27 Years of Obscene Ecstasy.

…We are no longer a part of the drama of alienation; we live in the ecstasy of communication. And this ecstasy is obscene. The obscene is what does away with every mirror, every look, every image. The obscene puts an end to every representation. But it is not only the sexual that becomes obscene in pornography; today there is a whole pornography of information and communication, that is to say, of circuits and networks, a pornography of all functions and objects in their readability, their fluidity, their availability, their regulation, in their forced signification, in their performativity, in their branching, in their polyvalence, in their free expression…

It is no longer then the traditional obscenity of what is hidden, repressed, forbidden or obscure; on the contrary, it is the obscenity of the visible, of the all-too-visible, of the more-visible-than-the-visible. It is the obscenity of what no longer has any secret, of what dissolves completely in information and communication. and communication…
— Jean Baudrillard, “The Ecstasy of Communication”

in an essay from 1983.
I concur. Of course this was evident in 1983 but the effect seems to coincide with Moore's law and has taken an asymptotic route to the present. But in this obscenity can be encountered the sublime. There is an evolutionary flowering taking place in the opening up of secrets. We call these flowers emergent phenomena. How prescient was Baudrillard in calling this Ecstatic? And the obscenity is expected. A circus should have both art and clowns.

My Imagination Proves the Existence of God. And birds.

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

—Jorge Luis Borges from El Hacedor

This passage from Borges is used by some to argue for the existence of God.  But you could also use it to argue for the existence of Borges' wry sense of humor.  I suggest you try the thought experiment and think on your results.  Imagine birds.  Find an answer to a question that never existed until a human culture imagined to ask it.

As for imagination, that could be a result of God.  If you look for a maker (El Hacedor) then you must find one.  It is all about cause and effect.  The problem is that the first cause can never be found.  Because when you find it you must ask, where did it come from?  Unless you accept that God or the first cause is incomprehensible to mere humans.  Then:

God (or the First Cause) is the only incomprehensible thing in the Universe.


The Spark from which imagination emanates is incomprehensible.

The conclusion: This Spark is connected to or has the same nature as God (or, once again, the First Cause).

This would imply that we ourselves are God.  So by imagining birds are we proving the existence of ourselves?