web analytics

A meeting of minds...

Author: raimundcolon

Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2

Another excellent bout for the Undisputed Heavyweight Championship showcased a compelling matchup between Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury. Usyk, a former Olympic gold medalist and the undisputed cruiserweight champion, successfully defended his title while maintaining his unbeaten record. Facing him was Tyson Fury, the former lineal heavyweight champion and Ring Magazine champion, as well as a previous unified titleholder. This high-stakes encounter reaffirmed Usyk’s elite status in the heavyweight division.

This loaded fight card, consisting of eight exciting bouts, was hosted at the Kingdom Arena in prestigious Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on December 20, 2024.

Full card results:
Moses Itauma def. Demsey McKean (TKO 1/10); Heavyweights
Johnny Fisher def. Dave Allen (SD 10); Heavyweights
Peter McGrail def. Rhys Edwards (UD 10); Super Featherweight
Lee McGregor def. Isaac Lowe (UD 10); Featherweights
Daniel Lapin def. Dylan Colin (UD 10); Light Heavyweights
Andrii Novytskyi def. Edgar Ramirez (UD 10); Heavyweights

The bout commenced in a manner reminiscent of their previous encounter, with Fury employing his long left jab effectively while Usyk sought to establish his footing, attempting to maneuver into advantageous angles to penetrate Fury’s defenses. However, this time, Fury displayed improved preparedness, successfully absorbing the majority of Usyk’s punches—particularly the signature looping left hook that had previously posed significant threats.

In the initial four rounds, both fighters targeted the body to diminish each other’s defenses. Usyk’s output consisted predominantly of lighter, volume-based punches, while Fury capitalized on his power, landing decisive right hooks to Usyk’s left side. Fury’s jab was instrumental during this phase, likely enabling him to edge out the rounds on the scorecards.

As the fight progressed into the fifth round, Usyk shifted gears, escalating his aggression and consistently pressuring the larger Fury. While Fury occasionally countered with an aggressive flurry of one-twos coupled with body shots to momentarily disrupt Usyk’s momentum, these bursts became increasingly sporadic. The overall dynamic favored Usyk, who appeared to gain energy and control as Fury began to show signs of fatigue. This shift indicated a clear change in momentum as Usyk’s activity rate increased, while Fury struggled to sustain his earlier intensity.

In this tactical bout, neither fighter was able to inflict significant damage on the other, resembling an intricate chess match. Usyk’s increasing connect rate showcased his precision and adaptability, captivating the audience throughout the fight. Meanwhile, the veteran Fury displayed remarkable resolve, executing a few notable two-punch combinations in the championship rounds that resonated well with the crowd. However, by this point in the contest, it was evident that Usyk’s consistent output and visually impactful striking would likely secure him another victory in this rematch and that was indeed the case with the final score cards having it 116-112 unanimously.

Interestingly, the pre-fight period exhibited a notable shift in Fury’s approach, characterized by strategic seclusion. He intentionally limited interactions with the media and distanced himself from family and friends to focus intensively on his training regimen and preparation for a potentially historic victory. Sadly, it would seem that fate had other plans.

An Analysis of Knowledge

“What does it take to know something?” Well, I guess it would depend on what it is we are trying to know. I know that I ordered brunch about 30 minutes ago from the local diner and I am now “enjoying” a mediocre meal that appears to have been put together at some military mess hall by a disgruntled soldier on KP duty or at a prison facility by a jolly inmate, as I write this paper. I now know, and have in the past as well, that it is true that if I submit a request through the electronic application (small computer program) on my smartphone that, eventually, my food will arrive at my door. I did not know at what time of day my food would arrive nor that my order would consist completely and accurately of the items I had requested. I did, however, believe, based on previous experiences and the variables involved, that my order would be fine and would arrive within the time-range proposed by the application, which was stated to be within 30 to 40 minutes. There have been a handful of times when my order did not arrive within the time proposed by the application and by the restaurant and there have also been a couple of times when my order was incorrect; items missing etc. 

