Journal 2020-08-31

A lot of what I know is the product of age and curiosity, and although broad is often just familiarity with the basics. But I do also feel something expanding within me lately and I’m not sure of the cause, like energy ignited from a switch that has been flicked on.

Shakespearean Style

It is so important with the poetic flow of Shakespeare that every word means something real to the actor, otherwise the viewer will get lost in the density of content coming at them. Watching performances of Shakespeare, it is so obvious when an actor is merely ploughing through the rhythms in a conventional Shakespearean style, rather than really living the powerful words given to them. Thankfully there are lots of good actors and performances out there.

Metaphysics

The dictionary definition of “atheist”, as a non-believer in God or Gods, isn’t accurate because there appears to be many people who think that the doctrinal teachings of religious institutions are cultural-based anachronisms—and so would be labelled “atheist” for not adhering to definitive religious beliefs about deities—yet believe in some higher spiritual power that they cannot define.

There are several belief jumps in this sentence: The universe is a purposeless collection of matter that mindlessly configured itself by chance out of nothing, existing in time with causes and effects that had no beginning. A reasonable-minded adherent might be aware of the glaring uncertainties, but state it is more parsimonious to adopt this materialistic concept of reality than implant a God belief system as an unnecessary additional layer. Yet the certainty with which many proponents preach this position as absolute truth suggests a type of commitment witnessed in doctrinal religious belief.

An agnostic would state that the ultimate “why” questions are unanswerable, so from a practical perspective we should just be concerned with the “how” questions. The ardent atheist’s objections to agnosticism—based on the burden of proof for God being on the proponent—misses the point to an agnostic who has already ruled out religious explanations of God, but not higher spiritual meaning and purpose to reality. A particularly zealous atheist might overplay the remit of verifiable facts by stating that opinions about ultimate meaning are irrelevant if they are not scientifically falsifiable—ignoring the fact that their own conceptual model for reality contains unfalsifiable conjecture.

I believe that one can value science and also acknowledge, as philosopher Paul Tillich did, that the word “God” might point to something far more profound than a cosmic superintendent. Tillich argued that God is not a being at all, but “being-itself”—the ground or power of being on which all things exist. This means that petty debates about whether God exists (as if God were just another object in the universe) miss the point entirely. Tillich’s insight frees us from the simplistic image of God as an old man in the sky, suggesting that whatever ultimate reality “God” signifies, it transcends any single creed or image.

The nuances of religious thought have often been flattened in modern discourse. Theologian David Bentley Hart observes that the very concept of God has grown “impoverished” in the modern mind, largely because we have forgotten the deeper philosophical insights of the past. New atheist critics often target only the crudest caricatures of faith—a proverbial bearded deity or literal seven-day creation—and declare victory over superstition. In doing so, they sometimes miss the more sophisticated understandings of the divine found in works of thinkers like Tillich, or in the mystical branches of various faiths.

One can be sceptical of traditional theism and still believe reality has dimensions that science and language fundamentally struggle to capture. There is a fertile ground where one can be a spiritual rationalist: deeply curious about transcendent questions, unwilling to close the door on the numinous, but also unwilling to accept any claim without scrutiny.

Modern atheism often aligns itself with metaphysical materialism, the belief that nothing exists except physical matter and energy. In this view, if something cannot be measured or falsified scientifically, it is not real (or at least not worth taking seriously). The materialist outlook carries a bracing simplicity: the universe is a brute fact, life a fortuitous accident, consciousness an emergent trick of brain chemistry, and any search for deeper meaning is a nostalgic delusion. However, materialism itself goes beyond what empirical science can say; it makes a sweeping ontological claim that is not empirically verifiable (ironically, a metaphysical claim that “only non-metaphysical claims are valid”). Even secular philosophers like Thomas Nagel, an avowed atheist, admits that the strictly materialist narrative feels incomplete. Nagel has been frank about his “cosmic authority problem”—a personal wish not to have a God—yet he also argues that reductive materialism fails to account for things like consciousness and reason.

