i like subtlety
perhaps it is a subconscious avoidance of direct conflict
that sour taste
yet i am too opionionated to remain silent,
to let this and that reference go to waste
id be satisfied so that only a fraction of people got what i was trying to say
and then id know, "hey, these guys got the joke",
that would make my day
but some people ruin it, they say "i see what you did there!"
there are worse ones though, those that none can compare
they go on to explain my own joke to me to prove they are witty
"how silly"i say, i think they just ruined it for me
id rather people think than ask me, "whats the meaning of that?"
so its not just in words that i prefer to just glance at
so in music and art, i like it unobvious
you yourself can decide--that is the highest purpose
so today i really wonder if i just dont like to argue
or am i just existentialist, now what about you?
Monday, December 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
on life through the framework of thermodynamics
two days ago the mars rover Curiosity successfully landed on the red planet. couldnt help but feel a warm peace inside..the lengths we as a species go to for the sake of curiosity itself. why mars? well the alternative is venus..and that planet is probably the best example of hell in the solar system. the next best place we could ever run to once we use earth up is probably mars, this in spite of the fact that the atmosphere there is 95% CO2 and there being no liquid water in sight.
yet if some extraterrestrial being were to visit earth, even long after our extinction...there would be something very noticeably different of this world from any other nearby. we would have structures, though derelict, still standing clearly apart from what nature intends. as the pyramids still stand today, so will our skyscrapers continue to break the skyline for the next 10,000 years. on any other planet the most interesting surface features would be craters or sand dunes, but even in the sandy oceans of egypt lie the unmistakable evidence of order against the chaos of nature.
while winds, weather and tectonic movement spread things around, we as intelligent life tend to separate, segregrate and classify. we move rocks from here to there, turn trees into chairs, and stack bricks into huge triangular tombs. while the second law of thermodynamics maintains the inevitable increase of entropy in a closed system, life like us have the nifty ability go against this principle in the local region. look how our earth has such an amazing abundance of free oxygen in the air, and pools of oil deep underground ready to be burnt. the earth itself is a giant battery charged by the sun for billions of years, a wonder only made possible by plants--a spectacular proof that we are the lowest entropic region in the entire solar system. and as men we are simply a small part of life. we build tall structures, and harness energy to store it...be it in the form of canned food or batteries. every single thing we do seems to be about creating a bubble of order in an infinity of chaos.
it is only on the day we die that we exit this bubble and submit to thermodynamics..the laws of the universe. it is a belief of mine, that nature has every intention of killing us--it is just that life itself is a powerful gift that axiomatically trivialises nature. we are born into mastery of it, as long as we call ourselves living, that until the day time claims us, and then we ourselves will become nature, while our structures remain for a tad while longer as the legacy of strange beings who lowered entropy wherever they went.
yet if some extraterrestrial being were to visit earth, even long after our extinction...there would be something very noticeably different of this world from any other nearby. we would have structures, though derelict, still standing clearly apart from what nature intends. as the pyramids still stand today, so will our skyscrapers continue to break the skyline for the next 10,000 years. on any other planet the most interesting surface features would be craters or sand dunes, but even in the sandy oceans of egypt lie the unmistakable evidence of order against the chaos of nature.
while winds, weather and tectonic movement spread things around, we as intelligent life tend to separate, segregrate and classify. we move rocks from here to there, turn trees into chairs, and stack bricks into huge triangular tombs. while the second law of thermodynamics maintains the inevitable increase of entropy in a closed system, life like us have the nifty ability go against this principle in the local region. look how our earth has such an amazing abundance of free oxygen in the air, and pools of oil deep underground ready to be burnt. the earth itself is a giant battery charged by the sun for billions of years, a wonder only made possible by plants--a spectacular proof that we are the lowest entropic region in the entire solar system. and as men we are simply a small part of life. we build tall structures, and harness energy to store it...be it in the form of canned food or batteries. every single thing we do seems to be about creating a bubble of order in an infinity of chaos.
it is only on the day we die that we exit this bubble and submit to thermodynamics..the laws of the universe. it is a belief of mine, that nature has every intention of killing us--it is just that life itself is a powerful gift that axiomatically trivialises nature. we are born into mastery of it, as long as we call ourselves living, that until the day time claims us, and then we ourselves will become nature, while our structures remain for a tad while longer as the legacy of strange beings who lowered entropy wherever they went.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
reason for discipline part deux
in reply to a comment made on an earlier post:
there are two parts to being Godlike: mastery over environment, and mastery over self.