So, what have I learned? What do I know? I know with certainty that I cannot know with certainty what time my food will arrive nor that my food will always be correct. But the instances in which my order was late and/or wrong, compared to the amount of times when my order was on time and correct, served as justification for my belief that the likelihood of my order being fine was greater than the alternative. So, although my expectations are limited to beliefs with regards to the timeliness and accuracy of possible future orders, based on past orders, I have gained, through knowledge (compiled by previous data), access to a certain truth: food orders will not always arrive on-time nor always be correct; there is just no guarantee for that to happen. The actual food provider knows this to be true as well, “Your order will arrive in approximately 30-40 minutes. Thank you!”—further evidence to that fact.

               Let’s have some more fun with this, shall we? Riding on a pretty good and satisfactory experience with my food provider, I propose, nonetheless, the following (as already stated above): p food orders will not always arrive on-time nor will always be correct. j I’ve been ordering the same items from the same provider at an average frequency of four times a month, totaling perhaps thirty-six times a year for the last four years with a success rate of roughly 90%. That is, out of one hundred times (orders and respective deliveries) there have been maybe ten times altogether when my order was either late or incorrect or both (though both has never actually happened simultaneously, the more I think about it). No restaurant has ever professed an exact time of arrival for the food because that would be foolish given the nature of all the variables involved: weather and traffic conditions, quality and skill level of the driver, heavy order activity at the restaurant, etc. So then, I or S, am/is therefore justified in knowing p.

“Do the three traditional components of knowledge proposed by philosophers — justified true belief — offer a compelling response, from your point of view?” Although I offered the above quite on-the-fly, and rather playfully at that, I do believe JTB does work and is an excellent tool and does offer a compelling response especially today in the face of a heavily non-thinking populace. In the reading material, “Even a necessary biconditional linking knowledge to some state j would probably not be sufficient for an analysis of knowledge, although just what more is required is a matter of some controversy.” (SEP) Why? If j is not enough and does not contain the list of conditions for S to know p then j is NOT j. Or am I misunderstanding this? Justification only has one function—to justify S knows that p. If what is contained in j is not enough or insufficient then valid data must be found for j to be j; otherwise what is the point? If a celebrity hires a bodyguard for protection and gets knocked out unconscious in his first encounter, guess what? He just lost his job because he failed to protect his boss; he failed his purpose. I may well be over simplifying this, but smoke doesn’t always indicate fire. Get an oscillating fan to clear said smoke and check your premises because one of them is surely wrong.  I know that there exists in this world many things that we have a great deal of difficulty understanding but there is also a great deal that we do understand and can know. I defend that which we know, and I endeavor continuously in that regard by growing and loading my intellectual toolbox with more and more wonderful tools of understanding. I feel that, not only at my job, but in our country, we are on the precipice of great change. Never before has this country, since the American Civil War, been so divided. There is a great pushback or resistance to knowledge that has spread like a California wildfire which has subsequently created this rift in society between those that adhere to emotions and those that rely on true knowledge. I realize I have gone off topic here but, ironically, reading further into “The Analysis of Knowledge” I am somehow reminded of my own skepticism or pessimism as of late; that is, this heavy sense of fear and my perceived futility of these great works. I can’t help but feel that all this wonderful work is going to waste on the ignorant. And, so with that I have said my peace.

The Matrix – Reality and Other Philosophical Elements

Never in my adulthood has any science fiction action film fascinated me as much as The Matrix by the Wachowski Brothers. I was in the movie theater on the day of its release because I was intrigued by the trailer which I had already seen in the very same theater on a previous visit to see another film. I particularly remember the short scene in the trailer when Keanu Reeves’ character Neo says, “What are you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets?” and Laurence Fishburne’s character Morpheus replies, “No, Neo. I’m trying to tell you that when you’re ready, you won’t have to.” Promptly there afterward it was followed by heavily edited action scenes typically seen in movie trailers and I was hooked—I needed to see this film. I have since lost count as to how many times I have watched this film and have been watching it a few times a year for almost 20 years now. I have studied it thoroughly, read the actual shooting script and every documentary on its production, concept, sources of inspiration as well as books on its philosophical and religious leanings. I have owned this film in every format available from VHS video tape, DVD, Blu-Ray and digital and remains one of my favorite films of all time. The story has inspired me in many small ways and encouraged me, if not helped ignite, my desire to think more deeply and “see the code” behind all that I observe visually and ‘free my mind” as Morpheus was encouraging Neo to do. Of course, this film was not the only thing to drive me to think and expand my mind, but it was, without any doubt, in the top five critical moments in my life that eventually lead me to want to learn more about and study philosophy and embark on a spiritual and intellectual journey from which I have never looked back.

