Hooligans, multi-inculturalism, and ‘siniestrona’

Written in August 2011, coinciding with riots in England.

(Read it here in Spanish)

Recent events in England have portrayed not only a ruthless hordes of young people raised in the shadow of some irresponsible parents and a social protection system too generous to them, but also a political left the most simplistic, extreme, and intolerant (the siniestrona), pretending that those violent attacks by mindless rioters are the rising of a noble people against injustice.

Violence in the English suburbs is due, in my opinion, to the combination of four elements: 1) A wild consumerism fueled for decades by mass media (from advertising to TV series for teenagers going through pure junk TV), who has firmly stuck this idea in the minds of many people: “the more you own (at any price), the more you are”, 2) A serious deterioration of education and traditional values ​​of honesty, respect, and discipline (which was guaranteed more or less when religion was not something in retreat- fortunately, I must say! – as now in the West), 3) A sense of humiliation and inferiority of some poor natives, losers of globalization and prone to xenophobic parties like the British National Party (BNP) in England or the Front National in France, 4) A sense of humiliation and inferiority of some immigrants (or people with immigration background) that have not been fully integrated (or accepted) in European societies,  internally torn by the conflict between laws and customs of their host countries and traditions of their origin countries (that often chain them to the emasculating yoke of patriarchy and religion), who in turn are prone to extremist identitarian movements.

It goes without saying that poor natives prone to xenophobia and humiliated immigrants inclined to identitarian extremism are called to collide sooner or later: the natural tendency of what some people call multiculturalism (a term so dear to the siniestrona), that I prefer to label as multi-inculturalism to be more accurate. Even the various immigrant misfit groups tend to collide one to another. Continue reading “Hooligans, multi-inculturalism, and ‘siniestrona’”


Why killing is not ‘per se’ evil? (much as Kant turns in his grave)


(Read it here in Spanish)

Kant’s categorical imperative states that we must behave in such a way that our behaviour can be elevated to universal law or rule. We do good when we help an elder cross the street because we adopt a supposedly objective moral law (“it’s good to help destitute people”), which is glimpsed and embraced by our reason. Since this law is universal, it doesn’t matter whether the elder is a war criminal or he or she is attempting to stab a person across the street: our action would be good in any case. The ethics of Königsberg’s philosopher is absolute, whereby every human life is an end in itself (not animal one, which would not be moral for supposedly lacking rationality). So categorical imperative, by definition, cannot be relativized: without it, the basics of ethics would be completely subjective and arbitrary.

However, simple practical reason tells us that there is no commandment, not even the “thou shalt not kill”, that can be raised to absolute moral law: killing, stealing, or lying would not be bad per se, but depending on which moral purpose they are bound to. When someone kills in self-defense, or to defense innocent third parties, acts morally good. When someone kills a tyrant, does a favor to humanity (even St. Augustine agreed to this, and he has not been yet rectified by Catholic Church). When someone steals to feed his or her hungry child is performing a morally right act (as long as violence is not disproportionate). When someone kills an animal for food, because he or she has no other source of livelihood, you cannot oppose an animalist ethics to him or her. It is even untenable to affirm that eating human flesh is inherently bad: for the Uruguayan sportsmen lost in the Andes almost half a century ago, eating the flesh of their deceased friends was a good deed that saved their own lives. Of course, lying is the right thing to do when survival and well-being (for example, if a member of Islamic State asks you for your religion), the happiness of your loved ones, or any other moral asset is at stake. Continue reading “Why killing is not ‘per se’ evil? (much as Kant turns in his grave)”

Gnomes do exist (Osiris and Batman too)


(Read it in Spanish)

The key of our success as species is not as much our material culture as our ability to imagine things. Historian Yuval Harari argues that thanks to fictitious entities such as gods or nations we have been able to cooperate on a large scale, produce a formidable material culture and become the kings of the earth.

