Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
i think people
- i think people are a lot more persuasive when theyre not angry
- i think women are a lot more attractive when theyre not trying to be
- i think men would be a lot more attractive if they smiled more
- i think people would quarrel less if they put themselves in other shoes more often
- i think vegetarians are only justified on the health rhetoric
- i think boys can be a lot nicer
- i think girls can be a lot naughtier
- i think people would be a lot more content with what they have if they really knew what they needed
- i think humble people deserve to be praised
- i think arrogant people deserve to be punished
- i think posers shouldnt be punished, but ignored
- i do not think much of arrogant posers
- excuse the triteness but i think people with great power could do with a little greater responsibility
- i think the better teachers are the ones who make students love what they are learning
- i think time is the best teacher
- i think people in general are a little too busy
- i think middle is more desirable than left or right
- i think the chemistry is in the eyes
- i think the character is in the smile
- i think everything else is just icing
- i think daughters are better than sons
- i think people prefer right & wrong to correct & incorrect
- i think too many people pray only because they need things
- i think not enough people pray only because they already have things
- i think that there would be no suicide bombers and no crusaders and no holy wars if religion did not exist
- i think people would find other ways to kill each other anyway
- i think it is more glorious to be killed than to kill
- i think i would be a happier person if my thoughts didnt always spiral into depressive ideas and loneliness
- i think i think too much sometimes
- maybe most of the time
- ok all the time.
Monday, May 24, 2010
fate part deux
i had finished reading something and i went up to my window that night. it wasnt raining but apparently it was somewhere far out; there was a lot of lightning. and i thought:
when lightning strikes it can take on any unique shape, a shape being drawn by the hand of probability. it can fern out at any point in its travel time, producing a different pattern for every bolt. while seemingly random, one day, man might devise a formula to predict the exact structure of a lightning strike from the very moment a spark crowns from the lining of a cumulonimbus. a far future i surmise--no doubt, but does the fact that a random route can be predicted imply that it is after all not random, ie. the outcome was predetermined from the start?
there is only one thing that i, in my lacking knowledge know that is predetermined: the flash that speeds towards the ground always ends up on the ground, regardless of its route. that doesnt make me sound like much of a fortune teller, yet if i claimed i knew in my mind the exact shape of the next lightning strike yet to come down from the heavens, people would actually take notice. therein lies the mystery of mystery itself--we as a curious species strive to know everything, and that which we do not know, we ascribe high desirability factor to, as do we give great honor to those few who know what is not widely known.
suppose a physicist appears from the future and tells us that he invented a machine which could observe you flipping a coin and from the moment the coin leaves your hand, is able to perfectly compute the fate of that flipped coin--heads or tails. the entire concept of probability would be rendered moot. if i flip a coin a hundred times in an experiment of probability, and each time a physicist is able to calculate its outcome using a formula from the distant future using the variables of the coin's metal composition, atmospheric humidity, down to the skeletal structure of my thumb, then by deduction, i have not performed a set of probabilistic maneuvers. while it appeared to me that i played a hundred games of chance, to a really smart person i was merely placing a coin on its head or on its tail a hundred times in succession.
do i believe that God made the coin land in such and such a way? if i were an ancient egyptian, i would say that horus made the coin land in such and such a way after the coin had left my hand. if i were an all-knowing scientist, i would make a more convincing statement. yet i am neither an ancient egyptian nor an all-knowing scientist. what i do know, as i realise now writing this: the limit of each man's influence on any earthly object's ends at the moment he stops exerting his influence. the moment the coin leaves my hand, i lose my power over it, and its story though started by me, can not and does not end solely by me. there are a myriad variables that continue to exert their influence on the flying coin, and these factors are observable by an all-knowing figure, like the physicist from the future.