the first speaks of an unstoppable force, while the second speaks of an immovable object. contradictory, but inspirational, for you only know your capabilities through your possessions by conquest, but you only know your strength in the giving up of that power, a release of the crutch you have every right to use. as in the case of all so-called paradoxes, the issue lies in the impossibility of one of the defining premises. in this case that i want to highlight, the supremity of God, only the immovable object exists.
i believe God can rape your soul, as you said, if he wanted to, but the reason why im not Jansenist is simply because i believe God is more defined by the second power. he specifically and repeatedly withholds exercise of the first power in deference to his own gift of free will to us. there are many instances in the bible where God is said to have hardened men's hearts or turned their minds, but i find it much more reasonable and convincing in all of these examples where God is undoubtedly the instigator and influencer rather than the author of the compliant and/or defiant decisions of man. it is through this understanding which i read all cases of God hardening or opening people's hearts.
in essence we are driving at the same point, except that i wanted to draw a much clearer picture of what the first power is--its pervasiveness in my own humanity as well as of that in the reader himself or herself, by extension also that of the many people in high places. it is born of the repeated exercise of free will coupled with a hunger and thirst for things well beyond our mortality. we are definitely in the position to bite more than we can chew.
while the first power is easy, the second is rare. hence the completion of a goal to Godliness must in the end always involve a renunciation of one's own power in deference to the free will of another. it is the ultimate gift, a sacrifice of one's own free will. in religion, the goal here is to make God the recipient, a return of the gift, like the returning of the prodigal son, who says no, i did not need this, but please, let me stay in your house instead.
THAT...is the reason for discipline.
there are two parts to being Godlike: mastery over environment, and mastery over self.
the first speaks of an unstoppable force, while the second speaks of an immovable object. contradictory, but inspirational, for you only know your capabilities through your possessions by conquest, but you only know your strength in the giving up of that power, a release of the crutch you have every right to use. as in the case of all so-called paradoxes, the issue lies in the impossibility of one of the defining premises. in this case that i want to highlight, the supremity of God, only the immovable object exists.
i believe God can rape your soul, as you said, if he wanted to, but the reason why im not Jansenist is simply because i believe God is more defined by the second power. he specifically and repeatedly withholds exercise of the first power in deference to his own gift of free will to us. there are many instances in the bible where God is said to have hardened men's hearts or turned their minds, but i find it much more reasonable and convincing in all of these examples where God is undoubtedly the instigator and influencer rather than the author of the compliant and/or defiant decisions of man. it is through this understanding which i read all cases of God hardening or opening people's hearts.
in essence we are driving at the same point, except that i wanted to draw a much clearer picture of what the first power is--its pervasiveness in my own humanity as well as of that in the reader himself or herself, by extension also that of the many people in high places. it is born of the repeated exercise of free will coupled with a hunger and thirst for things well beyond our mortality. we are definitely in the position to bite more than we can chew.
while the first power is easy, the second is rare. hence the completion of a goal to Godliness must in the end always involve a renunciation of one's own power in deference to the free will of another. it is the ultimate gift, a sacrifice of one's own free will. in religion, the goal here is to make God the recipient, a return of the gift, like the returning of the prodigal son, who says no, i did not need this, but please, let me stay in your house instead.
THAT...is the reason for discipline.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
law of conservation of time
time moves regardless, and life is a game of its management. jobs are a way of converting time into a storable form--money. a while later this money is then spent, a deconversion into time as we wish to experience. so while the world moves on around us, we as individuals may not be able to experience it in the way we want, if we do not have time--money in the bank.
each person also spends time differently, or utilises time in his own currency. it is therefore all the more necessary that each man earn his own wage so that he can spend according to his will. this explains the necessity for jobs in the cycles of life. but this fact does not deny the existence of jobless men. should one neglect earning his own time, then his inevitable expenditure of it necessarily involves sponsorship by a benefactor, a second party willing or unwilling.