Cutting-edge science has revealed a world far stranger and less material than we assumed. At the subatomic level, matter dissolves into energy and probability; solid objects are mostly empty space knit together by fields and forces. Quantum mechanics famously defies our intuition—particles that are waves, waves that are particles, influences that seem to leap across vast distances. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner observed, “while a number of philosophical ideas may be logically consistent with present QM… materialism is not.” When an observer’s act of measurement can affect whether a particle manifests as a wave or a particle, the neat separation between observer (mind) and observed (matter) becomes indistinct. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics even suggest that consciousness has a role in “collapsing” quantum possibilities—a controversial idea, but one that underscores how our epistemology might be entangled with the fabric of reality itself.

Some scientists point to the “fine-tuning” of physical constants—the way the laws of nature seem precisely calibrated to allow galaxies, stars, planets, and life—and argue this is just a lucky roll of the cosmic dice (possibly one of countless rolls if there are infinite universes). That could be, but note: positing an infinite multiverse where everything happens by chance is itself a kind of metaphysical speculation, unfalsifiable and forever beyond empirical reach. It strikes me as ironic that to avoid any whiff of purpose or design, some are willing to embrace an infinity of unobservable universes. At that point, one has arguably left the realm of Ockham’s razor far behind. Even Nagel acknowledges that the “interest of theism, even to an atheist, is that it tries to explain in another way what does not seem capable of explanation by physical science”. In other words, hypotheses of meaning or mind beyond matter arise because strict reductionism struggles with certain questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? How did matter become alive, and life become aware of itself? Are we—conscious agents—merely flukes, or an intended part of the cosmos? Science as a methodology may not answer such questions (they may be inherently metaphysical), but human inquiry doesn’t cease at the laboratory’s door. My rational mind sees the achievements of science and bows to its methodology for understanding the physical world. Yet my intuition and indeed my personal experience tell me there is more to reality than can be measured with an instrument. A truly open-minded scepticism must be sceptical not only of supernatural claims, but also of the claim that the natural (as presently understood) is all there is. The boundary between science and metaphysics is precisely where things get exciting: it’s where our knowledge gives way to wonder. At that boundary, one can remain rational—weighing evidence, avoiding logical fallacies—while also entertaining the possibility that the universe includes dimensions of meaning, value, or consciousness that transcend our current understanding.

Do I believe in God? That question is loaded with assumptions about both belief and God. Do I take as fact the doctrines concerning reality written by people in past civilisations?—No. However, there shouldn’t be a one-dimensional graded scale for belief that merely gauges the percentage probability of religious dogma being correct. The metaphysical understanding that most resonates with me is that there is a soul of the universe, in which we are all a part. In this definition, God is hope: a hope that the universe is ultimately love; that all the suffering will be overcome; that life will be saved from despair; and that despite everything, it will all be okay.

For any existence after death to be desirable, it would have to be outside of time and space, and completely beyond our current comprehension of reality—as even a limitless abundance of joy would become meaningless within the causes and effects of endless time. I believe that to thrive at being a good human is the purpose, and tend to subscribe to something along the lines that: form ends on death, but time is just a perspective from one vantage point—because the past, present, and future are really one; all things are a part of each other, connected strands in the great tapestry of life; and maybe there are other dimensions of reality and incalculable vantage points. There is no insistence on certainty here; this is a non-falsifiable interpretation of experience driven by internal feeling, not logical deduction—and in no way does it affect any commitment to a rigorous investigation of the world using the scientific method. So, where do I feature on the belief scale?

For me, God is the name given to the conviction that there is a source of meaning and goodness at the ground of reality. When I speak to the divine in moments of anguish or gratitude, I do not imagine a magic problem-solver; I am communing with that hopeful part of myself that trusts the universe is not fundamentally indifferent. I resonate with Paul Tillich’s description of God as the “ground of being”—the substrate of existence and meaning. In a similar vein, I find truth in the Sufi mystic Rumi’s poetic assertion that the light is one, even if the lamps are many. “The lamps are different, but the Light is the same… one Light-mind, endlessly emanating all things,” he writes. Those lines capture my sense that whatever ultimate reality is—call it God, call it the One, call it cosmic consciousness—it underlies and shines through the various religious images and the myriad forms of life. God, in this vision, is not a dogma but a direction: an orienting ideal of unity, love, and hope.

