Graham Milton

This post is going to be about time.

More presicely, about being a sentient creature occupying an environment consisting of 4 dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal. aka Spacetime), while only being able to actively percieve 3. It will, of course, be pure conjecture. Sorry. My mind has just been wandering lately & I thought it might be productive if I tried to put it all down some place.

(I appreciate Muybridge’s work & understand that this may be poor or gratuitous usage, but hey what the hell… I wanted to take a time lapse video of myself typing this out, but didn’t have the equipment.
You’ll have to exptrapolate the short-timed nature of these visuals into a longer duration of minutes, hours & further.)

We all go through our lives more or less only aware of the moment we’re ‘in’: Our minds are only capable of self-awareness in one moment at a time. It’s as if our conciousness is a photograph of what it might acutally be… like our minds are only able to see one frame at a time from our film of conciousness, or one photograph at a time.

Of course, our memory and the very nature of our conciousness informs us that there is more than the single frame that we can percieve. If we compile Muybridge’s photography into a single frame, we might begin to get an idea of our four-dimensional selves…

As an aside, we also find inspiration for the Futurist’s concept of Dynamism, though that’s not what this post is about.

Both of the above works employ the merging of ‘frames’, but the ‘frames’ in time are infinitely small, meaning our four dimensional selves are less of a staggered photoshop trick, and more of an “organic curve through timespace”:

Math theorists have noted that any universe of X dimensions can be seen simply as a shadow of an X+1D universe, which compliments the idea that what we percieve is only a shadow of what ‘is’.

How can we represent the idea that the self is a curve through timespace, rather than the solid 3D object we’re used to? And can we take this idea and extrapolate it from the physical form into an idea of a body of conciousness extended through time?

Also, how does the concept of the Big Bang affect this, as what we THINK is stationary, is actually an unknown velocity? Could the velocity we’re floating away from the bang influence the nature of our timespace? Wouldn’t it have to, if Einstein’s general theory of relativity is correct?

In Australia, we have an unfortunate stereotype of ‘The Blokey Bloke‘, which sways cultural expectations of masculinity away from what I would see as a sensible ideal, and into a sad, restrictive, closed-minded caricature of what a man could and should be.

What the hell does it mean to be a man?

On the surface, it might seem to be easy to answer.

or maybe..

‘Tough, independant, vigilant, strong’ ?

But these are only facades of being a man: deliberately designed to appear as the most masculine, or rather, the least feminine.

I’ve tried discussing the idea of ‘what it is to be a man’ with others, and even the idea that the construct of masculinity as being something ‘achieved by a revolt from woman, and confirmed only by other men’ but only ever really got shrugs back.

It seems ironic that ‘blokey blokes’ are either conciously or subconciously fearful of appearing in any way feminine, as their only definition of masculinity is guided as being the exact opposite of femininity.

What makes this irony all the more sad is that
on the surface, the key traits of masculinity are strength & invunerability…

But those who try the hardest to be seen as masculine are typically those with the deepest fears of being seen to have any feminine traits.

Let me clarify: I don’t simply mean personality traits which are derived from instinct or from the act of child-baring, such as desires of nesting & nurture etc, (that may hold some weight of logic)

The feminine traits these men often hide from are typically human constructs of feminine ideals, such as emotional articulation, an interest in fine art, intellectualism, sensitivity & empathy… Christ, even the colour pink or an interest in well designed clothes!

I’ve long since held the belief that a ‘greater man’ would be one who could recognise those fears in society and in himself, and overcome them. To be and enjoy being himself, regardless of the socio-sexual expectations of others.

What do you think?

What the hell is
‘being a man’ to you?

Also, do you find that your ideals of masculinity are swayed by popular media or even by society in general?

I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on this.

I found a great game by Ze Frank recently called ‘Athiest‘. I like it, it made me giggle.

Of course, it does sum up the aparent nature of our existence a little too well: Should I sit at the game over screen wondering

‘What could I have done to better my short and meaningless (game) life? I mean I jumped around a bit, had some fun, now here I am.’

Looking back, what will really matter? A sense of achievement of challenges met and overcome? Certainly it can’t simply be about working too hard for money and respect, like my brother? Or just being comfortable while you roll on down the hill, like my father… Perhaps it’s all about reltionships; being able to openly share love with those around you, and knowing you touched many people deeply? Perhaps this game would seem more meaningful when its played with others? I personally try to create beauty as a means of negating the meaninglessness of life, but is this enough? In the search for beauty: Perhaps I should forgo artistry altogether and focus on the people close to me?

Could a beautiful life be the ultimate work of art?