<![CDATA[Bela Abel - Blog]]>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:39:13 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[TO CRIMEA BY JINGO: LET’S DANCE!]]>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:51:15 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/07/to-crimea-by-jingo-lets-dance.html
Mountains and vineyards, burned out steppe where you still can walk onto a stone baba – Neolithic female figure once worshipped by mythic Scythians.  Gentle sandy beaches of Black Sea with its floors still covered with amphorae from Phoenician, Greek and Roman wrecks…

These wrecks lie undisturbed by greedy to artifacts divers.  Smell of wormwood at sunset.  Wailing of turtledoves in green quarters of Yalta and Simferopol.  And grave silence of ancient columns protruding from sandy cliffs.  It is a bit like California, if California would have several millennia of history.  It is almost like California, but no overcrowding, often more a desert, than even a steppe.  It is Crimea, and there is much more to it, but... 

Much more?  What can be more?  Maybe, mountains?  Or submarines?  Did you know that there is an innate connection between Crimea and jingoism?  These words are connected in many senses, but I’d like to start with semantics.  Here is a word on the origin of jingoism, or, actually, more than a word, a song.  So let’s sing together:

We don’t want to fight, but!

By Jingo if we do –

We’ve got ships, we’ve got men,

And the money too!

Note that “but!” here serves as a cue to a clap of hands and/or stomp of boots or beer steins, while the rest goes in a light mood of an operetta, which, by and large, it is.  If song accompanied by a dance (or vice versa), it would be fun to dance it in a single rank, hands or even elbows twined together, like The Riverdance does it quite often on stage.

We don’t want to fight, BUT! ...

This beautiful song comes from 1878, and it anonymously addresses Russia as an adversary.  I am not sure what that conflict of 1878 was about.  Lord Tennyson’s Light Brigade ran its memorable charge in 1854, and although Sevastopol was taken yet it all went for nothing.  Half century later, in 1918, the tables had turned.  Russia was waiting with tears and prayers for Crimean deployment of British troops.  It was Britain’s obligation under the articles of The Entente, yet it never came.  Instead came Red Army and it had its own songs to dance with: 

Aeh apple, apple,

Where you roll about?

Satan‘ll take you in

And you will not get out…

So what it was about then, in 1878, what was the adversity?  Was it because of South Africa, for Russia had supported Boers?  I am not sure.  Yet one thing is certain: Crimean Peninsula often was and still can be a casus belli. 

It seems like out of various geographic formations peninsulas specially attract warmongering politicians.  Why this is so?  Is it in the tainting shapes of peninsular cartography, which often looks like genitals?  Do those oblong shapes subconsciously perhaps but still challenge alpha males sweating over maps in war rooms?  Crimea, Korea, Indochina, Crimea, Korea …  but, let’s go back to old Jingo.  Here is a quote from G.K. Chesterton, a writer of unsurpassable wit:

“It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people.  First, it is a small power, and fights small powers.  Then it is a great power, and fights great powers.  Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity.  After that, the next step is to become a small power itself.”  G.K. Chesterton, The Fallacy of a Young Nation.

Chesterton was talking about someone else, but let’s take Crimean Peninsula as an example.  We’ll skip the times of old Greeks, Romans, Scythians, and Sarmatians, and go straight to XVI Century, when Russia began its expansion towards Crimea – a prized land which then was called Crimean Khanate.  The Khanate stood on her way to “Greeks” and posed a permanent threat to a key trade route.  At this time Russian Imperial Eagle was still a fledgling, it just hatched out of Moscow Princedom.  The final takeover will be completed in 1783.  Before that, by Chesterton, it was small power vs. small power (although this takeover was a big slap to Turks, a real power behind the Khanate.)  Since then Russian Empire grew into a power itself.  The wars with equal powers on Crimean Peninsula ensued –Turkey, Britain, Third Reich – all had tried to take, nobody could hold it for long.  Russia kept the prized land, although not for free, but over blood and bones of her children.  Comparing to the bloodbaths of the past, including the terrors of Civil War of 1918-21 and genocide of Crimean Tatars uprooted by Stalin and in 48 hours thrown into wastelands of Kazakhstan in 1945, the latest annexation wasn’t even a skirmish, just a smooth correction of a cartographic lapse left on the map by Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev.  Yet the question remains:

Can the latter takeover be read as a sign of Chesterton’s stage three?  No, I don’t think so. 

