My Little Corner of Nonsense

This photo is known as The Pale Blue Dot. It was taken by Voyager 1, a space probe meant to explore the outer reaches of the solar system. Far from dying, she's still out there doing her job and is the furthest human made object from Earth.

In the mid 80's, they knew Voyager 1 would soon pass beyond where her cameras would matter and she needed to save power, so the question became: what's the last thing she should take a picture of?

Carl Sagan and Carolyn Porco both independently had the same thought: take a picture of Earth. Us. Yes, it would be essentially just one pixel. It wouldn't be scientifically useful. It might even damage the camera because of how intense the sun is, even forty times as far from Earth as Earth is from the Sun. But they got it sorted because it's NASA.

3.7 million (not billion) miles away, that's Earth. Caught in bands of light, artifacts of the Sun's incredible power even 4 million miles away. We are an island in a sea of radiation and vacuum and it's all we have.

I can't say it better than Sagan did, so I'll let you alone with his words:

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

— Carl Sagan

Anyone with a name that starts with a “Z”, ends with an “i”, and isn’t some kind of Italian pasta, IS SERIOUS

This is me when I read:

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quick to conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment is a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com: