Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
i think people
- i think people are a lot more persuasive when theyre not angry
- i think women are a lot more attractive when theyre not trying to be
- i think men would be a lot more attractive if they smiled more
- i think people would quarrel less if they put themselves in other shoes more often
- i think vegetarians are only justified on the health rhetoric
- i think boys can be a lot nicer
- i think girls can be a lot naughtier
- i think people would be a lot more content with what they have if they really knew what they needed
- i think humble people deserve to be praised
- i think arrogant people deserve to be punished
- i think posers shouldnt be punished, but ignored
- i do not think much of arrogant posers
- excuse the triteness but i think people with great power could do with a little greater responsibility
- i think the better teachers are the ones who make students love what they are learning
- i think time is the best teacher
- i think people in general are a little too busy
- i think middle is more desirable than left or right
- i think the chemistry is in the eyes
- i think the character is in the smile
- i think everything else is just icing
- i think daughters are better than sons
- i think people prefer right & wrong to correct & incorrect
- i think too many people pray only because they need things
- i think not enough people pray only because they already have things
- i think that there would be no suicide bombers and no crusaders and no holy wars if religion did not exist
- i think people would find other ways to kill each other anyway
- i think it is more glorious to be killed than to kill
- i think i would be a happier person if my thoughts didnt always spiral into depressive ideas and loneliness
- i think i think too much sometimes
- maybe most of the time
- ok all the time.
Monday, May 24, 2010
fate part deux
i had finished reading something and i went up to my window that night. it wasnt raining but apparently it was somewhere far out; there was a lot of lightning. and i thought:
when lightning strikes it can take on any unique shape, a shape being drawn by the hand of probability. it can fern out at any point in its travel time, producing a different pattern for every bolt. while seemingly random, one day, man might devise a formula to predict the exact structure of a lightning strike from the very moment a spark crowns from the lining of a cumulonimbus. a far future i surmise--no doubt, but does the fact that a random route can be predicted imply that it is after all not random, ie. the outcome was predetermined from the start?
there is only one thing that i, in my lacking knowledge know that is predetermined: the flash that speeds towards the ground always ends up on the ground, regardless of its route. that doesnt make me sound like much of a fortune teller, yet if i claimed i knew in my mind the exact shape of the next lightning strike yet to come down from the heavens, people would actually take notice. therein lies the mystery of mystery itself--we as a curious species strive to know everything, and that which we do not know, we ascribe high desirability factor to, as do we give great honor to those few who know what is not widely known.
suppose a physicist appears from the future and tells us that he invented a machine which could observe you flipping a coin and from the moment the coin leaves your hand, is able to perfectly compute the fate of that flipped coin--heads or tails. the entire concept of probability would be rendered moot. if i flip a coin a hundred times in an experiment of probability, and each time a physicist is able to calculate its outcome using a formula from the distant future using the variables of the coin's metal composition, atmospheric humidity, down to the skeletal structure of my thumb, then by deduction, i have not performed a set of probabilistic maneuvers. while it appeared to me that i played a hundred games of chance, to a really smart person i was merely placing a coin on its head or on its tail a hundred times in succession.
do i believe that God made the coin land in such and such a way? if i were an ancient egyptian, i would say that horus made the coin land in such and such a way after the coin had left my hand. if i were an all-knowing scientist, i would make a more convincing statement. yet i am neither an ancient egyptian nor an all-knowing scientist. what i do know, as i realise now writing this: the limit of each man's influence on any earthly object's ends at the moment he stops exerting his influence. the moment the coin leaves my hand, i lose my power over it, and its story though started by me, can not and does not end solely by me. there are a myriad variables that continue to exert their influence on the flying coin, and these factors are observable by an all-knowing figure, like the physicist from the future.
this hypothetical physicist does not exist yet. he or she might eventually. is this person God? i would not agree, for it is not sufficient to be all-knowing; this person must also be all-powerful. for the intents and purposes of this writing, any of the aforementioned observable variable that can be observed by an omniscient figure is also a manipulable variable by an omnipotent figure. it seems that by our earthly criteria of what makes God God, my conclusion can only go so far as to say that God can indeed make any coin land in any such way, but as to the questions of whether he does, or would: these are the questions regarding fate.