Will any territorial claim to Crimea be a casus belli with Russia?  Yes, you bet it will!

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

<![CDATA[ARCHIMEDES AND KIRCHNER or COGNITIVE ECHO IV.]]>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 03:13:08 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/07/archimedes-and-kirchner-or-cognitive-echo-iv.html
I never miss a chance to point out at strange occurrences which some people call coincidences, but those ‘coincidences’ seem are too persistent in their occurrence to be mere coincidences, anyway…
Cognitive Echo is one of the original and most interesting phenomena which I’ve discussed from the start of this blog (see COGNITIVE ECHO OR SYNCHRONICITY; COGNITIVE ECHO II OR HUMMINGBIRD; LILACS OUT OF DEAD BRAIN or COGNITIVE ECHO III ).  This is a kind of phenomena which I believe reveals digital or (if you would prefer) intelligently predetermined structure of our world.  I’ve illustrated it and discussed it through various physical manifestations which occur quite regularly in our lives, but cognitive echo can happen sometimes in quite subtle ways.  Here is an example.

National Geographic History is one of my favorite reads.  In the latest 2017 May-June issue you will find The Truth about Archimedes by Mireia Movellán Luis, p. 42, where among many other things, you will read:

“Perhaps the most famous story attributed to Archimedes’ defensive genius – his use of sunlight reflected off parabolic mirrors to burn approaching Roman ships – is most likely apocryphal.”

Actually, the whole history of ancient world is more or less apocryphal, but I believe that the most apocryphal part of this claim is that the mirrors were parabolic.  It is much more likely that Archimedes used plain mirrors arranged into an array.  The early references to that can be found in Tzetzes, 11th Century historian who discussed the technicalities.  But, this is not what I wanted to show you here.  Further we read:

“Proof that Archimedes achieved such a feat is lacking, but the legend lingered long enough for Leonardo [Da Vinci] to try it himself.”

I am not aware of Leonardo Da Vinci trying to reproduce burning mirrors of Archimedes (think about it – the first beamed weapon was used in 214 BC!), but the strangeness is here: the same issue of NGH contains an article with massive reference to Athanasius Kircher and his role in translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs (Javier Martínez Babón, The Hieroglyphics Puzzle, p.18). 

Athanasius Kircher, a German Jesuit of XVIII Century, among other achievements, like being called Father of Egyptology, had actually demonstrated the feasibility of Archimedes’ burning mirrors.  He used an array of plain mirrors to kindle a pile of wet wood.  Neither article mentions that historical fact.

I find it more than just ironic and even less coincidental, that both men were featured in the same magazine.  And so I am asking myself – is it a sort of cognitive echo which occurs on a bit different plane, a plane of thought, perhaps?  What else Father of Egyptology and Father of Beamed Weaponry (and Mechanics, and Space Geometry) have in common? 

World of Illusion
; Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

<![CDATA[ENCAGEMENT.   ]]>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:30:48 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/06/encagement.html
This little piece is about invention of new words and the causes that bring them to the light.  Actually, this is about something entirely different, but, well, you’ll find this out… 

I think that many new words are invented out of a pure ignorance of writers.  This is, of course, a generalization, so maybe it will be fair to put it this way: when I am writing I am ignorant to the point of invention of new words.  How about that?  I think it is a fair way to say.

