for freedom

theres a line between advice and command. so while we take financial advice from a moneylender, we simply execute commands as enforced by law, the key difference being that for the latter, there is no opt-out. and when looking at the motives of both types instruction coming from a figure of authority, a clear distinction is made that we are given options to improve our lives, but for decisions that could/would degrade the lives of others, free will is taken away.

it is sufficiently clear here for me to conclude that since a governing body is in the business of being in everyone else's business, that they only pass and enforce law that protects people from each other--not themselves. a nanny state to me, is an absurd concept which muddies with arbitrariness the clear waters of what would be a transparent set of civil regulations.

it becomes extremely problematic when a government overreaches itself and tries to lay cultural, financial, social, etc frameworks and then coerce the inhabitants to conform. in such a way, the governing body has overstepped its boundary of sovereign security handling, into the realm of domestic dollhouse mishandling. where the word democracy remains in the name of any particular government, it is no longer in the spirit of the name itself when such a government masterminds decisions for the electorate when instead they should merely be the executors of popularly voted constitutions.

the following is true: people dont really care for much of politics, except for the fact that they want to be able to do what they want to do, what they dream of doing, be it making a name, making a living, or making a family. so when the time comes they collectively realise (by education or advances in comms tech) they have been denied this right, entire regimes collapse overnight.

all because personal freedom was not a priority, and the government wasnt doing the job it was supposed to be doing.

zero sum

when people talk prosperity, more money, more things, a bigger house, a faster car--these are improvements that come over time as living conditions in a region improve over time. if we take a period of 50 years, or maybe even 20 years, most if not all regions will see some sort of financial prosperity.

but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.

thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.

and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.

this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.

enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.

moonlight

meaning of life part neuf

i too wonder what is the purpose of knowing things if that accumulation only ends in me. the fact that i am mortal is proof enough for me that self-interest, rational or not, is not something i want to place my life efforts in.

ive found that the burden of intelligence is the need to align the life toward something greater than the self...be it a righteous cause, a religion, or another sentient being, be it a dog or a person. it is a necessary burden..not even a nihilist can escape it.

im looking to materialise my life's effort into things which will serve as evidence of my existence even after i am gone. if i were the last human on an island, i would build a structure that i know will outlive me. but im not the last human, so i figure my righteous cause is to build a lasting structure in others' memories, "having an impact on the world's people" is what some might say. even they too are mortal, it just beats building a statue on an island. it's the reward of knowing your intelligence has purpose shared with other intelligences like yours. being an introvert just means im comfortable with creating memories with just one other person.

i believe this is an Fi thing, which apparently i have no interest in eliminating to "make myself sharper", but rather am keen to develop to make myself rounder.

easy targets

male and female--these are the internal identifications of sexual identity, of which on its own we cannot come to a reasonably accurate estimation of which sex a particular self-identified individual is attracted to. hence we have additional modifiers for sexual preference: gay & straight. further compounding layers upon the issue are the existence of bisexuals and transsexuals, and the queer heterosexuals (dominant females and effeminate men). this apparent complexity which evades understanding is unlikely to be as one might say an obscure puzzle, but a simple phenomenon looked through a blurry lens occluded by false assumptions.

there may be many terms to sexually self identify and then claim a second identification of preference. but if for a moment we ignore the established practice associating the penis with aggressiveness and risk-taking and the breasts with nurturing and submissiveness thereby separating phenotype biology from emergent anthropological behaviour we find that many problems of understanding sexuality is a result of the false, yet rampant belief that males should be masculine and females, feminine. no doubt, one reason for the perpetuation of this belief is the fact that the respective words themselves originated in the same root. "why should we believe that males shouldnt be masculine, when the word masculine itself means of the male?" simple. because the existing belief impedes understanding of the phenomena. the removal of this belief brings focus into what is occuring, even if one still wishes to see the events as things which should not happen.

from where does the assumption come that a man must behave a certain way to be called a man, or a woman, to be called a woman? who is the judge that says you do not deserve your penis because you behave like those who have breasts? how is this judge special that he may ever deserve to be placed in such a powerful position? does he not have either the penis or the breasts? is he or she not the same as  you or me?

we all have a psychological identity and a biological identity. sometimes, a person may end up with two psychological identities, or in some cases two biological identities. who is to say that these two rarities cannot end up in the same person?  now if hermaphroditic bisexuals exist, who can say that a male psychological identity cannot exist from within a female biological identity? who can say that nature intends for all males to behave masculine and all females to behave feminine, without now appearing to be a fool spouting wasted words?

if one truly wishes to understand the phenomenon, one must discard preconceived notions of what the term nature's intention entails--this requires the belief that nature itself is an all-controlling entity which appropriately determines each human's representation in the sociosexual sphere--a logical fallacy in itself. first of all, there is no Mother Nature, only a cool name by which we can anthropomorphise the outward universe including everything single thing we have yet to find a way to explain. secondly, how can one expect the universal laws of cosmology to converge upon human beliefs of what is socially appropriate? Mother Nature is an entity which allows for the convenient attribution of blame for when we experience things we cant agree with, eg "wow that guy is queer. Mother Nature must have really screwed up at his birth."

many times the criteria which man has used to determine right from wrong is itself, wrong. we determine something is abnormal simply by identifying a minority from within a majority, which to me is veiled stupidity. so sorry, until you prove that this guy doesnt serve a purpose to at least one other human being, there is no screw up.

a "normal" person who marginalizes and attacks an "abnormal"--that's a screw up.