I embrace the intuition that everything is deeply interconnected. This is closely tied to the idea of a universal mind, but it also extends to matter, energy, and life. Mystical traditions often emphasise oneness: the notion that “All is One”—whether in the Sufi idea of tawhid, the Christian mystic idea of the ground where the soul and God are unified, or the Buddhist metaphor of Indra’s Net in which each being reflects every other. On the scientific side, ecology illustrates how no organism is truly separate from its environment, and quantum physics (again) shows that particles once linked can remain correlated across cosmic distances. My metaphysical view takes this interconnectedness as a given. I like to imagine reality as an immense tapestry of relationships rather than a collection of isolated objects. Each of us is a node where the cosmic web is particularly intense and self-aware. Our actions reverberate through the tapestry in ways we can’t fully chart—hence every ethical or unethical act sends out ripples. This vision, admittedly, has a poetic flavour. It owes a debt to thinkers like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who envisioned all of humanity (and indeed the cosmos) converging towards a unified point of consciousness he called the Omega Point. Teilhard, a scientist-mystic, saw evolution as not only a biological process but a spiritual one, with increasing complexity and consciousness leading eventually to union with the divine. I find inspiring his idea that we are co-creators in an ongoing evolutionary story—one that is as much about the growth of spirit as the propagation of genes.

My own instinctive opinion is that I believe religions share the same spiritual root, although the core message was often corrupted by the doctrines and institutions that arose. This is my personal version of “spiritual but not particularly religious”. As I am most familiar with Christianity, I could be labelled Christian; however, I do adopt a filter and select only what resonates with me, mindful that the scriptures were written and edited by early practitioners of the religion; and that the biblical canon was decided upon by the politics of powerful men in ecumenical councils, rather than being the unadulterated teachings of Christ. Looking back at history, the cruelties that have been perpetrated by professed followers of the religion represent the antithesis of the message of Christ; for real spirituality—the root of Christianity—is always inspired by love, joy, and peace.

The moment a spontaneous spiritual insight calcifies into an official creed, or a transformative mystical poem is reduced to a rigid scripture, the original life can begin to leach out of it. Religious institutions compile canons—deciding which texts are holy and which are heresy—and in doing so often reflect the politics and prejudices of their era. For example, the formation of the Christian biblical canon in the early centuries involved councils of bishops choosing certain gospels and epistles while rejecting others; this was not divine handwriting in the sky, but messy human process. To note this is not to dismiss those scriptures, but to contextualise them: they are works filtered through human minds, not infallible transcripts from God. History shows that many profound spiritual voices were marginalised or branded heretical because they threatened the authority of the established clergy. Meister Eckhart, a Christian mystic who taught the soul’s direct union with God (speaking of a God beyond all images), was tried for heresy. The Sufi mystic al-Hallaj, who joyfully proclaimed “I am the Truth” (implying unity with God), was executed as a blasphemer. These examples highlight the perennial tension between mysticism—personal, unmediated experience of the divine—and orthodoxy—the sanctioned belief system of a religious organisation.

One of my core criticisms of religious institutions is how they often prioritise doctrinal conformity over personal spiritual experience. Carl Jung once quipped that one of the main functions of formalised religion is to “protect people against a direct experience of God”. It’s a startling claim, but I see his point. Institutions develop layers of dogma, ritual, and hierarchy that can end up substituting for genuine spiritual encounter. As long as you recite the creed, attend the services, and obey the rules, you’re considered religious—even if you never actually feel a connection to the sacred. In fact, if someone in the pews does have a dramatic spiritual experience outside the approved norms, it may make the clergy nervous. It’s as if religions say, “Don’t try this at home—leave the God-contact to the professionals.” My intention is not to disparage all religious authorities; many are sincere seekers themselves. But the bureaucratisation of spirituality often leads to the domestication of the divine. God or the Absolute—wild, unbounded Reality—gets confined to formulas and ceremonies. The result can be hollow: people go through motions that once had meaning, but over time the symbolism is forgotten and only habit remains. Karen Armstrong’s research reminds us that scripture itself was traditionally interpreted with great flexibility. She notes that for centuries, Jews and Christians “insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally”, and that sacred texts “demand constant reinterpretation.” Myths were understood as symbolic stories pointing to truths that reason alone could not convey. This non-literal, dynamic approach to religious truth resonates with me. However, modern fundamentalism—a reaction against secular modernity—has hardened many into treating mythos as logos, insisting on literal truth where none was originally intended. The tragedy is that this invites an equally simplistic backlash from sceptics, who correctly point out the contradictions, and the scientific and historical errors, all the while missing the underlying spiritual insights that a more fluid reading could reveal.