as lifespan increases, one wonders how much work one has to put in to create sufficient storage for retirement. it is already meaningless as it is in the current situation where people work for a third of the day, sleep for another third, and only have a third left to share between fulfillment other duties and personal time--the reason for work in the first place. it just does not seem like a valuable trade for effort if the time spent earning does not at least equal the time earned.
therein lies the key to happiness: at the end of the day, we must always have our eye on the meaning of our toil, lest toil become our meaning. time spent doing things we love to do must at least equal the time spent doing things we have to do. truly happy and successful people always have this in common, be it having disproportionately high paying jobs, or having jobs which they dont consider as jobs.
each person also spends time differently, or utilises time in his own currency. it is therefore all the more necessary that each man earn his own wage so that he can spend according to his will. this explains the necessity for jobs in the cycles of life. but this fact does not deny the existence of jobless men. should one neglect earning his own time, then his inevitable expenditure of it necessarily involves sponsorship by a benefactor, a second party willing or unwilling.
as lifespan increases, one wonders how much work one has to put in to create sufficient storage for retirement. it is already meaningless as it is in the current situation where people work for a third of the day, sleep for another third, and only have a third left to share between fulfillment other duties and personal time--the reason for work in the first place. it just does not seem like a valuable trade for effort if the time spent earning does not at least equal the time earned.
therein lies the key to happiness: at the end of the day, we must always have our eye on the meaning of our toil, lest toil become our meaning. time spent doing things we love to do must at least equal the time spent doing things we have to do. truly happy and successful people always have this in common, be it having disproportionately high paying jobs, or having jobs which they dont consider as jobs.
Friday, March 02, 2012
rest in peace
silence is the least violent method of protest. it does little to assert over the external world, but that is the point: assertion is violence--it attempts to use external forces to evoke change, the most fundamental of which should best be invoked internally. hence assertiveness applied first to self is key, while the enthusiasm to change the world is eventually met with multiple springs of doubt as to the question of utility, "why am i spending my short life trying to change everything outside of my life?"
whereas in a peaceful philosphy, one would garner the concept of being one with the external world, not at odds with it, such that the pushes and pulls of the environment result in temporary pleasure and consistent suffering, as is the persistence of disappointment which accompanies the desire to achieve costly ideals in world of reality and individual sentient beings with their own ideas. why push an idea on someone, why push an idea anyway, if the idea is not recognised by Peace?
whereas in a peaceful philosphy, one would garner the concept of being one with the external world, not at odds with it, such that the pushes and pulls of the environment result in temporary pleasure and consistent suffering, as is the persistence of disappointment which accompanies the desire to achieve costly ideals in world of reality and individual sentient beings with their own ideas. why push an idea on someone, why push an idea anyway, if the idea is not recognised by Peace?
Thursday, January 05, 2012
fate part trois
newton's first law is the law describing inertia--pretty much everything you can see obeys this law--that it does not budge unless acted upon by an external force. and much of science has been devoted to predicting the behaviours of objects untouched by external forces...ballistics, planetary motion, and other parts of newtonian science. then people figured out how to analyse external forces too, and so you have mechanical engineering.
but what separates life from dead objects, is the ability to cause an external force upon itself--external force derived internally. so while a falling rock always falls by gravity, a bird can choose to change its trajectory at any time. while a bullet leaving a gun can only fly in a calculable parabola, a human cannonball can change his/her trajectory at any time. while a gear can only spin at a calculable rate, a deskjob employee can get out of his cubicle at any time.
for living objects, all paths are bendable. the necessary existence of a finish line is not the same as its finalisation in position of time or space. of course there is a second chance. there are third and fourths and fifths, assuming you want to count them in integer values. youre still alive...
go bend your trajectory
but what separates life from dead objects, is the ability to cause an external force upon itself--external force derived internally. so while a falling rock always falls by gravity, a bird can choose to change its trajectory at any time. while a bullet leaving a gun can only fly in a calculable parabola, a human cannonball can change his/her trajectory at any time. while a gear can only spin at a calculable rate, a deskjob employee can get out of his cubicle at any time.
for living objects, all paths are bendable. the necessary existence of a finish line is not the same as its finalisation in position of time or space. of course there is a second chance. there are third and fourths and fifths, assuming you want to count them in integer values. youre still alive...
go bend your trajectory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)