In Its Image and Likeness?

(Originally posted here.)



Does nature with its terrestrial phenomena mirror a wider, cosmic (perhaps not necessarily physical) reality?

Or is it perhaps even the materialisation – a condensation, if you will – of the forces underlying the unceasing (re)creation of the world and their dynamics?

I have always, even as a child, detested the »animistic« view of the cosmos (our world included). I found nature »as is« (as IF we ever observed it »as is«... ;) interesting enough without men trying to read into »her«.

But even I – even then – had to wonder sometimes. I have noticed often enough that sometimes, rarely, there seem to be »signs in the skies« that for some reason cannot simply be dismissed as our »reading into« them. (It would take a long time and effort to describe some of them, so let me just mention the extraordinary aspect of the sky on January 25, 1938, and on August 23rd, 1939: the day of the signing of the Molotov-von Ribbentrop treaty.)

And now, I have come upon a website that claims the river Nile actually conforms to the shape of – the Milky Way.

TIME RIVERS

To be totally frank, I am not sure I subscribe to this theory.
But I got to give them - specifically, the author of the theory, Goro Adachi - credit for observation and »lateral« thinking.
Brainstorms seldom pass without yielding at least a single drop of valid and useful information.

And, after all, according to Sufi mystics, the entire world, with all its creatures, is nothing but a mirror created by God and observed by God's unblinking eye, to see the image of »Himself«.

»God created the world
because He wanted to see His image in the mirror.«

Google: the dumbed-down machine

Google may be the nro. 1 search engine in the WWW world, but that doesn't mean it's getting any smarter.
(N.B. Speed and an ever increasing number of "conveniences" do NOT equal smart).

After having noticed, a while ago, that it keeps pushing all sorts of "alternate" spellings, treating you as a potentially dumb creature who cannot spell (and, honestly, who could blame them...?) and thereby forcing you to use quotation marks around single words, I now discovered it doesn't obey the - (= exclude) command anymore.
For example: tonight, I tried to find pages containing a number of specific words (relating to magic), but knowing the words in question were likely to appear on pages discussing games and/or Harry Potter, I took care to exclude any pages that contain references to games and/or Harry Potter. I did it the usual google-way I had used countless times in the past ten years or so: I put the - (minus) command before the undesired terms. Like this: -game, -games, -potter.

Guess what? It didn't work. In fact, the terms game, games, Harry, Potter were displayed in BOLD within the search results.

I know what you're probably thinking: that I somehow made a mistake and did not include the proper command. I don't blame you. Even though I have used such commands countless times before, I thought so too. So I checked, rechecked, (re)checked again, rewrote the search terms... nope. I am being served games and Harry Potter (in bold!) whether I want it or not. In order to exclude the unwanted terms, I had to use the special "advanced search" page. (There it worked.)

If you ask me, the secret of Google's success is that it keeps closely in touch with the ever-changing "times".

Does that mean, for example, that it keeps track of the needs of those who search for information in "minor" (please, don't be a google - note the quotation marks! :) languages, trying to adjust itself to their specific lingustic requirements, thereby improving their search experience and thus promoting the democratic ideal of knowledge accessibility for all?

No. It means that it is adjusting itself solely and exclusively to the "special needs" of those who can't spell. Worse than that: my latest experience - having my express commands flatly disregarded - makes me think that Google is striving to establish itself as an electronic to-go-pundit among those who also can't think for themselves. Now that's a mighty stride to take... alas, the direction is all wrong.

And yes, there seem to be myriads of illiterate, unthinking citizens around who might really need a hand or two to put 2 and 2 together.

It's blatantly neglecting the others -those who can spell AND think for themselves, and in more than one (even more than five or six) language at that - what I find objectionable and, to a certain degree, even morally corrupt. It smacks of fascist anti-intellectualism and/or disregarding all but the more muscular thugs of the international socio-political arena.
(If it weren't so, don't you think their customer service would actually be a service - not some anonymous and unresponsive machine?)

If you understand French, you may be interested in this 50-minute documentary called Google: the Thinking Machine.

It's a catchy title for a piece of journalistic work, I suppose (I should know, I have spewed quite a few pieces myself)... even if it does make you suspect that their next motto might be something along the lines of "let us do your thinking for you" or "we think, so you don't have to"...

But beyond the smart facade, there is little to substantiate the lofty claim.

Then again... the same goes for most of the current educational systems (both formal and informal), it seems. Poor use of language and even functional illiteracy have become so prevalent that they are fast affirming themselves as a sort of norm, even.

Learn to read, people. I mean, proper books. It's the only way to learn how to write properly.
And keep reading. And reading and reading.
Fahrenheit 451 may be coming to a neighbourhood near you.


P.S.

Ha! I just noticed: I used "google" as a noun.
Now, that must be a first... ;)



EDIT (10. II. 2010)

See also Google's Goggles ogling at you.
You might also like: Going, Goeing... gone.