utility

utility

a book is not wood

burn if you must to keep warm

ash cannot be read

~

ps 31 oct

every object has multiple conceivable uses. sometimes using it in one way precludes the possiblity for the alternative future use. the goal in utilitarian ideology is to find the best choice, which is a function of both your needs and the ability of that choice to see those needs met.

hence love

one of the worst tortures you can inflict on a man is complete sensory isolation...the only thing he tastes, his own tongue; the only thing he feels, his own body; the only thing he smells, his own fear, the only thing he hears, his own heartbeat; the only thing he sees, his doom. at this point it matters not that outside of this dark room there exists a nature to experience or animals to watch or other people to talk to--these things, though real--but because they cannot be interacted with--are as good as figments to the isolated man. this is the true meaning of being alone.

a man who is completely alive and cognitively viable, but has no control over his paralysed body is as good as a dead man because though his free will exists, he has no manner of option to convey that will into the realm of reality. even the blink of an eye can transmit a message, but what if even the eyelid is no longer connected to the thought of moving it? is not this man lost to the world forever though he is still in it?

what is the meaning of sentient existence if we cannot exert that sentience unto objective reality? the usefulness of descartes' words--knowing you exist simply because you think so--is useless at and beyond the point of knowing what you are capable of, be it the ability to pick up a rock, or the ability to scare a bird, or the highest form of existence validation, the ability to elicit a response from another sentient being. these are abilities that cannot be proven to exist simply by the thought alone but by the connection from thought to objective reality through the interface of perception and reality.

i cannot imagine being in the position of a trapped mind in a useless body, that is the worst fate. but i can imagine being thrown into isolation, where the only thing that can validate the existence of my thoughts is my thoughts--a curse in its own right. i can also imagine being the only human being on this earth, but at least i have the animals to prove to myself that i exist. i can also imagine being the only multicell organism on this earth--there, at least i have rocks to throw and validate my existence. i can imagine being the only object on earth, at least i can see that i can make my hands move--i know i exist. but take away my body, all i have left is my own thoughts, and i am equivalent to a will that has no manner of exerting itself--no meaning for existence.

the very fact that we are a sentient race underscores the primal need to self-validate at a level fit for our intelligence and we do so by bouncing impulses and receiving responses from other sentient beings. but to think such socialisation is merely primal would be a huge mistake. interaction with another human being is not only a necessary but sufficient criterion for meaningful existence.

what is more meaningful than knowing your own existence? the way i see it, its also knowing that there exists another individual sentience whom you identify with more than any other, whom you know is not part of your own existence--a separate one which of its own separate free will also chose to identify with you more than any other. the higher form of existence--not only proving to yourself you exist, but also being proven to exist by somebody else. the credibility of such proofs increases as the level of identification increases, just as the phyiscal, mental, and emotional proximity increases, just as the relationship grows closer...

hence, love.

bittersweet heaven

its hard when people dont happen the way we would prefer. that one extra free will in our life that we allow in our inner circle--knowing that when at odds with our own free will--could make for very hard times. no, not even family nor friend comes that close, but a special one that because we invite into our castle, can make us feel the kind of happiness and the kind of sadness that no one outside the castle can ever possibly achieve. yet deep down, there is no greater honor to a house than to have its room--its purpose for existence--filled.

and when i think about what God did, when he created man and gave all of them free will, i cant help but wonder--though i dare not claim much more than assuming i know what was His intention--was He seeking the same kind of happiness of free wills in His castle, knowing full well He could be disappointed countless times before the final day?

an impossible feat for a mere mortal who struggles to attain this happiness even though he only lets in one free will at a time. yet when it works, he enjoys bittersweet heaven deserving of God Himself.

doctor you are wrong

when deadly affliction arrives, its easy to turn away from the doctor and his good recommendation, hoping he is wrong, while praying to God that He will do something instead. yet when we get a flu, or headache or chickenpox, we take both medication and instruction from the same doctor, knowing we will get better from it and we simply thank God that it was only chickenpox. it is a habit that the religious, the superstitious and the uneducated alike suffer with. which of them can deny that in difficult times, they only place all hope in their God because there is no one else to put it in?

a woman with certain religious values would be most conflicted in a time of ectopic pregnancy, where she would struggle to choose abortion, as opposed to carrying the foetus to term but risk her own life instead. it would be reasonable for this woman and her husband to see another doctor for a second opinion if they didnt like to the first one, but no doctor will ever forget to remind her that the final decision is hers to make. because the gravity of her situation exceeds her faith in not only her doctor, but also in her own ability to make a good decision, it is only at this point where she truly puts her faith in God. and because her faith was placed in the wrong order, no decision is made.

if the situation was simpler: dengue fever perhaps. does even the most religious man with dengue fever reject a doctor and say "I will pray instead. God will heal me."? even if one man were to do this, how far would his fever have to go before he finally says "Doctor, help me. I will pray after."?

a third scenario puts a man at the window of a burning building. he has to jump into the firemen's safety net 10 floors below. does not his faith in the ability of fire to burn and kill him compel him to jump? or does he ask God which choice to take, stay and wait or jump now. it is precisely because of his faith in real fire and ability to estimate his own chances of survival by jumping that helps him decide his course of action. God only comes into the picture after the decision is made, when the man leaps off the building and says in his heart, "God, help me."