The story behind this futuristic epic action drama is about a gifted computer hacker that goes by the alias, Neo, who discovers that his whole world has been a lie—a computer-generated virtual dream world, called the Matrix, to which his body was connected his entire existence. Neo was freed, that is, disconnected from the Matrix, by a legendary fellow cyber pirate by the name of Morpheus who then enlightened Neo with some very disturbing news about the reality of his world and the desperate state of mankind. So, not only does Neo have to absorb the fact he is a machine-manufactured, or “grown” human and that his entire life never physically happened except only in his mind, but also learns that he’s the chosen “One” to save humanity! As fellow shipmate, Cypher, so eloquently put it, “Jee-zus! What a mind job. So, you’re here to save the world. What do you say to something like that?!”

Once Neo’s body is rehabilitated to overcome complete muscle atrophy, as he’d never used his muscles before, his training begins and he is taught, not only combat training, but also to understand the nature of how he, as well as everyone else, was so convincingly deceived by the machine world. At this stage Neo is still very confused and not quite sure of what it is that he is to believe. So, he and Morpheus both “jack in” and connect into a very small sample of another virtual reality, referred to as a construct program, with which they train to prepare for missions within the actual Matrix. It is here in this total white space that Morpheus attempts to help Neo understand and discern between reality and the world inside the Matrix. Neo, clearly distraught, is having difficulty grasping all that has transpired since taking the “Red Pill”.

Neo asks, “Right now…. we’re inside a computer program?” to which Morpheus replies, “Is it really so hard to believe? Your clothes are different. The plugs in your arms and head are gone. Your hair has changed. […] Your appearance now is what we call residual self-image. It is the mental projection of your digital self.” Neo then asks, “This… this isn’t real?” and, a la René Descartes, Morpheus continues, “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” Quite the fascinating premise at this point of the film which, not then but today, reminds me of Descartes’ Dualism in which he argues the distinction between the mind and body in a human. David Cunning explains that, “He argued that the great differences between body (an extended thing) and mind (an un-extended, immaterial thing) make the two ontologically distinct. But that the mind was utterly indivisible: because “when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any part within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete.” (Cunning – CC)

Morpheus proceeds to show Neo the devastation of the planet and the enslavement of all humans solely for the purpose of extracting bio-electricity to sustain their machine city; a survival measure taken by the machines as a result of humans “scorching the sky” and blocking out the sun, preventing the machines from using solar energy. My own shock must have very nearly matched that of Neo’s as I watched him go into outright panic, but for different reasons than our protagonist. The difficulty I experienced was adhering to Morpheus’s explanation to the question, “What is reality?”. His breakdown of reality being nothing more than electrical impulses interpreted by the brain leaves too many openings for debate and speculation and yet no room for any empirical evidence as proof of reality. His explanation to Neo only verifies the difference between the Matrix and the world in which he now finds himself but not ultimate reality because Neo is still relying on his senses—and Morpheus for that matter.

So, based on that argument there can never really be any reality except our consciousness; our self-awareness, existence, etc. My argument is that our senses are far more intricately robust than so many people give them credit for and therefore incredibly difficult to mimic, copy or replace; a system of infinitely subdivided details of feeling, smelling, tasting, touching—many of which we’re not even consciously aware but do notice when they go missing. We can’t always define what it is and make that connection to identify what our subconscious mind is trying to tell us, but we always know when something is either wrong or just not quite right. Neo had this feeling for a long time, as Morpheus pointed out: “I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth.”