a man can live his life believing that God is the artist that painted every single unique lightning bolt that comes from the sky, the sculptor that formed every single unique snowflake that ever floated down, the chemist that pieced together by hand every atom and molecule in your bones, the physical source of the wind that drove our ships and the ocean tides that kept our earth warm, the nuclear physicist who regulated the fusion in our sun which makes life possible, the biologist who personally engineered us humans from the primate families millenia ago. a man can believe that fire was given to man from mount olympus, abode of the greek gods.
or he can believe that God is the mastermind who only created the rules of the universe, and within his self-sustaining universe, art, sculpture, chemistry, meteorology, physics, biology and even fire created themselves. he can call the rules of the universe Nature, where anything that creates itself is natural, even mutations, disasters, catastrophes, war, bloodshed, death, floods, fires and earthquakes. i am this man.
i believe in the Nature that God created. i know that nature is real. i believe in the reality of heaven and hell, but not as much as i believe in the reality of dying if i stepped off the parapet of a skyscraper. that is the extent of my incomplete wisdom, insofar as my inability to believe in God as much as i believe in the Nature that he created--the Nature which is so much closer to me than is God himself. i believe that out of the billions who claim to believe in God like i do, only a handful believe in God more than they do Nature, which God created. and somehow i feel that he only created Nature so that man might just at minimum choose to acknowledge his existence.
God is like the hand that flips the coin; each one of us are like coins that are flipped. except that we can choose how we land. he knows how we are going to land from the way we spin in the air, he knows your future, but that in no way determines it: he can describe your future for he is omniscient, or he can prescribe it, for he is omnipotent, but there would be no reason from him to prescribe your outcome--each one of us were given the chance to choose for a reason.
it just so happened that Nature is so good and so believable, that we single-track minded creatures with our imperfect eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin, trust and rely on it so much and become blind and distrusting to things we cannot see, smell, hear, taste or feel with our hands.
to these unsensable things, we as simple, curious creatures, attribute eerie mystery to. we create fantastic words like probability, fate, and destiny because even when we know we cannot control everything, we have a human need to label the uncontrollable and therefore try to control it. these words are fantastic delusions because out there...there is a perfect physicist from the future, one that not only knows all but can do all. i call this scientist God. to him, there is no probability because everything is predictable to him. there is no fate or destiny for these only obey God's will. but then there is causality. causality obeys the will of God, man and flea.
why would God allow us to determine our own outcomes? because we would be no better than a stone on the hill that wastes away at the mercy of rain and wind otherwise. i seriously doubt that. i am definitely more important than a stone on the hill, because the stone wasnt given the power to deny its Creator.
when lightning strikes it can take on any unique shape, a shape being drawn by the hand of probability. it can fern out at any point in its travel time, producing a different pattern for every bolt. while seemingly random, one day, man might devise a formula to predict the exact structure of a lightning strike from the very moment a spark crowns from the lining of a cumulonimbus. a far future i surmise--no doubt, but does the fact that a random route can be predicted imply that it is after all not random, ie. the outcome was predetermined from the start?
there is only one thing that i, in my lacking knowledge know that is predetermined: the flash that speeds towards the ground always ends up on the ground, regardless of its route. that doesnt make me sound like much of a fortune teller, yet if i claimed i knew in my mind the exact shape of the next lightning strike yet to come down from the heavens, people would actually take notice. therein lies the mystery of mystery itself--we as a curious species strive to know everything, and that which we do not know, we ascribe high desirability factor to, as do we give great honor to those few who know what is not widely known.
suppose a physicist appears from the future and tells us that he invented a machine which could observe you flipping a coin and from the moment the coin leaves your hand, is able to perfectly compute the fate of that flipped coin--heads or tails. the entire concept of probability would be rendered moot. if i flip a coin a hundred times in an experiment of probability, and each time a physicist is able to calculate its outcome using a formula from the distant future using the variables of the coin's metal composition, atmospheric humidity, down to the skeletal structure of my thumb, then by deduction, i have not performed a set of probabilistic maneuvers. while it appeared to me that i played a hundred games of chance, to a really smart person i was merely placing a coin on its head or on its tail a hundred times in succession.
