ek tou mi ontos” (from the non-existance) in other words creation applies only when we create something from the non-existance. Otherwise it would be modification, not creation.

So, Poem or Poiema in Hellenic is something that is created out of nothing. Like an idea for example. Poet or Poietes is the Creator.

However nowadays we use the term poem to refer to a verbal composition only. Under this perspective Hesiods Cosmogony is indeed a Poem like the Hemingway’s poems for example. But is it just that? Is it just an imaginary song? During his time, the term Poem did not apply only to songs it applied to every single concept of creation.

In other words, Hesiod’s song is a creation for the creator(Chaos).

Poem for the Poet.


As promised, in this session we shall examine the term Chaos.

What do we mean when we say that a situation is chaotic? Incontrollable crisis? Abstract movement? Unpredictability? Disorder? Assymetry? Just like the Image suggests?

Let us see,

Chaos in mathematics means an aperiodic deterministic behavior which is very sensitive to its initial conditions, i.e., infinitesimal perturbations of boundary conditions for a chaotic dynamic system originate finite variations of the orbit in the phase space. Chaos in physics is often considered analogous to thermodynamic entropy. Chaos is a poetic or metaphysical concept evoking a sense of discord, whereas entropy is a concretely defined function of a physical system. See entropy for the mathematical quantification of the disorder in a system. Physical chaos might be conceived as utter confusion, an incomprehensible and heterogeneous mess. This intuitive notion is at odds with the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. Maximized entropy always corresponds to apparent homogeneity in a system.
Chaos Theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect).

But what all that scientific gibberish mean?

In a few words, Chaos is the condition where asymmetry is symmetrical and harmonious. If one could draw a picture of Chaos it would look like something like the above.

According to Hesiod, Orpheus, Heraclitus, Socrates, Aristotle, etcetera; Chaos is the primal nothingness from which everything came to being.

It is the eternal womb where matter and non-matter exist in perfect harmony.

© copyright noemon.net