Given this scenario, in my view, Morpheus (or the Wachowski’s for that matter) almost contradicts himself later when he basically oversimplifies our senses as nothing more than electrical impulses and therefore not in themselves proof of reality. I have disagreed with Descartes on many things, particularly on the topic of reality and our senses, BUT I still cannot dismiss the one thing that has always triggered intense thinking and analysis for me: “I think therefore, I am.” If you can imagine for just a moment and visualize your place and time spatially, perhaps in a sphere as your ultimate center of perspective in thought, consciousness and existence. This is where YOU are and no one else can occupy that very place and time but you. This unique metaphysical place consists of coordinates in the map of your reality; not much unlike Neo’s physical location in the fields where the rest of humanity is jacked into the Matrix, which I believe was intentional on the part of the Wachowski’s; meant either metaphorically and/or allegorically. It is here that I applaud Descartes, and although I could not accept his level of skepticism, I cannot deny that he could not have arrived at his, in my opinion, indisputable conclusion of reality without it.

The Matrix, though merely a film for entertainment, is also a philosophical conundrum that rides on the freeway of creative license—and that is perfectly fine. You can find just about find every branch of philosophy intertwined within its plot. Every other scene either mixes or distinctly illustrates elements of the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical areas of analytical thought. There is also a thinly-laid layer of theology spread throughout the film as well, or should I say religion, as one can’t deny the Christian leanings of a savior who has come to save or redeem humanity from ultimate doom or damnation in the form of Neo; though a very flawed, more human, version of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth. One can also argue the film as being a retelling of Socrates as well, “[…] an intellectual hero who continued on his quest despite opposition and ultimately paid for his noble defiance with his life.”(Irwin) Or what of the story of Moses in the book of Exodus, who freed his people, the Israelites, from bondage? If you look for it, I am sure it’s in there.

With regards to reality, Neo’s awakening is the pivotal moment in the entire film, but his conviction isn’t realized until the very end when he is shot dead in the Matrix by Agent Smith and, within moments, stands up, reanimated, to see the Matrix in its true form—computer code. The realization of the falsity of the Matrix and the freedom his awakening now represents empowers him and unlocks abilities in him previously impossible nor available to any other freed mind ever before. And who cannot be inspired by this one critical moment in such an exciting story? Who hasn’t felt trapped in their respective world waiting for an epiphany of some sort so that the world can make sense again? The message is very clear: WAKE UP!

Works Cited

  1. David Cunning (2014). The Cambridge Companion to Descartes’ Meditations. Cambridge University Press. p. 280. ISBN 9781107729148
  2. William Irving (2002). The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real Open Court; 1st edition. ISBN-13: 978-0812695021

Hi Guys!

Just a quick hello to my future readers. I have some reviews coming up about the sport of boxing, thoughts on music and I also want to share some recent essays that I wrote for school on several different topics. It is with great hope that this will be the catalyst to get my creative juices flowing again. There is quite a bit to talk about, I think. So much has happened and changed in this country of ours, the good Ol’ US of A. On the political front there is certainly no shortage of topics to engage in; hopefully from a positive learning capacity.

I’m a huge fan of the sport of boxing and, if you’re a fan as well, you know that the landscape has changed significantly in the last couple of years with resurgence of the popularity of the heavyweight division. I am a former amateur boxer myself and have frequented many live matches, and have watched almost every event on the television as well, most of my life. So, I’ll be sharing my thoughts on the most recent noteworthy fights.

Music has played a crucial part of my early development. I have been playing electric guitar, and other instruments later on, since age 15. I write, perform and record my own music for myself; for my own enjoyment. I have several favorite artists whose music I have followed for many years and I also enjoy some of the new younger artists as well. With that said, I will be sharing thoughts on the musical artists that really speak to me; perhaps some album and/or song reviews and bios/profiles on specific musicians.

On the political front… well, that’s a tricky topic to cover because of its volatile nature and propensity for emotionally-tinged, heated, debate. So, posts in the realm of politics will be as objective and neutral as humanly possible. The Journalist’s Creed and the SPJ Code of Ethics will be observed and applied in this section with the upmost diligence and professionalism. You will not find any biased editorials here—just the facts. That is, factual posts on current events sustained, or backed up, with valid indisputable evidence; the goal being, to arrive at the TRUTH—not to take any sides, unless you consider the Truth to be a side. So, with that said, happy reading!

© 2024 Raimund Colón

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