do i believe that God made the coin land in such and such a way? if i were an ancient egyptian, i would say that horus made the coin land in such and such a way after the coin had left my hand. if i were an all-knowing scientist, i would make a more convincing statement. yet i am neither an ancient egyptian nor an all-knowing scientist. what i do know, as i realise now writing this: the limit of each man's influence on any earthly object's ends at the moment he stops exerting his influence. the moment the coin leaves my hand, i lose my power over it, and its story though started by me, can not and does not end solely by me. there are a myriad variables that continue to exert their influence on the flying coin, and these factors are observable by an all-knowing figure, like the physicist from the future.
this hypothetical physicist does not exist yet. he or she might eventually. is this person God? i would not agree, for it is not sufficient to be all-knowing; this person must also be all-powerful. for the intents and purposes of this writing, any of the aforementioned observable variable that can be observed by an omniscient figure is also a manipulable variable by an omnipotent figure. it seems that by our earthly criteria of what makes God God, my conclusion can only go so far as to say that God can indeed make any coin land in any such way, but as to the questions of whether he does, or would: these are the questions regarding fate.
a man can live his life believing that God is the artist that painted every single unique lightning bolt that comes from the sky, the sculptor that formed every single unique snowflake that ever floated down, the chemist that pieced together by hand every atom and molecule in your bones, the physical source of the wind that drove our ships and the ocean tides that kept our earth warm, the nuclear physicist who regulated the fusion in our sun which makes life possible, the biologist who personally engineered us humans from the primate families millenia ago. a man can believe that fire was given to man from mount olympus, abode of the greek gods.
or he can believe that God is the mastermind who only created the rules of the universe, and within his self-sustaining universe, art, sculpture, chemistry, meteorology, physics, biology and even fire created themselves. he can call the rules of the universe Nature, where anything that creates itself is natural, even mutations, disasters, catastrophes, war, bloodshed, death, floods, fires and earthquakes. i am this man.
i believe in the Nature that God created. i know that nature is real. i believe in the reality of heaven and hell, but not as much as i believe in the reality of dying if i stepped off the parapet of a skyscraper. that is the extent of my incomplete wisdom, insofar as my inability to believe in God as much as i believe in the Nature that he created--the Nature which is so much closer to me than is God himself. i believe that out of the billions who claim to believe in God like i do, only a handful believe in God more than they do Nature, which God created. and somehow i feel that he only created Nature so that man might just at minimum choose to acknowledge his existence.
God is like the hand that flips the coin; each one of us are like coins that are flipped. except that we can choose how we land. he knows how we are going to land from the way we spin in the air, he knows your future, but that in no way determines it: he can describe your future for he is omniscient, or he can prescribe it, for he is omnipotent, but there would be no reason from him to prescribe your outcome--each one of us were given the chance to choose for a reason.
it just so happened that Nature is so good and so believable, that we single-track minded creatures with our imperfect eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin, trust and rely on it so much and become blind and distrusting to things we cannot see, smell, hear, taste or feel with our hands.
to these unsensable things, we as simple, curious creatures, attribute eerie mystery to. we create fantastic words like probability, fate, and destiny because even when we know we cannot control everything, we have a human need to label the uncontrollable and therefore try to control it. these words are fantastic delusions because out there...there is a perfect physicist from the future, one that not only knows all but can do all. i call this scientist God. to him, there is no probability because everything is predictable to him. there is no fate or destiny for these only obey God's will. but then there is causality. causality obeys the will of God, man and flea.
why would God allow us to determine our own outcomes? because we would be no better than a stone on the hill that wastes away at the mercy of rain and wind otherwise. i seriously doubt that. i am definitely more important than a stone on the hill, because the stone wasnt given the power to deny its Creator.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
lend please
i think the most valuable gift i can offer someone is my time if not my words.
it is high insult to see my things thrown away like they did not cost me to give away.