this hypothetical physicist does not exist yet. he or she might eventually. is this person God? i would not agree, for it is not sufficient to be all-knowing; this person must also be all-powerful. for the intents and purposes of this writing, any of the aforementioned observable variable that can be observed by an omniscient figure is also a manipulable variable by an omnipotent figure. it seems that by our earthly criteria of what makes God God, my conclusion can only go so far as to say that God can indeed make any coin land in any such way, but as to the questions of whether he does, or would: these are the questions regarding fate.
a man can live his life believing that God is the artist that painted every single unique lightning bolt that comes from the sky, the sculptor that formed every single unique snowflake that ever floated down, the chemist that pieced together by hand every atom and molecule in your bones, the physical source of the wind that drove our ships and the ocean tides that kept our earth warm, the nuclear physicist who regulated the fusion in our sun which makes life possible, the biologist who personally engineered us humans from the primate families millenia ago. a man can believe that fire was given to man from mount olympus, abode of the greek gods.
or he can believe that God is the mastermind who only created the rules of the universe, and within his self-sustaining universe, art, sculpture, chemistry, meteorology, physics, biology and even fire created themselves. he can call the rules of the universe Nature, where anything that creates itself is natural, even mutations, disasters, catastrophes, war, bloodshed, death, floods, fires and earthquakes. i am this man.
i believe in the Nature that God created. i know that nature is real. i believe in the reality of heaven and hell, but not as much as i believe in the reality of dying if i stepped off the parapet of a skyscraper. that is the extent of my incomplete wisdom, insofar as my inability to believe in God as much as i believe in the Nature that he created--the Nature which is so much closer to me than is God himself. i believe that out of the billions who claim to believe in God like i do, only a handful believe in God more than they do Nature, which God created. and somehow i feel that he only created Nature so that man might just at minimum choose to acknowledge his existence.
God is like the hand that flips the coin; each one of us are like coins that are flipped. except that we can choose how we land. he knows how we are going to land from the way we spin in the air, he knows your future, but that in no way determines it: he can describe your future for he is omniscient, or he can prescribe it, for he is omnipotent, but there would be no reason from him to prescribe your outcome--each one of us were given the chance to choose for a reason.
it just so happened that Nature is so good and so believable, that we single-track minded creatures with our imperfect eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin, trust and rely on it so much and become blind and distrusting to things we cannot see, smell, hear, taste or feel with our hands.
to these unsensable things, we as simple, curious creatures, attribute eerie mystery to. we create fantastic words like probability, fate, and destiny because even when we know we cannot control everything, we have a human need to label the uncontrollable and therefore try to control it. these words are fantastic delusions because out there...there is a perfect physicist from the future, one that not only knows all but can do all. i call this scientist God. to him, there is no probability because everything is predictable to him. there is no fate or destiny for these only obey God's will. but then there is causality. causality obeys the will of God, man and flea.
why would God allow us to determine our own outcomes? because we would be no better than a stone on the hill that wastes away at the mercy of rain and wind otherwise. i seriously doubt that. i am definitely more important than a stone on the hill, because the stone wasnt given the power to deny its Creator.
when lightning strikes it can take on any unique shape, a shape being drawn by the hand of probability. it can fern out at any point in its travel time, producing a different pattern for every bolt. while seemingly random, one day, man might devise a formula to predict the exact structure of a lightning strike from the very moment a spark crowns from the lining of a cumulonimbus. a far future i surmise--no doubt, but does the fact that a random route can be predicted imply that it is after all not random, ie. the outcome was predetermined from the start?
there is only one thing that i, in my lacking knowledge know that is predetermined: the flash that speeds towards the ground always ends up on the ground, regardless of its route. that doesnt make me sound like much of a fortune teller, yet if i claimed i knew in my mind the exact shape of the next lightning strike yet to come down from the heavens, people would actually take notice. therein lies the mystery of mystery itself--we as a curious species strive to know everything, and that which we do not know, we ascribe high desirability factor to, as do we give great honor to those few who know what is not widely known.