In carving a path of spirituality without dogma, I retain many practices and values that religions have cultivated, but I do so by choice, not by mandate. For instance, I find comfort and insight in meditation (a practice prominent in Eastern traditions) and in contemplative prayer (drawn from Western mysticism). I love the beauty of religious music and art—a Bach cantata, a Rumi poem, a Zen garden—and appreciate their sublimity without attributing them to a sectarian narrative. In essence, I construct a personal canon of that which uplifts and edifies. Ethics, too, remain central: any spirituality worth its salt must show in one’s character and actions. I take inspiration from the core ethical teachings shared across faiths: compassion, kindness, humility, and a concern for justice. What I do not do is accept any moral dictate merely because “it is written” or because an authority claims infallibility. My conscience and intuition must ultimately resonate with a teaching for me to embrace it. This approach aligns with the view that religion is not mainly about believing certain propositions, but about experiencing and doing. As Armstrong highlighted, religion at its best is about praxis—living in a way that makes the transcendent real in daily life. Thus, I prize experience over creed. If a particular ritual or prayer helps open my heart or quiet my mind, I will use it, regardless of its origin—be it Christian, Buddhist, or other. Conversely, if a doctrine instils division, fear, hate, violence, or a sense of futility, I will question or discard it, even if it carries the weight of centuries.

I embrace an openness to insights from multiple traditions without feeling the need to formally belong to any. I have been deeply moved by Sufi literature (the poetry of Rumi and Hafez), by the non-dual teachings of Advaita Vedānta and contemporary teachers like Rupert Spira, by Christian mystics like Julian of Norwich (with her radical optimism that “all shall be well”), and by Daoist and Buddhist perspectives on harmony and impermanence. Each offers a piece of the puzzle, and each also has its cultural limitations or excesses. Rather than seeing the plurality of religions as a problem—“they can’t all be right, so none of it is true”, as a cynic might say—I see it as evidence that the human encounter with the sacred is real, even if coloured by culture and language. The lamps are indeed different, but the light is one. This pluralistic approach does come with challenges. It lacks the tidy certainty and communal reinforcement that belonging to one religion can provide. There is a risk of shallowness—skimming the surface of many traditions and mastering none. But I allow myself to learn from each faith I engage with, letting it challenge me. For example, Buddhism’s emphasis on mindfulness and releasing attachment has been a helpful antidote when my hopefulness turns into craving or clinging. The Christian ideal of grace—unconditional love given freely—humbles me when I become too prideful. Sufi devotion ignites my heart when my abstract philosophising grows arid. In this way, I remain grateful to religions while not confining myself to any single one.

Adopting ritual and reverence without binding belief has given me a sense of connection and meaning that pure scepticism never did. I do not need to believe that a certain scripture is the infallible word of God to find comfort in its verses; I do not need to believe a ritual literally changes the cosmos to feel it change me internally.

We live amid conflict, injustice, and ignorance. Believing that all is one and that love is our destiny can seem naively optimistic in the face of daily news filled with division and hate. However, I see the role of metaphysical hope not as a blindfold but as a guiding star. It informs how I respond to the darkness. If I think humanity is nothing more than a cosmic accident, I might fall into nihilism or selfish hedonism, reasoning that there is no deeper purpose to strive for. I think of the wisdom of someone like Viktor Frankl, who in the horrors of the concentration camps found that those who could find meaning in their suffering were more resilient. While Frankl’s approach was secular, I complement it with a spiritual trust that even in the darkest times, the light of meaning hasn’t been extinguished. There is a sense that every experience, even painful ones, can serve a purpose in the great tapestry.

In a world riven by cynicism and cruelty, some might argue that high-minded spiritual ethics make little difference. But spiritual growth, to me, is largely about enlarging one’s circle of identification: from ego to family to tribe to nation to all humanity to all sentient beings. It is a widening of the heart. There may be no finish line, but every step matters. If enough individuals adopt a spiritually rational outlook—combining clear-eyed reason with a heartfelt sense of sacred interconnectedness—then perhaps societies could shift in remarkable ways.