But if we can imagine such things is because they are in some way out there (out of space-time) or inside (within our mind). In any case, to imagine them amounts to instantiate them and get them to yield effects. This leads us to accept that, in addition to God (in fact, of all gods and demons), there are also fairies, gnomes, and pajaritos preñados, though obviously not in the realm of our physical world. Is there anyone who denies the existence of financial economy or madridism sticking to its apparent immateriality?…

This is Patrick Harpur’s approach in his book Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld. Half a century ago, on the same line, Carl Jung already pointed out in Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies that the stories of flying saucers were not false but true though not literally: UFOS would be projections of the collective unconscious which lies in the depths of the human psyche, as well as dreams. And how many dreams or hallucinations (for example, those of Joan of Arc) will not have driven to act and decisively mark the evolution of the world!

Once taken such an expanded vision of reality (because, I repeat, unicorns, green antenna martians, Thor, and Marian apparitions would be real in its realm, in the same way as Miss Scarlet O’Hara, Professor Walter White, The Toxic Avenger, and Mario Bros), we should not rule out the possibility that our physical world, which seems so tangible to us, could be the result of some unimaginable (at least for our rudimentary minds) higher order imagination.

As Spanish physicist Pseudópodo writes in a magnificent entry in his blog, “nobody lives in the whole reality. The problem is when someone thinks that his subspace is the only reality and insists on denying dimensions to the world. (…) The lesson that teaches me science is that there are more things in heaven and earth than our philosophy can dream”.

Blessed (and also damned) order

Angels and Devils (M. C. Escher)

(Read it here in Spanish)

Disorder is much more common than order. That’s why there are many more forms of noise than of music, that’s why texts lacking information -including random combinations of letters- are much more abundant than informational or consistent ones (applying Cantor method, the infinite number of the former would be higher than the infinite number of the latter). For the very same reason, messing up is easier than tidying up, destroying than building, damaging than curing, dirtying than cleaning, erring than hitting, making a botch than performing a good job, doing evil than doing good… Mediocrity is more likely than brilliance, ugliness than beauty, stupidity than intelligence, inert state than vital one.

Order, which is the result of physical laws (product of an eternal platonic reality?), is what allows life, individual consciousness, and intelligence to exist. There is neither will nor rationality without order, without a certain neural or brain organization either to caress or to torture (diabolical orders do exist, such as those of the extermination camp and the municipal slaughterhouse). Without order there is neither complexity nor evolution nor emergencies. Nor any possibility of interaction and communication. The world would be a huge unshaped hotchpotch in which you and I, dinosaurs and supercomputers, Villarrobledo and Vladivostok, large and small, up and down, in and out, before and after, would be all confused in an indescribable totum revolutum.

Maybe that maremagnum is the state of the world between each tick of Planck, between every collapse of the wave function that governs the evolution of the Universe or Multiverse. Only through a biased and consistent filtering of every possible thing, through a destruction ab toto as represented by the collapse of the wave function, it would be possible to take individualized consciousness -necessarily partial- from a cosmic order where everything happens simultaneously and at once. Only in that way, Brahman can be Atman and the sea can be wave. Only in that way, it would make sense to learn and even live.

Left, nationalism, and religion


(Read it here in Spanish)

On top of being crude and simplistic, nationalism is a toxic ideology for its very exclusionary nature that inevitably leads peoples to confront one another. The same can be said of religion, with which it is often twinned (in turn, this is a deformer of the child’s mind, a creator of phobias, fears and traumas, an executioner of knowledge and own and others’ happiness). It’s not then surprising the nationalcatolicism (official ideology of Franco’s regime) of some of our bishops, which except for the flag raised does not differ too much from that cultivated in the churches of Catalonia (where prelates and priests advocate the raising of new frontiers, embracing independence movement as an extension of the fourth commandment), the Basque Country (where quite a few religious people sympathize with nationalists and even with ETA), Ireland (idem, but substituting ETA for IRA), and Croatia (where some monks devoted themselves to cold blood slaughter of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies during the Second World War). And let’s not forget Russia, Christian but not Catholic, where Orthodox hierarchy has become a firm ally of the autocrat Putin for defending the great Slavic nation from homosexuals, freethinkers, and bitches.

