but i have right here a collection of drafts that at the time i thought were going to be something, but i hadnt had the time to flesh out into their own rightful posts. but they still might find use one day:
1 Sep 2010 on benefits of gossip
if people found out about the things others were thinking about them or saying about them to third parties behind their back, then people would get very angry with others indeed.7 Sep 2010 freedom
but when people know that others dont know that people knew of others' betrayal, then people wouldnt have much use to be angry, but instead become surprisingly quite motivated to either:
1. re-earn respect of others
2. discard others completely
in the first option is the acknowledgment of personal failure, but with it comes the push for self growth and maturity.
in the second option is the denial of fault and the resistance to progress. though it might reflect characteristics of steadfastness, such a choice has deep-rooted issues with unreasonable stubbornness and the fear of change.
personal freedom is not only important to me, but also that it is available for everyone around me. which is why i always support the underdog, join the losing team, fight for the weak, go against the flow, say things that others are afraid to say, and do things that they tell me not to do.13 Dec 2010 parallel lines part deux
not because i want to be different, but because i know i am free. and i want everyone to know it, including that they can have freedom from limits set by others...if they wanted to be free.
do you believe that triangles exist?7 Aug 2011 untitled
did man invent the triangle, or did triangles already exist and that man merely found a way to describe it? sure enough, any normal man can draw a triangle on a piece of paper...yet is that proof that a triangle exists? it is a startingly simple question that seems to have a shockingly straightforward answer. perhaps i might drive the same idea from a different angle: does a 1000^3-sided regular polygon exist? a fair guess would say "yes" yet an equally fair probability exists that the questionee has never seen one. yet we expect that a polygon of any integer number of sides must exist, based solely on the fact that we believe a regular three-sided one does.
ask a man to draw the hypothetical billion-sided regular polygon and he would at best come up with a circle. even a computer can be designed to do the task, only other computers can prove that the job was done. an accurate guess would say that the even the most skeptical man would believe the computer, yet is not the computer merely another product of human reasoning?
nothing can truly be proven, based on the fact that the tool we use to prove or disprove postulates must itself be trusted to be correct in the first place. enter the axiom: by definition it is the fundamental unit of the unequivocal proof. upon the anvil of the axiom we forge ideas that are themselves, proven to be true. how we know that a billion-sided regular polygon has a billion lines of symmetry is marvel based purely upon the axiom that an n-sided regular polygon has n such lines. similarly two pairs of parallel lines which intersect at right angles must create at least one quadrangle. no one questions these statements because they are so closely related to the axiom of the straight line.
now the question of the existence of God, i have come to realise, is akin to the feat of trying to use one axiom to prove another. i suspect that we cannot find a suitable answer (philosophically rigorous) because God, as an idea, is not less fundamental than the other axioms of reason such as causality or the theory of numbers
when life-threatening disease afflicts, its easy to ignore a doctor's advice, hoping he or she is wrong on his recommendation, choosing instead only to pray over the matter. how far is it true that in such a case, our decision is truly motivated by faith in God vis a vis an honest fear of making the final decision ourselves?undated untitled
the sad truth about being neutral is that both sides hate you for being a fencer. at least enemies can respect each other for the strong beliefs in their respective causes. but the totally unbiased are instead scorned for lack of passion, and the corresponding misapprehension of lack of credibility. they cry out, "how can an unbiased man have an opinion!"undated untitled
lo, the truth stripped of bias is no longer opinion in the first place. a truly objective view is an unbiased view, and because of its nature it is far removed from the reach of criticism. who criticises the truth? now, the purpose of the neutral is not to be the devil's advocate--that would imply a constant force against the party. no, the neutral plays the spring that dynamically forces the party towards impartiality--push or pull. the force must always be flexible, as the characteristic of human emotion is oscillatory. by extension, its bias and therefore the delusions accompanied fluctuate too. because of adrenaline, the instinctive human response goes into either aggression, submission or retreat: "i am always correct," "i am always wrong," "i dont know and i dont want to talk about it," respectively.
the greatest failure of any man, especially the self-confident and logical man, will come from his decision and successful execution in positioning himself away from external criticism or excising from his life the people who provide it, or both, such that his own truth-seeking abilities silently become instead truth-creating abilities, betraying him into a bubble of falsities more robust than his skills against them, never to be saved from the illusion.