in one scene similar to the first, where expert advice is available, suppose a boy is stuck at the edge of a cliff, both hands hanging to a vine for dear life. a helicopter arrives with a rescue worker suspended below it. the rescuer says "give me your hand." the boy is unwilling because his faith in his own two hands tells him he cannot release the vine even from one hand. the rescuer says "i am your rescuer. release your hand or i cannot save you." it is a combination of the immediate fear of death, and the present trust in this rescuer who speaks with confidence that motivates the boy to release the vine.

thus many times in life, at a tough point we refuse to make a decision because we cannot comprehend the urgency of it, and that we do not fully appreciate the value of advice coming from someone whom we should admit, knows alot more about the situation. it is the failure of understanding of both these concepts which causes us, in the time we need the most help, to reject it from the people who are most able to provide it, while telling ourselves it is all okay, because God will do something about it. at the end of the day, we dont make any decision with the false belief that we can do no wrong if we do nothing.

yet with our knowledge of today, is religion in the name of ignorance truly acceptable?

a noble profession

i am one of the smaller group of people which has almost no desire to be part of the capitalist rat race of the modern city. on more than one occassion this has been pointed out to me to be to be a sign of weak ambition. on those days i nodded or looked away, admitting that such a statement was indeed factual. but after some conversation the other day with a couple of new friends on my vision of an ideal life in the village or rural countrysides, i only came to become more convicted of my position. if anything, i am less guilty for thinking this way. i realised that drive of ambition is not the source of but rather the equivalent of a desire for competition in the corporate world. in other words, if not wanting to join the cutthroat marketplace means i am weakwilled, i will accept that that title with no embarrassment.

after all, being on the other side of the fence, though strongwilled and in focus, would make me a type of human i would respect less than a dog. knowing myself full well, i am completely able, if i were to set my eyes on the ladder of modern success, to scale it easily while biting the legs of the dogs above me and kicking the heads of the dogs below me; my rational mind allows me to calculate the cost of a dog's life and if need be, allow some of them to fall off to their deaths once i quantified the profit from doing so. but it is simply because i would rather be an average human rather than a top dog--a simple comparison of my fundamental desires--that makes me choose the village over the city.

during the conversation last week i had the fortune of being reminded of the old adage of the greenness of pastures on the far side of fences, that the rural world has its own share of difficulties, that the struggle for money is replaced by the struggle for food. simply it seemed, it was a shift of market rather than a shift of job. i didnt have the wisdom that day to give an answer; getting out of a bias accusation is impossible without the help of a third party. but now that i am no longer in that conversaion, i do in fact consider myself a third party...and i once again discover that my previous statement about my different value system would suffice as a response--that because i detest the corporate struggle more than the so-called primitive one, id reasonably and logically choose to stay in a place where my rewards come from plain sweat rather than cunning.

true, good talents should never be wasted. no doubt, i possess the kind of mind, almost criminal if i was untethered, that could squeeze profit out of other minds just like a sucessful capitalist would. but today i am more and more disillusioned with the nectar of wealth and its corrupting properties and i see it happening daily to my city which prioriti$e$ talent over humanity under the euphemistic term meritocracy. everyone is nice only to the point where money is concerned--suddenly its sorry, but i have to or it is a tough time, it must be done. the only way to survive in the zoo is to become an animal.

sorry, id rather be a farmer in his field than a manager in his office.

voting for tolerance

many worry for the fate of humanity, especially the religious bunch. any modern day christian will be quick to inform you that the end is near because of growing immorality, loosening values and wider thought. if a doomed world is one that grows to empower itself rather than rely on God, then they are right.

but if i say that a succeeding world is one that causes a massive reproduction of human life and sustenance of that population via advancements in technology, law and philosophy, then like all good debates, the opponents are merely arguing around and about different definitions of the problem.

since we started recording history we have abolished slavery, criminalized inhumanity, granted women equal rights, welcomed the lgbts and so on. we have embraced rationalism--gone are the days of learned men being persecuted for delivering science in a manner that made pious men appear less apt at explaining the world. knowing what we know today, which sane man would say, "let us go back into the days where the gods ruled"? these are the same days where capital crimes were punished by stoning, where women were the property of men, slaves were symbols of of wealth to those who owned them, and a homosexual did not exist because it was better not to. what world is the world of the old where men trounced upon men with no compassion? are not the most beautiful religions of the world about compassion?

i detest any religious man who places his religion above the rest--he who uses his position to sequester and dominate the heathen peoples around him. what kind of peace are we trying to achieve by waging war for the sake of it? is it right for one religion to infiltrate the government? the workplace? the marketplace? how about we try love, compassion and tolerance before we try to "conquer" this mortal plane for our respective Gods? does your God want our big cities, tall buildings and our land, which he could likely destroy and rebuild in a day, or does he really want our freely-given hearts which he cannot destroy and rebuild in a day?

every man with a moral conviction would understandably stand firm in his views. such a man would also do his best to teach the others around him of his ways which he knows from his heart is true. but to what end does such a man push until he knows to stop, step back, and let the other man pursue his own convictions? if one woman is against abortion, at what point does she stop herself from preventing another woman from terminating her pregnancy? should one man be able to vote against another? throughout history the power of voting has been used as a force of good to free the imprisoned, rest the burdened and deliver justice to the helpless. in some cases it has been misused as a tool for one section of society to impose its will on the other.

it pains me when i hear a Christian state who should and shouldnt be allowed to go to Church and when i see the number of people who agree with him. it pains me when a woman says she will vote against abortion to prevent another woman from doing what could possibly be the best for her and her unborn child. it pains me when a husband says he owns his wife and subjugates her to his hypocrisy. it pains me when people who know nothing about death tell me stoutly that the death penalty should stay. opinions are unavoidable, and in many cases it is a sign of intellect. but coupled with the power to translate those opinion to action, the biggest failure of modern humanity is the use of democracy to restrict the minority rather than to liberate them.