suppose a physicist appears from the future and tells us that he invented a machine which could observe you flipping a coin and from the moment the coin leaves your hand, is able to perfectly compute the fate of that flipped coin--heads or tails. the entire concept of probability would be rendered moot. if i flip a coin a hundred times in an experiment of probability, and each time a physicist is able to calculate its outcome using a formula from the distant future using the variables of the coin's metal composition, atmospheric humidity, down to the skeletal structure of my thumb, then by deduction, i have not performed a set of probabilistic maneuvers. while it appeared to me that i played a hundred games of chance, to a really smart person i was merely placing a coin on its head or on its tail a hundred times in succession.
do i believe that God made the coin land in such and such a way? if i were an ancient egyptian, i would say that horus made the coin land in such and such a way after the coin had left my hand. if i were an all-knowing scientist, i would make a more convincing statement. yet i am neither an ancient egyptian nor an all-knowing scientist. what i do know, as i realise now writing this: the limit of each man's influence on any earthly object's ends at the moment he stops exerting his influence. the moment the coin leaves my hand, i lose my power over it, and its story though started by me, can not and does not end solely by me. there are a myriad variables that continue to exert their influence on the flying coin, and these factors are observable by an all-knowing figure, like the physicist from the future.
this hypothetical physicist does not exist yet. he or she might eventually. is this person God? i would not agree, for it is not sufficient to be all-knowing; this person must also be all-powerful. for the intents and purposes of this writing, any of the aforementioned observable variable that can be observed by an omniscient figure is also a manipulable variable by an omnipotent figure. it seems that by our earthly criteria of what makes God God, my conclusion can only go so far as to say that God can indeed make any coin land in any such way, but as to the questions of whether he does, or would: these are the questions regarding fate.
a man can live his life believing that God is the artist that painted every single unique lightning bolt that comes from the sky, the sculptor that formed every single unique snowflake that ever floated down, the chemist that pieced together by hand every atom and molecule in your bones, the physical source of the wind that drove our ships and the ocean tides that kept our earth warm, the nuclear physicist who regulated the fusion in our sun which makes life possible, the biologist who personally engineered us humans from the primate families millenia ago. a man can believe that fire was given to man from mount olympus, abode of the greek gods.
or he can believe that God is the mastermind who only created the rules of the universe, and within his self-sustaining universe, art, sculpture, chemistry, meteorology, physics, biology and even fire created themselves. he can call the rules of the universe Nature, where anything that creates itself is natural, even mutations, disasters, catastrophes, war, bloodshed, death, floods, fires and earthquakes. i am this man.
i believe in the Nature that God created. i know that nature is real. i believe in the reality of heaven and hell, but not as much as i believe in the reality of dying if i stepped off the parapet of a skyscraper. that is the extent of my incomplete wisdom, insofar as my inability to believe in God as much as i believe in the Nature that he created--the Nature which is so much closer to me than is God himself. i believe that out of the billions who claim to believe in God like i do, only a handful believe in God more than they do Nature, which God created. and somehow i feel that he only created Nature so that man might just at minimum choose to acknowledge his existence.
God is like the hand that flips the coin; each one of us are like coins that are flipped. except that we can choose how we land. he knows how we are going to land from the way we spin in the air, he knows your future, but that in no way determines it: he can describe your future for he is omniscient, or he can prescribe it, for he is omnipotent, but there would be no reason from him to prescribe your outcome--each one of us were given the chance to choose for a reason.
it just so happened that Nature is so good and so believable, that we single-track minded creatures with our imperfect eyes, noses, ears, tongues and skin, trust and rely on it so much and become blind and distrusting to things we cannot see, smell, hear, taste or feel with our hands.