I’ll give you an example.  In the process of writing The Leap of Faith I came up with a great word, the word I can relate to, and if you’ve read my books then you know what I mean.  And the word is encagement
Can you believe that until Bela Abel took his pen and started writing his stories, this word didn’t existed?  I still can’t believe it, but here is the fact – my American Heritage Dictionary vehemently denies it and my word processor spell checker underlines it as an error.  I still cannot get it, how come it is not there?  Look at these parenting verbs:

Enact begot Enactment; Encamp begot Encampment; Encase begot Encasement; Enchant begot Enchantment; Enclose begot Enclosure, no family without a creep, you know; yet Encompass begot Encompassment and (that’s a close one) Engage begot Engagement.  And so we have engagement without encagement!  There is no Encagement, as a condition of being encaged.  And why not?  Encagement concerns not only canaries and hamsters.  Every one out of nine my fellow citizens experiences this condition during his or her life; 2.2 million are doing it as I am writing this line [1].  Plus, how much more can use this word in a metaphoric sense.  It is a rich word, just think of that:

Encagement.  The rules of encagement.  Dreams of encagement.  The premonition of encagement.  Age of encagement.  Love your encagement and strive to make it better for yourself and others.  So instead of holding to your bars and drooling with gloom, or walking back and forth from wall to wall in two small steps, smile and look forward to the better future.  Blessed are those who were encaged for they’ll find freedom!

I keep browsing the dictionary.  Even Enchain begot Enchainment, but enchainment is not good enough, it even can’t be claimed its right for being synonymous to Encagement.  Let’s update our dictionaries:

Encagement  n  1.  The act of encaging.  2. The state of being encaged.  “Obvious rule of encagement: if meal A was good, expect dreck for meal B.” (Bela Abel) 3.  Something that confines your feelings, mind or body. 

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

[1] I hear these crazy figures over and over again, here are several references if you want to look further: id, January 2016, 51st State; also: St. Anthony Messenger, Vol. 123, #2 (July) 2015, the latter refers to Census Bureau, according to which in 2009 7.2 million (3.1% of population) of my fellow Americans lived under correctional supervision.

<![CDATA[WHERE ALL OUR BUGS HAD GONE? ]]>Sat, 17 Jun 2017 02:14:46 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/06/where-all-our-bugs-had-gone.html
I have a scary observation to report.  It’s in the #nature.  Our Southern summers were always abundant on insects, even overabundant.  Not now, though – the world seems like become devoid of our little buzzing buddies (and foes).  What had happened to them? 

April, already ninety Fahrenheit, no rain – here, in Bayboro, April is a summer month.  I am looking around and asking myself: where are they?  Where are our ubiquitous mosquitoes, including this funny tiger bunch, where are ladybugs, where are yellow jackets, where are orange wasps and where are my favorite praying mantises, where they all had gone?  I am looking around and I see none, NONE! 
Alright, I see our bumblebees, they had emerged from their nest inside the wooden slabs of TV shack and now fly busily around.  And even the bumblebees look decimated.  And where are butterflies, fireflies and just flies?  We have so little flies in the dorm, that I even miss them!  (Sometimes I like to annoy flies.  Have you ever tried to annoy a fly?  It is fun!  Just let it lend next to you and wave it away.  When it lends again - wave it off, and so on.  Count the number of cycles and see who’ve gotten more pertinacity.)

Our spiders are gone too.  I used to observe a large brown recluses living next to my rack.  I am impartial to the spiders, as you can discern from Pink Black Widow.  Where are the spiders?  The insects are gone and I don’t think that this is normal.  Is it?  It feels subtle and yet quite apocalyptic!  We used to swarms of ants and earwigs and you name it – and now – nothing.  Do you know what this means?  I am not sure, but this invokes another question – who is going to pollinate plants?  What spiders, birds and bats will eat?  Spiders are already gone, are the birds and bats disappearing next?  And then, if that is so – is our turn coming too?