the biggest pain is that i will not and cannot stop them. but what burns like a fire in my heart is my duty to the weak minority.

an old, unpublished piece on hate

3 may 2010, in response to seeing the phrase "i only bring out what is already within you."

i saw something today that made me think about hate and what it really means. now it's easy to get upset. it's easy to say who made you feel upset. x did. but heres the scoop: x doesnt own your feelings. there is a point somewhere along the line that we must define who is responsible for what.

do this: remember the last time you were in love with somebody. or maybe youre in love now. lets call that person y. remember y? when y was around, you were happy. you liked being happy. you like yourself when youre happy. ah, its all because of y. i love y. i love y because when y is around, i am better than when y isnt around.

now think about x. x did something. or wait. x made you do something. x made you say something. x made you feel worse than when x wasnt around. but is it really x's fault? is it possible that you hate x because x made you hate yourself? it is possible, isnt it? after all, what x did is forgiveable. but how x made you feel, is unforgiveable.

but if you love y for being able to bring out the best in you, it means you hate x for being able to bring out the worst in you. people around us have different abilities. some of them evoke parts of ourselves we want to see, and some of them materialise our shadows better and show us our ugly sides. realise now: neither x nor y created any part of you; they merely forced it out all on display. so who is to blame for the existence of that monster?

y constantly reminds us of why life is good. y reminds us why life is worth living. as social creatures we are in perpetual need for such reminders. far be it from me to trample on love or to trivialise it, but love is simply in the reminders. and just as love reminds us of our good side, hate reminds us of our bad side.

and that really is the crux of the whole issue with unfair hate. we hate x because x reminds us that we are capable of atrocities. heck, x might even remind us that we are atrocities. but x is there to keep our heads out of the clouds. x grounds us. just as y makes life fantastic, x makes life real. if hatred did not exist, we would not be capable of fully appreciating love.

brace for the incoming paradox. stop hating the people you hate, because the reason you hate them is only because you would rather not hate yourself. and that isnt fair to x.

the alternative is to be unfair, and hate x, for x wasnt fair to you in the first place. heck, the world isnt fair. maybe we should just love the people who make us happy and hate the people who dont. let us become vectors for the propagation of unfair hate. then we can all wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and see x, the person we hate.

fate of the species

we would expect that the early men back in the day were also able to conceive the notion of alliance over the option of tribal war for the purpose of progress in other areas. the idea of banding together for better survival is a precept from antiquity. the only thing that has changed over time is the size of this band. so while small families might have grouped together millienia ago, these days we are looking at numbers on the order of millions;remember the fascist era of the early 20th century.

the general idea of one leader uniting the masses against a looming external threat is a sweet one. yes, squabbles between sovereign entities are a tradition of very old, but neither the egyptians nor the persians nor the greeks possessed weaponry that could end the world--the kind of weaponry that causes us, in these times to frown and shake our heads at the thought of war instead of group up and thump our chest armor for the sake of protecting "our own". nationalism is the same today as it was 5000 years ago, yet even its purpose has come to pass now that we with our global connections can no longer deny that "their own" are just as deserving of peace, security and progress. it is without doubt that any nation with sufficient globalising exposure becomes less and less inclined to hostile inclinations towards fellow inhabitants of the globe itself (separatist nations being negative examples).

yet even within the most peaceful and so-called progressive nations i see cultural segregation causing inter and intrasocietal conflicts impeding a One Kingdom agenda. i discover myself wondering sometimes if it is even within the realm of possibility for the people of this planet to ever unite under one goal(ie. leader).  i find it extremely improbable if not impossible. now mass unification of the major religions culminating in a massive religious war of two or maybe even three parties--that is something i believe is rather possible, but for muslim and christian, negroid and caucasoid, conservative and liberal and man and woman to unite there must be a common threat large enough to compel a negation of longstanding differences and discrimination--a threat to humanity if you will. i am speaking of a hostile alien species. without this impetus, every prime minister or every president would only work for the benefit of his own country, every governor or duke, only his own state, every mayor only his own town, every parent only his own family.

every man, truly for his own self. fundamentally, this is the case, and it is a rule coming straight out of the animal world. but it is via advancement of a species that softens this requirement by enabling each individual to think for more individuals outside of himself, hence the advancing roles of self-leader->family leader->town leader->state leader->country leader etc. naturally, the inner conviction weakens as the role continues to advance, after all, who feels more compelled to die for his country rather than his family, or who would sacrifice his life and limb for a stranger rather than his friend? yet throughout the civilizations there have been a handful of superior individuals who were not only able but willing to lay themselves down for the sake of a purpose or role larger than themselves. some of these men started entire religions, some others created lasting ideologies. ironically, while their ideas were almost always with the intention to unite the people, because of the selfish limitations of the individual man, division also resulted. if history is to repeat itself for good, then some great man--or woman--will arise from the civilizations yet again to melt barriers and homogenise the people. but as history is famous for taking its time, and looking at the state of the world today, i honestly do not expect homogenisation within my lifetime.