i dont like receiving glory; neither does it mean i dont mind feeling cheap. quite honestly i dont think i am worth fighting for even to myself. i can deliver punishment, but if it is for my benefit, i cannot do it. yet i am worthy enough to be punished--by my own sick rule. who will lift me up?
i want to lift the fallen. i feel useful that way. but who will lift me up when i fall? hypothetical question--im not really asking; dont deserve to ask. i dont like to ask for something which i dont deserve. but if it were someone else, i think i would like to give. who else would want to give to someone who did not deserve to receive? but maybe i am just doing it in the hope that if i can give to those who do not deserve, maybe i, who do not deserve, will someday be lifted up as well. i surmise that it is my subconscious greed. am i deluded?
i keep saying to myself lend, but dont knock on doors on payday, meanwhile hoping that one day someone who thinks like me will chance upon my predicament and lend to me what i have lent away for free but now need, so that i wont suffer empty. sometimes i think there is not enough people around to make this work. what if i run out and theres noone out there to come down and rescue me?
i need to convince myself that if no one out there comes and lends to me for free, then one day when i am in need, God will appear on the appointed time and save me. otherwise i have only one option, that is to stop giving. but if i stop, who will lend for free?
it is high insult to see my things thrown away like they did not cost me to give away.
i dont like receiving glory; neither does it mean i dont mind feeling cheap. quite honestly i dont think i am worth fighting for even to myself. i can deliver punishment, but if it is for my benefit, i cannot do it. yet i am worthy enough to be punished--by my own sick rule. who will lift me up?
i want to lift the fallen. i feel useful that way. but who will lift me up when i fall? hypothetical question--im not really asking; dont deserve to ask. i dont like to ask for something which i dont deserve. but if it were someone else, i think i would like to give. who else would want to give to someone who did not deserve to receive? but maybe i am just doing it in the hope that if i can give to those who do not deserve, maybe i, who do not deserve, will someday be lifted up as well. i surmise that it is my subconscious greed. am i deluded?
i keep saying to myself lend, but dont knock on doors on payday, meanwhile hoping that one day someone who thinks like me will chance upon my predicament and lend to me what i have lent away for free but now need, so that i wont suffer empty. sometimes i think there is not enough people around to make this work. what if i run out and theres noone out there to come down and rescue me?
i need to convince myself that if no one out there comes and lends to me for free, then one day when i am in need, God will appear on the appointed time and save me. otherwise i have only one option, that is to stop giving. but if i stop, who will lend for free?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
angels
angel of the lord
a finger falls through the fabric of the wisping air;
the gusts cry calm--whispering behind fallen hair
of words of peace and songs of quiet sleep
pulling front and side: the ebb and flow of the firmaments deep
a stroke of the hand sweeps past
and all of the permanent become but of the past
powers and principalities descend upon the footstool,
by sword and stone making done and undone
all that was created and now reclaimed by the sound of a trumpet call
echoing in the valleys entrenching the face of all actions, the tears, the bitter gall
running high but never dry, the pulses of pain
coming once and again without fail, without blame, like sheets of rain
that come and wash away the bile that taints, the acids which spew
but they stand, steadfast guardians, the virtues and dominions they are not few
sent by a voice unheard yet loud like thunder
calling to home from the other side yonder.
~
Sunday, May 16, 2010
unforgiveable
HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO DOUBLE CHECK YOU INCOMPETENT FOOL WHY MUST YOU DO THIS. WHY. FORGET IT I DONT CARE WHY YOUR ANSWER DOESNT CHANGE SHIT.
I HATE PEOPLE WHO DONT PUT PRIDE IN THEIR WORK AND CAUSE OTHERS TROUBLE HATE HATE HATE HATE
I HATE PEOPLE WHO DONT PUT PRIDE IN THEIR WORK AND CAUSE OTHERS TROUBLE HATE HATE HATE HATE
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
rules part trois
alot of times, society and its expectations clash with mine and every single time i have no trouble with chucking out the window what others think about me, my thoughts and my actions.