I guess – and I hope that I am right, it is just a lot of insecticides was poured recently in our place.  It could be that some kind of a mother of all bombs for insects was dropped.   If so, nothing terrible, just another man-made zone devoid of life, we all ought to get used to it.  And still, it is so dreeeeadful! 

What is happening here?

End-of-Time; Nature

<![CDATA[LILACS OUT OF DULL BRAIN or COGNITIVE ECHO III.  ]]>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 02:01:40 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/06/lilacs-out-of-dull-brain-or-cognitive-echo-iii.html
I was patient and ignored all cognitive echoes which had happened to me since I’ve last time described this phenomenon in the Hummingbird.  Yet another echo had #happened and this time I’ve gave in.  Here is the story. 

I’ve lost a word.  And this was so embarrassing – I’ve lost a pretty common word, not an opisthoproct or cosidoron (those are coming wherever I need them).  It was a good word, a name of that pretty common shrub with purple or white clusters of flowers.  You know what I am talking about? 
  In Europe this it is very common to old cemeteries and public parks.  It is a lot of it in New Orleans too.  So, anyway, half day I was cudgeling my brain, but it didn’t work, so I’ve left my poor helpless brain alone.  Then (next day) the help came, and as help almost always does, it came from above. 
That day I went to the chapel, where we’ve watched a movie before the service.  It was The Man for All Seasons.  So, there was the moment when Henry VIII with all his noisy retinue comes to visit Sir Thomas More in his home in Chelsea.  Of course, Henry came to coerce Sir Thomas to accept his coming marriage with Anna Boleyn.  Sir Thomas didn’t say yes to the king nor he didn’t say no and Henry VIII, enraged by More’s pertinacity, breaks a twig off a beautiful white bush of what-I-was-thinking-so-desperately-about-yesterday and even more, just to help me out, he says:

“Oh, lilac! … “

These words were followed with some quite obvious hint on what he is going to do to the obstinate Chancellor, but I didn’t listen – I had my own little pebble in a shoe just have been removed by no one else, but Henry VIII (or an actor playing Henry VIII for that matters).  Thanks to Henry VIII!  (How often one has to thank Henry VIII?  I guess not everyone and not so often, unless one is an Anglican in a good standing.)  Anyway, yes, it was lilac (white variety), and I was happy to get my lilac back!

Later, the same day I was reading Michael D. O’Brien Strangers and Sojourners.  (By the way, if you haven’t read these seven books of Children of the Last Days series, I highly recommend them, these two intertwined trilogies and one standalone novel are about coming of Antichrist and establishing of a totalitarian regime to the West are excellent by all counts.)  And so, in O’Brien I am reading a quote from Eliot:

April is a cruelest month, breeding

Lilacs out of dead land, mixing

Memory and desire, stirring

Dull roots with spring rain …

If this was a cognitive echo striking again (or Jung’s Synchronicity), then this time it was even more striking than before (see COGNITIVE ECHO, and COGNITIVE ECHO II).  Not only the word started coming to me out of most unexpected sources, but it did it as if my cudgeled mind had caused it to come up.  Of course, after examining the previous experiences I could say that this was pretty much the same effect, but, boy it got me excited!  Yes, cognitive echo happens much too often to be ignored or worse to be mistaken for a plain coincidence. 

So, here is a question – do we actually invoke the cognitive echo? 

Whatever it is, my numerous now observations indicate that it does not happen to a passive observer.  It takes some will and energy for this thing to manifest itself.  And if this is so – think how much more we can achieve with an utmost focus of our mind on a subject (whatever this subject may be).  Is it not some discovery? 

Well, I don’t really think so.  I think, people were using this effect for the past ten thousand years or more.  It is a pretty common human activity indeed, it is called prayer.

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature; Metaphysics and Mysticism; Paranormal and Supernatural; World of Illusion; Prayer

<![CDATA[AM I NOT AN OPISTHOPROCT?  ]]>Sat, 20 May 2017 00:18:42 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/05/am-i-not-an-opisthoproct.html
I went on a quest for a #monster, and I found one, but it was a monster of a quite different nature than I thought it would be.

