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.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
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.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)