i believe there are too many rules in the world we live in. so many of them fail to enforce what needs to be enforced, and even more overstep boundaries by controlling what neednt be controlled; people dont understand each other, and therefore dont deserve to decide for one another. which human being out there is so special that he can tell us what is best, what is worst, what we like, what we need, what we hate, what we have, what we cannot have? who? who except yourself?
many rules fall short in front me. it is probably because i have my own standards, and that they are often so high that everything under it becomes worthless. why do i even set the bar so high, such that even i myself rarely meet its lower edge?
i need to be able to look in the mirror and see someone at his highest potential; i cannot do that with a bar resting on my shoulders can i? i push it up high above me, and everyone around must go through this very same doorway to earn the same respect i give to my reflection in that mirror. granted, its often only a small amount of acknowledgment, if any at all, but whatever i demand of the public, i demand first of myself.
if i find myself unable to accede to my own demands, neither will i blame the rest for being unable to succeed. nevertheless, all these people are still failures in my eyes under that bar that i have set. i shall not sugarcoat: failures are failures. the most fair encouragement that i can give to them is that they are no worse failures than i am--the one who set the bar and did not meet it.
but i didnt really say why i even bother doing this to myself. i suspect it is the only way to live life knowing that it could not have been better, that everything that could have been done was done, that save for unforseeable, uncontrollable forces of the universe, this life thus far has been lived by me in the best possible way. i.e, this is the best possible outcome and so nothing stands to be regretted: this must be one of the meanings of life.
i believe in living by rules--just not those made by others. rules define who you are; a lawless person is unreliable--he is a rogue. but if strange rules are forced upon me, i may abide, and if any of these prevents me from finding my meaning in life, i will strike each one down like a footman strikes down his enemy.
i have my own personal code. anything from another code that contradicts my code will be discarded. let anyone who is afraid of this just take heart and hope that there might actually be some honorable things in my moral book that redeems me from being completely evil and out to destroy the law.
actually i dont really care. if rules of etiquette and expectations of conformity claim that i am anarchist, let it be so. i am anarchy. i give up. rules part trois. let this be the last time i write about it to defend myself.
i believe there are too many rules in the world we live in. so many of them fail to enforce what needs to be enforced, and even more overstep boundaries by controlling what neednt be controlled; people dont understand each other, and therefore dont deserve to decide for one another. which human being out there is so special that he can tell us what is best, what is worst, what we like, what we need, what we hate, what we have, what we cannot have? who? who except yourself?
many rules fall short in front me. it is probably because i have my own standards, and that they are often so high that everything under it becomes worthless. why do i even set the bar so high, such that even i myself rarely meet its lower edge?
i need to be able to look in the mirror and see someone at his highest potential; i cannot do that with a bar resting on my shoulders can i? i push it up high above me, and everyone around must go through this very same doorway to earn the same respect i give to my reflection in that mirror. granted, its often only a small amount of acknowledgment, if any at all, but whatever i demand of the public, i demand first of myself.
if i find myself unable to accede to my own demands, neither will i blame the rest for being unable to succeed. nevertheless, all these people are still failures in my eyes under that bar that i have set. i shall not sugarcoat: failures are failures. the most fair encouragement that i can give to them is that they are no worse failures than i am--the one who set the bar and did not meet it.
but i didnt really say why i even bother doing this to myself. i suspect it is the only way to live life knowing that it could not have been better, that everything that could have been done was done, that save for unforseeable, uncontrollable forces of the universe, this life thus far has been lived by me in the best possible way. i.e, this is the best possible outcome and so nothing stands to be regretted: this must be one of the meanings of life.
i believe in living by rules--just not those made by others. rules define who you are; a lawless person is unreliable--he is a rogue. but if strange rules are forced upon me, i may abide, and if any of these prevents me from finding my meaning in life, i will strike each one down like a footman strikes down his enemy.
i have my own personal code. anything from another code that contradicts my code will be discarded. let anyone who is afraid of this just take heart and hope that there might actually be some honorable things in my moral book that redeems me from being completely evil and out to destroy the law.
actually i dont really care. if rules of etiquette and expectations of conformity claim that i am anarchist, let it be so. i am anarchy. i give up. rules part trois. let this be the last time i write about it to defend myself.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)