I was editing one of my story called “Pink Black Widow”, when I’ve run into a little snag.  I needed to find monsters.  Not monsters with long fangs, sticky tentacles or legs growing out of their heads, but verbal ones.  The culprit word, which sent me on this unusual quest was “decumanus”, a word which plays quite a sinister role in Pink Black Widow.  I was looking for some name which could make a match from a dark and even sinister side of meanings, like “chthonic” or “Tcheralindra”. 
 Yet, the latter, Tcheralindra girl was already taken, hired for Rattus Rex.  And then a thought came to me:

How about fishes?

Let me explain.  When I was a kid I loved to look through six volumes of zoological encyclopedia, a relatively modern descendant of Bream’s “Life of Animals”.  I could sit for hours and just go through infinite stock of invertebrate and vertebrate creatures in all their majesty and disgust.  I didn’t read much until later, but I was always enthralled by the colorful pictures, thousands of them.  I guess, these books substituted cartoons for me, something that I’ve never appreciated.  Especially, I liked the fishes, they had so many exotic names, like ipnops and dolopicht…  and I stopped there because my old memory got a bit rusty and it didn’t cooperate.  So, I cudgeled it a bit, as I do sometimes for my literary work.  I did it for hours, until I reached a state of mild insanity, and then, a-ha! – it gave in, and the fishes came from the darkness waving their fins and opening their wide mouths full of long sharp teeth.  Careproct came, and lasiognat, cosidoron, macropinnah, poloryl and many others came, including finally, oh, this was my favorite, opisthoproct.  Hi, Opisthoproct!

Most of these fishes live at crazy depths, thousands feet down in the darkness and they look pretty much like they are named: they all are anglers and hence they are monsters even within their own fishy community.  My choice of a monster word fell on opisthoproct.

Yet, I’ve been curious – because of the long time that had passed, my knowledge of these fishy names was purely phonetic, so I wanted to find at least some of them in the dictionary.  Strangely, none of them was listed.  The only one of those which I’ve mustered was there, and it was my favorite opisthoproct!  Yet, even the opisthoproct had no entry per se, but I’ve got it in parts, through its Greek roots.  Good thing that at least those were in the dictionary.  So I’ve found that “Opistho” stood for Greek “behind” and “Proct”, well, you know what proctology means, don’t you?

After that discovery I felt slightly discombobulated and honestly, disappointed.  It appeared that the name of the fish of my childhood dreams was “one who got anus behind”?  What a silly, profane name!  How much mysterious it sounded in Greek!  Opisthoproct.  Besides, the mystery was reduced to commonality – after all: aren’t we all in possession of this characteristic? 

Aren’t we all opisthoprocts? 

Except, of course, this is not our defining feature (I hope).  And, leaving us (humans) alone, I think opisthoproctism is not so common for the fishes.  Or is it? 

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

<![CDATA[THE CUP OF IT ALL.]]>Tue, 09 May 2017 05:17:25 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/05/the-cup-of-it-all.html
“How Splendid it would be, Agathon, if wisdom was the sort of thing that could flow from the fuller to emptier of us when we touch each other, like water, which flows through a piece of Wool from a fuller cup to an emptier one.” says Socrates inPlato's Symposium [1].
Let’s ignore for a moment the philosopher’s double-entendre which leaves no doubt in the context of the book, and look at the imagery of Socrates’s thought. 

Knowledge in a cup, a swig of wisdom, which opens your eyes to all hidden mysteries and gives you an answer to all questions human mind can possibly conceive. What a splendid idea, indeed! If this would be true, how nice it would be instead of slogging through fifteen years of School and college (and still getting dumber day by day), just to have a cup and to become Smarter than Socrates himself."