I consider it wise to approach the transcendent with what Zen Buddhism calls “beginner’s mind”, an attitude of openness and lack of preconceptions. This is not only epistemological but also spiritual: it means bowing before the mystery of existence and admitting that a finite mind cannot grasp it all. Paradoxically, accepting this not-knowing brings a profound peace. I am content to listen to others and continue refining my understanding.

We are meaning-seeking creatures, and even the triumphs of science have not quenched that thirst for the numinous. By approaching metaphysical questions with both an open heart and a critical mind, we can refuse to settle for sterile nihilism or irrational fideism. Instead, we step into a middle space—a space of questions, imagination, and conjecture. This may not fit neatly into any box on a survey, but it is sincerely mine.

As such, I will continue onwards, trusting that in the grand scheme, these efforts themselves are meaningful; for ultimately, humanity will survive if we are loving to the world and to each other. And if the spark of consciousness in us is around for billions of years, then we are currently the early originals. Maybe we are at the stage where we are just starting to recognise some shapes.

@TSSMarkets

A version of the Sentiment Ratio applied to EURUSD H1 has been automatically updating twitter feed @TSSMarkets.

Automated trade signals will be updating the account as from 2020-08-17.

Algo Trading: Sentiment Ratio

The Sentiment Ratio indicator gauges current Market Sentiment between -100% and 100%, where lower than -40% is considered Bearish and higher than 40% is Bullish. The channel between the two is considered Neutral.

The indicator has been particularly effective on H4 charts when used to confirm the direction of trading system signals. On shorter term charts, when the indicator crosses -40 or 40 back to Neutral, it has been effective when filtering signals for potential swings; for example, a bearish indication when the indicator crossed below 40 and a bullish indication when the indicator crossed above -40.

Link: https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/40614

Algo Trading: Multi Trendlines

The Multi Trendlines indicator automatically draws the dominant trendlines on the current chart.

The indicator looks for the 5 best Up trends and the 5 best Down trends as at the current price, drawing each trendline if filter conditions are met.

The price relative to the trendline values can be incorporated into automated trading strategies or used as a tool for manual trading.

Link: https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/40661

TSS Markets

Algorithmic trading of the currency markets using the proprietary Trendline Syncing System (TSS).

Positions are based on the best entry and exit points in the rhythmic movements of trending markets, evaluated across multiple timeframes, applying aggregated Analyst pull ratios, Sentiment Ratio analysis, and economic news event actuals versus forecasts.

The Foreign Exchange Market is the optimum asset class in which to balance a healthy risk/reward ratio in all economic and political conditions. Trading by investors adds to market depth and decreases the costs of businesses, pension funds and consumers to exchange money. In normal circumstances, market currency price adjustments are a natural and necessary safety valve to an economy. Ethically (and also from a risk management perspective) we do not trade non-stable currencies.

Our investment approach is to execute strategy plans formulated by specific configurations of the TSS model, which creates automated algorithmic trades and ensures positions are implemented accurately in the currency markets 24 hours a day.

Journal 2020-08-15

Random thought, slipping into British mode…

Despite its reputation, England can be a nice place for the weather. We have about six months when it can be very pleasant to be here, say from about mid-April to mid-October. The dark, cold and damp months of December to February take some extra effort to appreciate.

I prefer long sunny days in the low to mid 20Cs (70Fs).

(yawn)

Journal 2020-08-14

Paradox of the day:

It’s in my best interests not to be so self-interested.

Podcast #3: Episode 1 - Intro

Hello and welcome.

A Little Bit of Drama

Excerpts (in order of appearance):

• Sonnet 18 by William Shakespeare.
• Hamlet in Hamlet by William Shakespeare.
• Antony in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare.
• Iago in Othello by William Shakespeare.
• Mike in West by Steven Berkoff.

Music:

• Night Eyes: https://youtu.be/IkLQJnXHj5E.
• Play Me Again: https://youtu.be/PoPdSDGUASU.
• Come Take It All: https://youtu.be/ajJVdmp9-s8.

Journal 2020-08-12

I appreciate the storytelling of real human experience, truthfully expressing core feelings that are shared by people across cultures and time. Very generally, I tend to turn to Shakespeare for plays and poetry; and Dostoevsky for deep psychological novels. Some other great writers I like to read are: Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Thomas Hardy, James Joyce, Anton Chekhov, Leo Tolstoy, and Victor Hugo.