If it wants to be faithful to its progressive label, twenty-first century’s democratic left should not be ever aligned -or flirt- with nationalists. Nor, of course, with enemies of secularism (this is compatible with tolerating them within the limits of a civilized democracy), be from our own native religion or from any other allegedly religion of peace. Left-wing nationalism is an oxymoron, as well as confessional leftism. A populist caudillo such as Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, who prohibits abortion to raped girls even when their lives are in risk in order to ingratiate himself with the rancid Catholic hierarchy of his country, is not a leftist. Neither are political parties such as ERC -by the way, its leader Oriol Junqueras is a practicing Catholic- or Bildu, that put alleged sacred rights of territories above the rights of the people (it wasn’t long ago that Bildu’s followers would cheer those who shot political enemies in the neck and made car-bombs explode). And if at all they were considered so, and even if an extremist party -in the worst sense of the word- as the CUP could fit the definition, then maybe we should try and look for another suitable tag for the democratic, tolerant, secular, sensible, and internationalist left in the third millennium.

Notes for foreigners:

Leftist ERC, conservative PDeCAT and anti-system CUP make up the independentist front in Catalonia.

Leftist Bildu is the new brand of the former ETA’s political wing (remember: ETA was a terrorist organization).

How nature makes a brain?


(Read it here in Spanish)

It is practically impossible for a complex phenomenon such as life or intelligence to arise without evolution and the consequent natural selection. The only way to dispense with evolution (by definition, a slow and gradual process) to obtain brains, cities, symphonies, or moral codes would be resorting to randomness, as Ludwig Boltzmann (the formula of entropy, S = k x log w, is written on his tombstone in a Vienna cemetery) hypothesised more than a century ago. According to the Austrian physicist, the universe will witness the spontaneous creation of brains, as a result of random fluctuations (after all, brains are only combinations of a large number of particles), if there is an infinite amount of time ahead of it: they are called Boltzmann’s brains, devoid of body but with all the information and memories of any human brain at some moment of its existence, that would be floating in the immensity of cosmos after his sudden and extremely improbable appearance out of the chaos.

To achieve life and intelligence without evolution would be much more improbable than to get Don Quixote written by entrusting an immortal monkey with the task of uninterruptedly touching at random the keys of a computer. Or by making correspond each letter of Cervantes’ novel, from the first to the last in a perfect order, to what is arranged by a gigantic roll of a non-biased 27 sided dice (one for each character). Since the Big Bang there has not been enough time in the universe for such things to happen… but they end up happening if time is not limited!

For evolution-selection to happen, time is also needed, though much less thanks to the self-organizing power of order (i.e., negative entropy or negentropy). I don’t remember who once said that time is what makes consciousness not instantly perceive – like sort of an omniscient mind- all the events of the universe. We would be God if we were omniscient, but our life as individuals would be devoid of any meaning or purpose: concepts that are not alien to anyone in a carnal suit like goodness, evil, beauty, art, love, learning, pleasure, suffering, hope, or happiness (all of them, of course, lodged in the brain) would completely vanish.

Science and religion: water and oil


(Read it here in Spanish)

Some dudes in Vatican City (Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have been trying for decades to square the circle: reconciling science with Catholic religion (just as absurd as to try with any other). The argument of these experts, well financed by Vatican’s coffers (and indirectly by those in Spain who put the x on the box for the Church in their income tax return), is that there is no conflict between science and religion because the former cannot provide all the answers. Those who burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake, who forced Galileo to retract (“Eppur si muove!”) and also reduced Miguel Servet to ashes (this was not to blame on Catholics but on fanatical Calvin in his Protestant Taliban canton of Geneva), must not have been very convinced of this alleged compatibility. They were the very same people that in 19th century made fun of Charles Darwin, when Christianity in Europe began to lose its influence and to become something merely folklorical (the main unresolved matter in the Islamic world). Continue reading “Science and religion: water and oil”