User:Samuel Bayes

In Brief
Samuel John Soley Bayes is a modern renaissance man. Philosopher, poet, warrior, artist, politician, physicist, architect and musician. Below is a taste of each of his most famous works. The first item you see here was recently added and kicked off the wikipedia Sitting article in the space of 30 seconds. It is just one example of his controversial status as Englands first urban/emo philosopher. Below this is his incredible insight into the power of rhetoric as a culture's paragon of semiotic access.

The Philosophy of Sitting.
We are all traitors to our genes. Mutineers, rising majestically against the oppression and labours associated with the continued survival of the species. Our mental capacity has far exceeded our physical capability and the result of this advance has created the technologies that adapt the world to our requirements. Man's impetus to evolve physically has been replaced by his ability to problem solve on a monumentally advanced scale. Creating solutions to problems that would otherwise prompt the need for genetic mutation. This could be seen as going up against the natural law and indeed to those enlightened souls that fear our current effect on the planet would recognise the present ramifications of just such a conflict. I believe we have the ability, and increasingly the will, to alter this relationship so that using our expansive mental capabilities we will once again bring balance to our symbiosis with the world. Once this occurs I would like to introduce a philosophical principle that promotes the maintenance of this understanding. I cannot profess to know, as no-one can, who the first individual to sit was. The first bright spark that fancied a rest from standing and instead of moving to lie down sat on a surface and waited. What I can say is the ability to sit is as instinctual to us now as breathing and as such it is something we have neglected theoretically. This is what Wikipedia have to say about sitting.

'''The standard way to sit in a chair is to:

put one's buttocks on the seat of the chair put one's legs apart slightly with feet down with legs horizontal'''

This covers the basics and the article goes on to discuss the realms of posture and the "proper way to sit" but it stringently avoids the next step in the investigatory process. From the physical implications of sitting one should proceed to the theoretical approach of sitting in an appropriate way and then from there, which the article fails to do, you should progress to the philosophical implications of sitting.

So here they are. To sit is a triumph of human ingenuity. It is not unique to the human race I know but the extent to where we can take sitting is one of mans defining characteristics as the paragon of animals. When walking man is utilising the perfect harmony of our muscles tendons and bones. Without our finely evolved legs the idea of walking would be impossible but as it stands (pun fully intended) it is an ideal example of man's progression against the earth, whose mass and gravity work tirelessly against freedom of movement, and is now attributed to being the thing that set our ancestors apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, increasing our survival rate and allowing for swifter mental development. Lying down on the other hand is when we succumb to the required payments of our freedom and recharge the energy levels in our body. When we sleep we lie and move in perfect unison with the world we are as one in unconsciousness, physically we are simply another life form rotating on a rock. It is when we sit, aware of our thoughts and their superiority over the basics of nature, that we move in both spheres at one with the earth physically and stretching away from it mentally. Sitting for long periods of time (i.e. placing oneself in perfect unison with the world and the needs of man) takes a skill that needs, due to its extrication from the paradigms of "Natural Normality", to be self taught. You need to perfect the subtle intricacies of active inactivity, of becoming so SET with you surroundings that all needs you felt instinctually to move and stay physically alert are replaced by a universal understanding that where you are is exactly where you should be. It is in this state, "Sitting", that one's mind gets the freedom and security to roam and reach the acres of potential yet to be tapped by mankind. To be both universal and individual in one glorious position this is the image of the thinker, immortalised by Rodin and now the goal of all who subscribe to the Commune of Sitters which is, ironically, still missing a Chairman.

Oratory
It has been understood for at least a couple of thousand years that the merit of a man can be measured in his tone of voice. His use of the ancient arts of rhetoric or his ability to speak with an almost inhuman accuracy upon subjects held most dear to the hearts of his listeners propel him to greatness. Sadly the popularity of the “Speech” has waned somewhat due to its uses. If it’s not a “Funny” best mans speech it is a political exercise in spin. These musings prompted me to go on youtube and watch modern examples of oratory in the political field and two names came into focus. From America the current Democratic Senator Barak Obama and his 2004 Keynote Speech for the “Kerry/Edwards” Conference “The Audacity of Hope” and from Westminster Robin Cook and his debate over the Iraq weapons scandal in ’97. Obama really burst onto the political stage from this point. Approaching politics with the appearance of going back to the traditional self-sacrificing position of the politician (etymologically meaning ‘Man of the People’) he even quotes the Latin E Pluribus Unum and then typical to the style translates it instantly. His energy and lexicon are tailored for a nation still young and still able to remember (arguably a little TOO fondly) its creation. In comparison to Cook it was wet with emotive phrases and dramatic pros and it was compelling because of its simplicity. Robin Cook, Shadow Minister for foreign affairs at the time, headed a lively debate in the House of Commons (and by lively I mean truly loud and lively, as anyone speaking in the House of Commons is either booed by the opposition, cheered by your party or constantly shouted at by people trying to put them off. It is marvelously childish) accusing the Tory government of the time of selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. He had them over a barrel and each time a member of the opposition stood to pick holes in his argument he cut them down and scored a point for his argument. But it would be wrong to suggest that he was entertaining. Now whilst the arenas are different you can see distinct and definable differences in the way these examples were put together. There is a sense with British speeches that the facts are more prevalent then the meaning. There is in other words a great deal of assumption made about the recipient. Instead of stating a statistic and then piling on the meaning, our politicians (or at least their writers) assume that the information is enough. In America it seems there is a need to constantly give the big picture and how it relates to the original dreams that still inspire pride. Obama quotes the constitution, as it seems all politicians do, to focus whatever the speech is about back to their self-evident truths of equality and liberty for all. This reoccurring theme in many if not all of Americas key speeches are the source of there simplicity and they’re genius. It is a shame in conclusion that our age shows in our public speaking, our years of success and failure as a nation lends too great a weight to the articles we now present. It fascinates me that even now the art that is oratory still acts as the highest form of semiotic, the greatest insight into the society of its time. It’s all born of the brain of men and thus, on whatever level, accessible to everyone.