assuming we have the foresight not to destroy ourselves with our weaponry, we will one day find it in us to set aside our petty rabble in the face of an enemy alien race we discovered with our technology, and then unite in arms to point those weapons in the same direction to ensure our survival. when that galactic war is over, the same dilemma would be applicable: will we ever unite with another sentient race to ensure survival? or would be attempt to eradicate each other with our terrible weapons? the scale will continue to increase, and nationalism will phase in and out with the times but it seems to me that every time it phases in we run the risk of destroying everything.

therein lies the paradox: uniting against a common enemy is trying to remove what could be part of one's larger self. unless we abandon the need to survive, we will forever struggle for it and forever run the risk of ending our survival itself.

who goes there

sometimes i find myself imagining that people did not exist, so i wouldnt have to deal with problems that bear me down. problems are after all, created by people, if not by the self then by others. so i imagine them disappearing, one by one, thousands by thousands, until only a handful of people are left walking this earth. how peaceful it would be, that no machines would make noises, only the rustling of trees in the cool morning breeze--not even the birds have come out of their nests yet. more importantly there would be no problems. it sure would be pretty lonely, not having anyone to talk to...but coming from me, it really wouldnt make a world of a difference. sp how much more terrible could it be if that last handful of people also disappeared? no humans...just me, grass, trees, birds and myself. i wouldnt make a very entertaining myself for me. i would just blog all day, or write on walls with chalk stone once the internet starts crashing. i would think to myself. i would talk to myself. then i would remember the times when i didnt have to...when i didnt have to deal with myself. i would realise the problems i create for myself are far worse than those created by others. i would realise that removing billions of people for me is just a very expensive way to achieve the same objective that removing myself instead would. yes, it is also more considerate that i remove myself, if only at least that others dont have to deal with my problems. there really is little need for my existence. i am but a small flame--spark even, that would not make the fire any less warm than if i was put out. why then do i exist? for whose benefit am i placed here, i wish to ask, as i have realised now that i am my self not interested in claiming it. who is in need of my existence?

on gray areas

gray

being gray is like being half-cooked, left or right where does one look?

sitting on the fence not wanting to plant our feet, a problem of all, poor and elite

when the boxes are given, we know not which from which

a choice we must make before the timely hour instead we spend on things that dont matter

so when its time to pull a switch theres barely a need, for we did not choose; we chose to be freed

from responsibility, run we must. but for freedom, in spontaneity we trust.

but those who chose they paid in full, seen as rigid... no takers of bull

lo when calamity strikes we look to them, we tear our clothes and hit the hem

they are rigid, no takers of bull, they are constant in push or pull

so being gray as good as good gets, is still a choice just dont regret.

~

lying

is the worst place to be.

what am i

many people do not understand themselves, let alone the motives behind their words and actions. while it may seem very clear to them, while we consider that it is only natural for every man to think he knows himself best, surely not every man knows himself to the same degree.

now suppose a man chose to live in numbers instead of feelings, emotions and the unquantifiable, would not this logical, mathematical man be free of personal bias? less his preference for the impartial, would he be guilty of any other personal preference? he would be unswayable by argument as he would simply be a servant of numbers. while a normal man is conflicted by interests in himself, would not the logical man be the best judge of what is what?

how can we know best that a man is drunk? surely his own word weighs less than the word of the testing machine which has no personal interest. now if everything a man does or even does not do is measurable by an outsider, so would this outsider know of what is within the man. the act of understanding a man is reducible to a series of results from tests performed on his outward behavior, such that this new understanding of him would be more far more accurate (verifiable) than any statement he gives, even one of his own claims of self understanding.

there is one weakness to the methods of the analytical observer: that this observer knows only as much as the subject reveals, whether accidental or voluntary. yet because it is rare that a man cannot live without revealing his motives, the only man who can honestly claim that no one truly understands him, is a sociopath.

cut off

i almost forgot but i was reminded ..scenarios of conversations run through my head like an endless generator. i want it to stop but maybe i secretly don't. maybe it doesn't stop because i don't want it to stop. i don't want to know what to say or do. i just want to sleep. i don't want a solution. i don't want to hear any more conversations. i want silence. i want distraction. i need to rest

then i want to be a scientist

the humility of science is in its ability to be proven wrong; the beauty of it, its nature of only becoming more beautiful each time it is. the destruction of a part of science only adds to the whole.

as the sun rose from one horizon to set on the other, the scientists created models to understand this phenomenon, and found to their satisfaction, a mathematical equation to explain the movement of that great ball of fire as it orbited our world, the centre of the universe. it was a beautiful model, and it satisfied thirsts for understanding of the observable reality. we know what happened to that theory...

no, science is not always right. but think ahead: science is never truly right. looking back in history, we find repeatedly that science is, while never true at any one point, is also ever-changing, ever-improving, ever progressing. what i can be certain of however, is the fact that the Scientific Method affords us the best explanations for what is observable, in a manner that allows these explanations to improve our understanding of the world that we can experience with our senses. so the question arrives, 'why do we need to understand the world?' any man who has his food and shelter will eventually thirst for the intangible...that is to understand himself, his world, and his purpose.


the beauty of science is in its inherent ability to evolve upon its failures, each improvement making it more resistant to error, yet never immune to challenge. it is a beast that thrives upon efforts to take it down: a Nietszchean machine that cannot be killed, only made stronger.

science might well never be true, but because of how it is, it is damn well the closest thing to the truth that our minds can ever wrap around; when i say science can give us the best explanations, i therefore mean that it gives us answers that are most likely to be true. true or not true, if most likely true is the most one can get...