I guess, this idea was up in the air in V century B.C. When the Greeks joked about a magical drink while imbibing themselves with Wine. Eight hundred miles away, at four o'clock right across the Pont,Ezra (the same one, see ON DEMOCRACY IN HADES) actually drunk just that kind of cup. “A cup full of what seemed like water, except that its color was the color of fire” [2].

Well, I admit, I stretched it a bit: Ezra received his Cup of Wisdom from God Almighty Himself in the field of Ardat in 458 B.C. i.e. when Socrates was only 12 years old. At this time and age he was the one who was receiving his wisdom in exchange for a touch and I bet he loathed that But, considering our vantage point set 25 centuries later, what difference one or two decades can make? Or, who knows, maybe this difference is just the time taken for the news of the magical cup of Ezra to reach Greek shores?

After gulping the cup Ezra began dictating his wisdom to five Scribes non-stop, night and day and in 40 days they produced 94 books: a Superhuman prolificacy attained nowadays only by literary giants likeSteven King, Patterson and Danielle Steele. Sadly, of those 94 books only 24 were open to the public eye, and as far as I know, only 6 are available today [3].

Perhaps, Socrates had drunk that cup too, after all western thought as we know it originates from this man. Yet, everything comes for a price, and in 399 B.C. Socrates will have to drink another cup: this time a cup of poison hemlock (Cicuta). All because the good citizens of Athens felt that he was too smart for limping around and scaring them with his with. Against all injustice of his condemnation, Socrates took the poison with a joke: “We owe a rooster to Asclepius for that one!”

Ezra survived his ordeal and became one of the great prophets. Yet, about five centuries later, One Whom he so openly prophesized about, will have to drink His cup in the garden of Gethsemane: “Pater, ci vis, transfer calicem istum a me” [5]. This cup was filled with the knowledge of all men's sins, beginning from Adam.

“Wait”, you may say, “this cup was just a metaphor” So I say: “How would you know? Was the cross a metaphor too?' I feel that we ought to be careful with metaphors when it comes to the Scriptures (June 22, 2016. THE FORGOTTEN NAME). What if it was not a metaphoric chalice, what if the cup was just as real, as one taken by Ezra'? You can see it in depictions of Agony in the Garden, where an angel holds the cup next to Jesus.

In the turmoil of arrest, the cup was left empty under an olive tree. Eons had passed and it got buried under the Soil and roots. It must be still there, in Jerusalem, waiting for the time to be found and filled again.

* I admit, I've reduced the profound thought of Socrates regarding the peculiar practice of Greek aristocracy into a piece of kitchenware, but this would be a different story if I would go there, wouldn’t it? Sodomy as a form of tuition is not my subject today.

1 Plato. The Symposium, translated with introduction and notes by Christopher Gill, Penguin Books, 1999. 7. 22 Ezdras 14:39. 3 Ibid. 14:46. Those six books are: the canonic Book of Ezra, Book of Nehemiah, two Books of Chronicles and apocryphal 1" and 2" Books of Ezdras.

4 Socrates indictment carried the charge of impiety, or asebeia, punished by death. The stateimposed murder of Socrates later will be copycatted en mass by murders committed in the name of French Republic and hundred millions similar cases which will follow from then on. For Socrates case see: Carlos Garcia Gual. The Trial of Socrates, National Geographic History, March/April 2016, 44. (5) Luke 22:42.

Bela Abel.

<![CDATA[THE RELATIVITY OF TRUTH      ]]>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:57:48 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/04/the-relativity-of-truth.html
Perhaps, we had enough eschatology discussion, let's talk about something else, like, say, the relativity of truth. Lately this Subject was quite regularly on my mind. What is it coming from? I think, I can tell, but first I would like to take a bit longer look at it.