to these unsensable things, we as simple, curious creatures, attribute eerie mystery to. we create fantastic words like probability, fate, and destiny because even when we know we cannot control everything, we have a human need to label the uncontrollable and therefore try to control it. these words are fantastic delusions because out there...there is a perfect physicist from the future, one that not only knows all but can do all. i call this scientist God. to him, there is no probability because everything is predictable to him. there is no fate or destiny for these only obey God's will. but then there is causality. causality obeys the will of God, man and flea.
why would God allow us to determine our own outcomes? because we would be no better than a stone on the hill that wastes away at the mercy of rain and wind otherwise. i seriously doubt that. i am definitely more important than a stone on the hill, because the stone wasnt given the power to deny its Creator.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
lend please
i think the most valuable gift i can offer someone is my time if not my words.
it is high insult to see my things thrown away like they did not cost me to give away.
i dont like receiving glory; neither does it mean i dont mind feeling cheap. quite honestly i dont think i am worth fighting for even to myself. i can deliver punishment, but if it is for my benefit, i cannot do it. yet i am worthy enough to be punished--by my own sick rule. who will lift me up?
i want to lift the fallen. i feel useful that way. but who will lift me up when i fall? hypothetical question--im not really asking; dont deserve to ask. i dont like to ask for something which i dont deserve. but if it were someone else, i think i would like to give. who else would want to give to someone who did not deserve to receive? but maybe i am just doing it in the hope that if i can give to those who do not deserve, maybe i, who do not deserve, will someday be lifted up as well. i surmise that it is my subconscious greed. am i deluded?
i keep saying to myself lend, but dont knock on doors on payday, meanwhile hoping that one day someone who thinks like me will chance upon my predicament and lend to me what i have lent away for free but now need, so that i wont suffer empty. sometimes i think there is not enough people around to make this work. what if i run out and theres noone out there to come down and rescue me?
i need to convince myself that if no one out there comes and lends to me for free, then one day when i am in need, God will appear on the appointed time and save me. otherwise i have only one option, that is to stop giving. but if i stop, who will lend for free?
it is high insult to see my things thrown away like they did not cost me to give away.
i dont like receiving glory; neither does it mean i dont mind feeling cheap. quite honestly i dont think i am worth fighting for even to myself. i can deliver punishment, but if it is for my benefit, i cannot do it. yet i am worthy enough to be punished--by my own sick rule. who will lift me up?
i want to lift the fallen. i feel useful that way. but who will lift me up when i fall? hypothetical question--im not really asking; dont deserve to ask. i dont like to ask for something which i dont deserve. but if it were someone else, i think i would like to give. who else would want to give to someone who did not deserve to receive? but maybe i am just doing it in the hope that if i can give to those who do not deserve, maybe i, who do not deserve, will someday be lifted up as well. i surmise that it is my subconscious greed. am i deluded?
i keep saying to myself lend, but dont knock on doors on payday, meanwhile hoping that one day someone who thinks like me will chance upon my predicament and lend to me what i have lent away for free but now need, so that i wont suffer empty. sometimes i think there is not enough people around to make this work. what if i run out and theres noone out there to come down and rescue me?
i need to convince myself that if no one out there comes and lends to me for free, then one day when i am in need, God will appear on the appointed time and save me. otherwise i have only one option, that is to stop giving. but if i stop, who will lend for free?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
angels
angel of the lord
a finger falls through the fabric of the wisping air;
the gusts cry calm--whispering behind fallen hair
of words of peace and songs of quiet sleep
pulling front and side: the ebb and flow of the firmaments deep
a stroke of the hand sweeps past
and all of the permanent become but of the past
powers and principalities descend upon the footstool,
by sword and stone making done and undone
all that was created and now reclaimed by the sound of a trumpet call
echoing in the valleys entrenching the face of all actions, the tears, the bitter gall
running high but never dry, the pulses of pain
coming once and again without fail, without blame, like sheets of rain
that come and wash away the bile that taints, the acids which spew
but they stand, steadfast guardians, the virtues and dominions they are not few
sent by a voice unheard yet loud like thunder
calling to home from the other side yonder.
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)