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 it is this very person that the gurus refer to as a man's limit, which is then advised to be superseded.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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)