on individualist anarchism

through reason i have found it tempting to abandon the leadership of man in countless occasions. through experience i have found it advantageous. through intuition i have found this to be one of the more fulfilling ways to live a life. now the thing is, as good as it may be to hold this perception of reality, there exists a dilemma which troubles me from sharing this philosophy with others.

the paradox lies within the concept that each man only truly understands himself best, and so there is no greater mortal leader walking this earth other than this man himself. therefore who am i to lead anyone to what is best for him, since i myself have abandoned concept of someone else knowing what is best for me?

yet just as i have struggled and taken hold of my right to liberty, so should it be availed to all that which i have found for myself!

trust

nobody cannot be hypnotised, in a sense that they cant be made to do things against their will--people can only be unethically betrayed by someone they trust.

now when people willingly allow someone to lead the way, much like how disciples trust their rabbi, how much responsibility is weighed on the followers and how much on the leader should one day all that trust evaporates and all become suddenly aware?

once upon a time they were proud to feel like acolytes of a just cause, but now merely puppets of an insidious manipulator. how easily can the perception of someone change when respect is lost? the truth is appalling yet important to learn early: a respected image is afforded glorious amounts of good intentions and bright perceptions. a disrespected image is easy target for all that is unworthy. there is delusion in both; not everyone is truly good--not everyone truly bad.

when we respect someone, we follow them every step of the way, like a compass. we follow them on the path and off the track. we continue following them even after they lead us into the pit. we dont continue to follow them after this simply because we trust them. we do so because we respect them. time has taught us that respectable people are people of good judgment, therefore we trust in those whom we respect. somewhere along the line people muddle this up and and end up trusting in those whom others respect or in whom we are told to respect. and because this respect was demanded by herd logic, that this respect was never earned, from the get-go, the trust was invoked upon false respect. that trust is nonsense on stilts...

when push comes to shove, when the stilts fall away and trust is threatened, there is no earned respect to prop everything up. when the follower asks himself "why did i trust that man?", he does not get an answer, because that trust was based on respect that was not earned...

i often think of people who blame God when things dont pan out. they question the land, they gaze at the sky and they shout at the sea for things that neither the land nor sky nor sea had a hand in influencing...finally they blame themselves, and they do so wondering why they put so much trust in what they put their trust in: "why God? why me?" these very people, i have realised, are able to blame God because they are convinced of their own blamelessness. they are unable to be accountable for their own decisions.

they are the people who ask for legal advice but fire the lawyer when things dont work out. they are the people who pay for tuition but fire the tutor when things dont work out. they are the people who elect the president but revolt when things dont work out. they are the same people who join the cult but persecute the leader when things dont work out. they are the people who be believe in God but blame Him when things dont work out.

yes they are the very same people who continue to trust blindly for the convenience of limited accountability. who are you influenced by, and to what extent do you truly trust that person to follow even beyond your own understanding?

deserveth

goodlooking people have the fame, wealthy people have the power, and smart people have the reputation. and so it is that the handsome and the rich and the intelligent can be assholes and jerks and do however they please and be whomever they want, and the masses will take it as they come. all because fame, power and reputation are there to reward for putting up with all the crap.

now the thing is that should you have neither, or should you have little of either, then you have little justification for being yourself. putting aside the argument of whether this justification is just, lets just accept this for the fact that the world runs on what it runs, not on what is just.

now the average-looking and the working class and the fellow man have little to offer and so little to bargain with, that none of them can truly be himself, but only a fraction of it after working harder than the handsome or the rich or the intellectual man, only to fall short.

it is a tragedy: that because i am not charming enough--because i am not powerful enough--because i am not respectable enough, i cannot survive as well as the gifted to be myself enough. so that at the end of the day, who am i, so dimunitive, that i can demand the things for which i do not have the credit to compensate? who will take my shit for what little i can offer them, of which is also shit?

intj part quatre

http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Introverted_Intuition

INJs are typically concerned with finding an independent and all-encompassing perspective on whatever interests them, so they can see it without bias, without being fooled or led along by ways in which other interests have set things up, and without a merely partial understanding.

an almost obsessive trait of mine--the importance of being untainted by bias to obtain truth that cannot be shaken. any bias attached to a particular truth is a weakness to that truth. it is not obvious? i search for immovable anchors of truth because such are the only places worth the effort to find. i am motivated to do it because being wrong is a waste of time in many ways. it is also proof of poor judgment. do we not get ourselves educated to improve our judgment?

the world is filled with poor anchors such as simplistic explanations, overused arguments and positions taken for granted without proper understanding. it is easy to take sides in debates, but rarely does the participant appreciate the position he takes over the veil of weak assumptions held down tight by the rush of adrenaline from being in heated quarrels. why are you here? what is your argument? why are you arguing it? the digger you deep into yourself...

...you find yourself uncovering ever more and more hidden assumptions, and you feel the need to distance yourself from those, too, before you get your hands dirty or draw a conclusion.

this explains the perpetual fact of my argumentative nature quickly transforming into the polemic style. many times i have gone into arguments coming out realising that when people get into disagreements about something, they are actually arguing about something else more fundamental. its fun to be one of the few who realise this. its not fun to know that people are wasting their time not realising that they are fooled by the very assumptions they adopt so readily.

