Mythology Creation.

This can be done by an entire culture over centuries,

Or by a small group or even a single person over singular years. Their work may then be expanded upon and perhaps even realized by following generations. Take for example, Jules Verne’s all-electric submarine, or Star Trek’s warp drive, and holodeck.

Because it’s one of those days: I feel discouraged and therefore brain-dead. But trying to keep showing up.


RE: eleanorsbuzz: “TBC? Are you sharing a documentary?”

—› It’s strange it’s possible to open a post for replies and yet you can’t answer them in any proper way except to message the person or edit the post.

Anyway, perhaps I misunderstand the question or its intent, but no. TBC as in “to be continued” because this is a topic I’ll be writing more about, when I’m able.

How I’m rushing through this! How much each sentence in this brief story contains. “The stars are made of the same atoms as the earth.” I usually pick one small topic like this to give a lecture on. Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is “mere.” I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part — perhaps my stuff is was belched from some forgotten star, as one is belching there. Or see them with the greater eye of Palomar, rushing all apart from some common starting point when they were perhaps all together. What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the /why/? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined! Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia, must be silent?

Richard Feynman, Six Easy Pieces, 59-60, footnote. via { olena }


Reblogging, from “1 year ago on June 07, 2011”.

I like that hurri[k]anes reblogged this, and tsunamis followed. :D

A solid object like a rock is almost entirely filled with empty space and only feels solid due to electrical repulsion forces.

{ Intuitor }


Maybe obvious / old news to some of you, but seriously:

go grab some thing hard (ha, ha) and think about that. Imagine that!

That is, in part, what Neil deGrasse Tyson means when he says { “If you’re scientifically literate the world looks very different to you." }



A cyborg, short for “cybernetic organism”, is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts. The term was coined in 1960 when Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline used it in an article about the advantages of self-regulating human-machine systems in outer space. …

The term cyborg is often applied to an organism that has enhanced abilities due to technology, though this perhaps oversimplifies the necessity of feedback for regulating the subsystem. The more strict definition of Cyborg is almost always considered as increasing or enhancing normal capabilities. While cyborgs are commonly thought of as mammals, they might also conceivably be any kind of organism and the term “Cybernetic organism” has been applied to networks, such as road systems, corporations and governments, which have been classed as such. The term can also apply to micro-organisms which are modified to perform at higher levels than their unmodified counterparts.

{ Wiki }


"Here’s the thing: For most of us, cyborg ends at the human-machine hybrid. The point of the cyborg is to be a cyborg; it’s an end unto itself. But for Clynes, the interface between the organism and the technology was just a means, a way of enlarging the human experience. That knotty first definition? It ran under this section headline: “Cyborgs — Frees Man to Explore.” The cyborg was not less human, but more."
{ The Man Who First Said ‘Cyborg,’ 50 Years Later }
- Alexis Madrigal - Technology - The Atlantic


Fictional cyborgs are portrayed as a synthesis of organic and synthetic parts, and frequently pose the question of difference between human and machine as one concerned with morality, free will, and empathy. Fictional cyborgs may be represented as visibly mechanical (e.g. the Cybermen in the Doctor Who franchise or The Borg from Star Trek); or as almost indistinguishable from humans (e.g. the Terminators from the Terminator films, the "Human" Cylons from the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica etc.) The 1970s television series The Six Million Dollar Man featured one of the most famous fictional cyborgs, referred to as a bionic man. Cyborgs in fiction often play up a human contempt for over-dependence on technology, particularly when used for war, and when used in ways that seem to threaten free will. Cyborgs are also often portrayed with physical or mental abilities far exceeding a human counterpart (military forms may have inbuilt weapons, among other things).

{ Wiki }



It’s unfortunate that most of our “education” about matters of science and technology comes from pop culture / pop fiction and popular media, all of which distort these topics into something barely recognizable and tailored to fit a money-making form. A violent, supposedly “humanistic” form that, while appearing to tell action-packed stories about the preservation of our freedoms, actually destroys them in a way.

By adding certain connotations to those topics (like cyborgs), those stories limit the public imagination by nudging it toward that apocalyptic, man-vs-nature-vs-non-nature-vs… whatever — whatever you’d like to vs any given day if it reels in the cash — scenario. As opposed to actually inspiring that same public to imagine how we can extend our reach, ourselves, our understanding, via science and technology, and thereby actually improve our relationship with the world around us.

Neal Stephenson has seen the future—and he doesn’t like it. Today’s science fiction, he argues, is fixated on nihilism and apocalyptic scenarios—think recent films such as The Road and TV series like “The Walking Dead.” Gone are the hopeful visions prevalent in the mid-20th century. That’s a problem, says Stephenson, author of modern sci-fi classics such as Snow Crash. He fears that no one will be inspired to build the next great space vessel or find a way to completely end dependence on fossil fuels when our stories about the future promise a shattered world. So, in fall 2011, Stephenson launched the Hieroglyph project to rally writers to infuse science fiction with the kind of optimism that could inspire a new generation to, as he puts it, “get big stuff done.”

{ Dear Science Fiction Writers: Stop Being So Pessimistic! }
By Annalee Newitz
Smithsonian magazine, April 2012


I’ve been saying the same thing about the visual arts. It is happening on some fronts. But honestly — enough of this garbage, apocalypse, and zombies. It’s boring. Let’s get back to inventing incredible futures, because we, as artists, can. For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead…

…it’s almost useless for non-creative types to try to provide exegesis for the arts- they simply do not have the complexity of thought processes to approach Creationary, or Visionary, level things with a Functionary mind.

Dan Schneider, 6.6.03
"Breaking Down Julian Jaynes:
A Review of The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind”
{ cosmoetica }


I’d replace “complexity of” with something like “impractical-explorative”, or remove it.

A functionary mindset is useful and good… but it it can’t envision much outside the realm of the already existent or definitely possible.

It isn’t easy to remain in between — to employ the functional and factual in the visionary, and to explain to both groups why this can happen and why that can’t happen, respectively.

I feel that most scientists are still in the dark ages. In 1953, when I lectured at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty club, there were about 300 scientists in the room and I asked, “Is there anyone present who has not seen the sun go down?” There were no hands raised and I was shocked. I said, “You have known for 500 years that the sun does not go down and yet you have done absolutely nothing as educators to coordinate your senses with your knowledge. When you tell your children to look at the sun going down, you are deceiving them. What kind of educators are you?”
Buckminster Fuller, from an interview with Jamie Snyder.