Journal 2020-08-11

Reading Hamlet.

It’s been done millions of times, but my instinctive interpretation of Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy is a bit different from the many performances I have seen. In fact it may be unhelpful seeing other people’s performances because the blueprints distract from my own relationship with the words.

Every single person has both uniqueness and a shared oneness with everybody else. What is interesting is finding the individuality and playing with it, rather than blandly mimicking other people or current socialised expectations.

Podcast #2

“I HATE THE MOOR”

– IAGO IN OTHELLO BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (ACT 1, SCENE 3)

A Little Bit of Drama

Iago is such a terrifying character because he revels in what he is doing. The motivating reasons can be analysed: broken pride, a sense of betrayal, jealousy, ambition, desire for power over others - or even unrequited love turned sour, if you want to read it that way. It’s true that villains often fool themselves into believing their actions are justified, or the fault of fate or caused by others; but the main factor with Iago is that he knows he is the villain and sadistically enjoys the suffering he causes. His motivation is the full embracing of enmity.

IAGO:

I hate the Moor: 
And it is thought abroad, that ‘twixt my sheets 
He has done my office: I know not if’t be true; 
But I, for mere suspicion in that kind, 
Will do as if for surety. He holds me well; 
The better shall my purpose work on him. 
Cassio’s a proper man: let me see now: 
To get his place and to plume up my will 
In double knavery—How, how? Let’s see:— 
After some time, to abuse Othello’s ear 
That he is too familiar with his wife. 
He hath a person and a smooth dispose 
To be suspected, framed to make women false. 
The Moor is of a free and open nature, 
That thinks men honest that but seem to be so, 
And will as tenderly be led by the nose 
As asses are. 
I have’t. It is engender’d. Hell and night 
Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.

Podcast #1

“FRIENDS, ROMANS, COUNTRYMEN”

– ANTONY IN JULIUS CAESAR BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (ACT 3, SCENE 2)

A Little Bit of Drama

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Human Cyborg 2.0?

The implied current direction for the future is that all the functions of your phone will be migrated directly into your brain. The “screen” will be projected into your vision and options chosen by thoughts.

All vision, sound, thoughts and feelings could be recorded. You could download and replay any recording from your experiences, or indeed from any experience of anyone else. Communication by mindscapes would replace the spoken and written word.

Invented experiences could be created for you to replay or interact with.

Your perception of reality could be changed and selected thought patterns switched off.

Pleasure and pain sensations could be activated on demand.

Your thoughts could interact with an artificial intelligence that calculates the most efficient algorithm for any process you wish to undertake. You could instantly download data and skills; and have immensely augmented cognitive processing speeds.

Your mind could operate any physical body, humanoid or not. As only the brain would need to be maintained, you would potentially have ultra long life.

Of course a totalitarian regime could easily control their population by these means; and an empowered sadist would run amok in all the enslaved minds. Philosophically it makes me wonder what it is to be a human being, but in the realm of practicalities it makes me certain: humans must become worthy of the knowledge we are gaining.

Observation

Hateful behaviour provides lessons in how not to be.

Journal 2020-08-06

I think I will set-up my own green screen film studio and have some fun making videos. I want to shoot dramatic monologues and music performances - and also maybe some presentations if I’m feeling boring.

Journal 2020-07-30

Wasn’t Shakespeare amazing. It would be so interesting to find out how his genius developed - what he saw and experienced in his life that helped him write such beautiful words and comprehend so deeply the human condition in all its different aspects. I can think of other notable geniuses in history - Mozart in music, Newton in science etc. - but Shakespeare is a sort of mythical other, shrouded in mystery, whose breadth of insight has the greatest impact on me.

Journal 2020-07-19

I think I’ve found a new thing. I’m really enjoying putting a podcast together on drama - and am working out how best to film some of the recordings. It will include some of my music as well.

Journal 2020-07-12

I’m interested in performing great monologues from literature - it seems easy to upload audio as a podcast and also filmed versions for a YouTube channel.

I’ve been looking for a podcast where I can listen to dramatic performances of literature, but am finding mostly dry monotone readings of poetry. Monologues on YouTube seem to be mostly non-realistic anger and angst.