I believe like almost everything else it was started by Socrates, but the philosophical dilemma of truth lies somewhere between the Sophism of Friedrich Nietzsche: “The truth is merely an irrefutable error.” And a straight maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Contra factum non argumentum est. There is no argument against the fact.” These two statements seem like they set some margins for a real answer, but a longer look actually blurs the difference. Just say that fact is indeed an irrefutable error and then go back to Plato with his image of a shadow on the back wall of a cave (see INTERMISSION 1, 2), which tells you that everything in this world is an illusion.

Actually, relativity of truth is a peculiar subject, and my little entry won’t cover it a bit, it just can hang on it a little fig leaf of appreciation. I’ve devoted to it a big part of my piece called The Leap of Faith, and I could stop right here, but this morning I’ve seen a little news bite with Amanda Knox all over a TV screen and I thought: here we go, again. Essentially, the concept of relativity of truth is just a smokescreen used to promote, cover, and set up bases for whatever by whoever needs it. Leave it to flacks and politicians. Truth is a simple thing and it dwells in a simple answer: YES or NO, there is no relativity in a binary code. Let me give you an example:

I have a black cat in a bag. True or false? Of course my cat is actually white, but in absence of light there is no reflection and cat’s color is black, or is color assumed as a color when it is in light, i.e. taken out of the bag? And how do I know exactly that the cat is black when I can’t see it? And what is it there, in the bag, is it really a cat or a puppy or a little shape-shifting demon?

Bela Abel

Old Greeks: Society; World of Illusion

<![CDATA[A HAIR INSIDE MY WATCH.]]>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 22:44:41 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/04/a-hair-inside-my-watch.html
While I was writing my little entries on physics of ghosts, some peculiar ghost decided to visit me.  Yet, I am still in doubt: was it really a hairy eidolon or just my imagination?

The first time it come up to my view was about six months ago.  I had no idea how it had gotten there – under the glass, right across the face of the dial was a light bristle, like those which grow on my wrists.  I admit, I have a plenty of those bristles outside the watch, but this one got inside.  How this could happen?  I had no idea.  The only thing that I could guess was that it was already there, when I had acquired this second hand timepiece.  I just didn’t notice its presence for about a year and a half
So, anyway, I am calling one of our handymen who specialize on watches and I ask him to clean it.  It is a small job; it will cost me only a can of coke.  And so he does.  My watch is clean again – there is nothing there, hands are running freely across the face, counting my time without any obstruction or distraction.  The man gets his coke.

Two weeks later the bristle is back.  I am a bit surprised to see it, for the handyman told me that he had removed it.  But, I don’t have time to worry about small things.  This time I am paying him twice: a soda can and a honeybun.  And when he brings me the watch back he tells me that he removed not one but two hairs.  Yet, the deal is the deal and my watch is clean again, so I can look at the unobscured face of Kronos day and night.  A month later – what’s the …!  Yes, it is back, the bristle, like a derisive, lipless smile across the face of my watch.

I am telling about it to the handyman, but I am not hiring him again.  Most likely he is innocent (who isn’t?) but I have doubts:

Doubt number one – I don’t think that he was messing with me.  I know that the feller had opened my watch – he scrapped the glass in the process.  Why wouldn’t he remove the hair?  Why would he lie to me?  And again, I didn’t see the hair for a while, so if he wanted to mess with me, how would he hide it there?  I doubt it.

Doubt number two – alright, let’s say that the foul play of the watchman is ruled out.  This piece was a cheap second hand, it cost me nearly nothing – I really paid for the battery.  Can there be a large number of bristles, say four, seven or twelve wrapped around the shaft and unraveling one at a time (no pun intended)?  I think it is an insane idea by itself, and I worry that it came out of my head.  No, I am brushing this off, it is a total nonsense!

But, if this is not a foul play and not a hairy shaft then what is it?  This wristwatch is watertight, meaning that it is also hairtight, right?  What it could be then?

Hair tunneling on quantum level?  Spontaneous hair manifestation?  Mandela effect?  Or just a plain ghost hair?  I don’t know, but as I am typing these words, the damn bristle had disappeared again!