..you might feel very impressed upon meeting a man wearing a fancy Italian suit (signs call forth a natural response and need no interpretation); from an Ni perspective, you would consciously say to yourself that he's wearing an Italian suit and this is supposed to make you think he's wealthy or upper-class or really has his act together or something like that, and therefore is supposed to make you feel impressed (signs and what they mean are connected only arbitrarily). Whether he really does have his act together is a matter upon which you reserve judgement. Consequently you don't feel impressed.

so i am rarely impressed, and it all has to do with introverted intuition protecting me from too quickly internalising interpretations without first understanding them. this is skepticism in the purest form. this might lead me to reject many opinions especially ones that i have considered before, consequently giving the impression that i am never wrong or always right. on the other hand i already know that it is inherently fallacious to accept the popular opinion simply because it is popular. i already know the the Ni function is the least common of all the 8 jungian functions.

on one hand least deluded, on the other, most hated. such is the nature of nature.

i am become like them

reason for discipline

self-help gurus tend to have the common advice to give: that we as individuals should delimit ourselves in order to attain our personal potentials...the rationale being that we are our own barriers.

the latter is definitely true. the first and most important step invariably calls for a paradigm shift in mentality that allows for massive internal change. this usually leads to progressive results, as a change in method almost always causes a change in outcome. and while it is true that efficiency is attained with repetition, potential does not: though we might become skilled at obtaining an objective over time, the most we ultimately achieve is that one objective--nothing more. it is at this plateau where a man is said to meet the barrier of himself. it is this very person that the gurus refer to as a man's limit, which is then advised to be superseded.

and so i come to the former in the first paragraph: should we delimit ourselves? it would seem obvious at first, but i would like to address the deeper ethical concern: to what end do we make sacrifices for the sake of continual self-delimitisation? make no mistake: there are always sacrifices to be made in one area for the purpose of improvement in another. we cannot be our best at everything--only one thing. if one were to be truly brilliant at a thing, the law says, he must be terrible at at least one thing also.

i myself have on occasion found it difficult to justify a pursuit of things which i desired, be those things clothing, food, love, attention or freedom. i have on all these occasions been aware of not only a feeling of deserving all of these things but also an awareness of my latent power to attain them whenever i wanted, in any amount and in any moment in time, at the expense of other things which i value such as self-respect, respect from others and friendships.

through my own self reflection i have found the secret that millions pay money for the gurus to tell them: you already possess the power to fulfill your desires.

no, i do not write this to inspire in you a courage to harness your inner power. on the contrary i write to speak of my tire of power itself. i grow weary of it though i have yet to use much of it in my short 22 years. my eyes no longer sparkle at power as i do not need any more of it, nor do i feel a need to protect it as i will never lose it. it is not the kind of power that decays over time, nor is it transferrable. so at this point the only thing i see fit to pursue is a life of restraint--placing limits on myself.

frankly, i was and still am in awe of my mastery over scarcity and in general my power to take anything i see fit for the taking. though i feel like i am like God in this way, my limited time on this earth clearly ensures the differentiation. so until the gurus find a way to remove the limit of mortality, i am sticking to my ethic of self-limitation.

mastery over self is a power that makes mastery over things seem meaningless. the greatest tribute to God is to become like Him in the way that He is the epitome of self-mastery.

the perfect system of the unrandom machine

fate part trois

if a butterfly flapping its wings in new york could cause a tsunami at cape town, i would be most interested to know the chain of events at all points in between. but as a human being with finite understanding, i can only perceive a finite number of events. yet from point one to point two there are an infinite number of points, and also events that play a nonzero part in the gestalt of things.

i am interested to know all these points, because then i could truly understand what is happening. many times we observe the events of the world only in digestible blocks: we acknowledge only the occurences that make the larger impacts, and we attribute consequences to those causes, arbitrarily rejecting the rest as not nearly as important. we create a system of understanding called determinism that draws arrows between two adjacent points on the fabric of spacetime. today i realise that determinism is not a system of truth but a truth simulator: subscribe to the theory of cause and effect, and most of the time your results will be satisfactory. then some other times, your results fail due to an innocent misattribution of a single arrow.

but like any simulator, the results are only as trustworthy as the algorithm. unfortunately there is no way to understand truth, only to approximate it.

suppose i found the most impressive computer that could fathom more event points than any other. suppose it was then given the most complex and encompassing deterministic algorithm ever written. this computer could likely predict the outcome of a lottery ball machine. it would observe the dimensions of the ball container, the air density, the mass of the balls, the coefficients of friction, the viscosity of the air, the humidity in it. a hundred thousand time-variant variables for a billion points in time linked by multiple partial differential equations sloshing around in the brain of this supercomputer. for all intents and purposes, any so-called random event becomes simply a series of steps that this computer could print out on a sheet of paper. this computer would outlaw the concept of probability.

if we could observe all things, and knowing the interrelations between these things, and if we could process that infinite amount of information instantaneously, we would become the unrandom machine. but because we cannot observe all things, because we cannot process an infinite amount of information instantaneously, because event relationships can only be speculated, we will likely never attain the state of unrandom perception.

but how good would it be if i could become an unrandom machine. at the cost of my humanity and capacity for surprise and therefore delight in life, i could know all outcomes, and prove to those who believe in fate that their outcomes are always changing, that they are simply willing victims of the imperfect system known as probability.

the first step out of vicious comfort

a list of scenarios in increasing order of ability to incite in me a willingness to help:

1. person refusing help upon insisting there is no problem
2. person refusing action unpon insisting the problem would solve itself
3. person insisting to self that the problem is not as great as it is
4. person in confusion over partial denial of situation
5. person asking for clarification of confusion while maintaining resistance
6. person abanoning denial/resistance for any available solution
7. person actively choosing best solution from multiple availables

the worst turnoff is a straight denial of current reality. if it were true, it would imply an extraneous presence on my part in such a matter in the first place. obviously, there has been a problem. it would follow that the first step to all problem-solving maneuvres is 'acknowledgement of the problem'. it is so obvious that this step is often taken for granted and forgotten in favour of 'identification of the problem', but psychology 101 teaches of the innate defensive behaviour of minds. to a certain extent, skepticism provides for a robust psyche, but unattended, it would prove counterproductive by stalling psychological maturity associated with the ability to accept undesired outcomes, an all too common aspect of that which we call life. it is to my understanding that a runaway psychological defense mechanism activated too early in life causes a rampant and unhealthy situation resulting in certain adults with grey hair being less mature than some children.

i have heard anecdotal accounts of such scenarios, and the corresponding conjecture that maturity is not a function of age--to some extent that is true, as i have somewhat explained above. on the other hand time is the only vector associated with the movevent a psyche, all other factors are simply barriers against time. these barriers may be social, sexual, financial, et cetera. it is even more likely that factors are interrelated, as freud might say, one could be psychosexually affected enough to become impeded against psychological maturation. whether being psychologically mature is a Natural goal of biology is beyond the current scope, yet i am willing to venture that this goal is not easy to obtain, judging from the small number of such individuals in society. how many truly mature people do you know in your life? as a percentage of all your known acquaintances, who is truly flawless, truly free from the ugly sides human behaviour? the percentage is small, and at this point i bet my hat that these same people do not indulge in delusions.

delusions of grandeur, delusions of security, delusions of relationships, delusions of God, all encompassed by the umbrella delusion of Need. practically these needs can be categorised a-la maslow, with a distinctive characteristic of linearity. maslow purported that psychological development progresses through stages sequentially and without skipping based upon fulfilled criteria needs. these needs interestingly progress from tangible to intangible needs.

im writing today wondering what if: what if one could somehow ascend the stages without fulfilling needs but rather by eliminating them? i am not suggesting that we eliminate our need for food, water, clothing and shelter, but rather that we eliminate our delusion of need to secure those tangibles. most of us here today, especially those who have the opportunity to read this, have no real issue with obtaining tangible needs. yet i struggle to understand how most of us are not already at or near the top of maslow's pyramid pursuing the intangible instead.

this brings me back to the few who have conquered this summit, the same people ive asked you, the reader to identify in your life. how have they done it? have they honestly a greater ability than everyone else to secure the lower tiers of the maslow hierarchy, or have they just learnt to let go of what everyone else loves abit too much? these people always seem to be steps ahead, never being troubled by the things we normal people are troubled by, like grandparents. do they not have the same tangible needs that we do? food, water, clothing, shelter--we all need the same tangible things. yet old people are always ahead, eyes looking up and far, not down and around like our young eyes. when we fix our eyes, it is only on them; we look at them submissively, as if to ask, "what do i do now?"

it is my understanding that the tiers of maslow's pyramid are not steps that push us up one level the minute we fulfill a certain criteria. no: each level is an increasing challenge of ball and chain that we must break free from or forever be mired in, such as the middle-aged mother who always grumbles about money or the balding bachelor who always frowns about his looks. yes, the hierarchy is not a map on how to go up, its a guide of how not to get stuck down there. eureka, my friends.

some of us are lucky to be hit by financial hardship, heartbreak, family dissolution, or extended time away from familiar people. the solitude takes us away from people common to us in the same level of maslow's hierarchy of psychological imprisonment. sometimes we only think about things when we are forced to think. in all of these situations we become different from everyone else and become truly alone. this solitude is key for self-reflection and the ultimate internal resolution to yearn for progress via change.

there are many out there who have been leading comfortable lives in vicious circles. they have learnt to obtain comfort by explaining their problems away. they live in viscious comfort, and reading many selfhelp forums tonight, i cant help but shed a tear for those who have admitted they have a problem and are desperately reaching out to anyone who might grab them, and in the corner of my eye i wonder what will happen to the rest who throughout their entire lives have yet to try step 1. i can only wonder, because i couldnt help them even if i wanted to.

manifesto 2011

kay so its 2011, and this post is long overdue, probably because this is the first post of the year and that it sets the tone for the next solar revolution. also probably because i have been lazy to write/think for the past three weeks. maybe its because i dont need this blog anymore, who knows?

anyhoo, its january again, and one year from apocalypse. wooo cant wait! hey guys its that time of the year...again--to make new year's resolutions that we try so hard to make, profess with gusto and attempt to enforce with a gungho attitude only to recede into the same ol same ol of our smelly pasts. yup. come let us perform this sham of a born-again parade, douse ourselves in a few merry days of feel-good and fresh optimism for better futures. what a crock. everyone's steeped in the sick of their own denial--its disgusting i tell you!!

the old me would make a list of promises with the express intent of ignoring them, just to prove a point. well, im a year older know (and i can really feel it in the joints nowadays) and much less bothered with proving points by proving wrong. instead, ill just make a practical, and easy new year resolution that i wont pretend i didnt really mean two weeks down the road. wait for it...wait for it...

I'LL BE BRUSHING MY TEETH WITH MY LEFT HAND FOR THE NEXT ONE YEAR.

yes. ive been doing it for the past week and its tough. my gums hurt, and i can never tell if im done brushing or if i did a good job. i just halt at the cue of my thumb cramping and call it quits then. i reckon i'll be skilled in my nonmaster hand by mid year, and then i could engage in more sophisticated motor activities that i always take my right hand for granted with.

im so proud of myself right now.