So, I’ve got my own haunted watch.  Of course, this is not a lady in white standing at the head of your bed, just a bristle under the glass.   Maybe it is even not worth to be mentioned?  It is only a minor part of our daily minutiae, and yet, I am intrigued and excited.  After all, small can be big – think about Higgs boson!  And, coming back to the recent discussion, if this all is merely a projection, can someone from projectionist booth being messing with me.  Questions, questions.

Maybe I just need a new watch?

Ghosts and Spirits; Metaphysics and Mysticism; Paranormal and Supernatural; World of Illusion

<![CDATA[PHYSICS OF GHOSTS 101: PART SEVEN AND HOPEFULLY, FINAL.]]>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:28:34 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/04/physics-of-ghosts-101-part-seven-and-hopefully-final.html
I thought that I will finish my Book 4 and will be done with Bayboro Chronicles.  Now I have five books.  I thought I’ll grow large leathery wings and fly away.  But my shoulder blades remain smooth like a baby face.  So I keep walking.  I thought that I am finishing my discussion of #physics of #ghosts.  I hope I do, I ought to change the subject to something new.

Our unorthodox discussion of physics of ghosts was finished with something that I call Catoptric Paradox (see PHYSICS OF GHOSTS 101: PART SIX and two preceding posts).  So, is it all just a projection? 
  I’d say YES, it is!  And it is not only old idea of Plato/Socrates.  The idea of reality as mere holographic-like projection was reinstated with the newest advances of physics, in particular by works of John Wheeler (Nobel Prize winner who coined the term ‘black hole’) and his school [1].  I am not going to recite here the book Dr. Brian Greene, it’s a good read which I recommend you to undertake on your own (the book is about modern days cosmology).  Besides, my subject here is much more modest and limited to ghosts.  So, Catoptric Paradox it is!  If you have an experimentalist’s streak in you, you can do this:
Take a laser pointer (any color) and a piece of white paper.  For the latter you can use a business card of sales rep from Ashley furniture store, or any other business card which you’ve deemed completely useless, but missed to chuck it out.  Now, stand next to the oldest and thickest wall mirror you have in your household.  Direct the laser pointed at the mirror at 45o in a horizontal plane.  (This is the safest way to avoid catching the reflection with your retina, which you don’t want to detach.)  Catch the reflected beam with Ashley furniture card or any other handy business card of your choice.  What do you see?

Well, if you did it right, you will see a bright round spot reflected from your pointer.  Yet, next to it you will see a weaker spot.  It will have the color of your pointer beam, but it will look semi-transparent.  It could be even barely noticeable, so you better dim the lights in the room.  Sounds familiar?  Yes, it is your “ghost image”.  A reflection which comes not from the metal film deposited at the back of the glass, but from its front surface.  If your pointer is strong enough, you may observe more than one ghost image.

This experiment pretty much models the bigger picture.  The ghosts are the defect images in our projection of reality, just as much as those secondary or tertiary spots projected on business card.  Ghosts come as “unintended” reflections from extra surfaces, screens, whatever it may be to project our reality on our minds.  And, since we are talking about higher order projections here, these defects may or may not interact with our reality.  (In our little experiment, you can make the ghost image overlap with your primary reflection too.) 

By saying that, I am stipulating my sincere belief that ghosts are as much real, as everything else which we call “reality”.  Or, if you prefer, you may say that our reality is as much unreal as the ghosts which we see sometimes in the dark rooms and cemeteries and wherever else.  And whichever take on ghosts you have – their presence is as much objective, as this screen on which you are reading this text.  Objective, so like it or not, but you can’t change it.  Ghosts are here, they were and they always will be.

[1] For a popularized discussion of reality as projection see Chapter 9 of Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality.  Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, Vintage Books, 2011.

Ghosts and Spirits; Metaphysics and Mysticism; Paranormal and Supernatural, World of Illusion