when we roll a bunch of dice and they all end up on sixes, or any single number, we perceive it as a rare, special event. yet upon a preponderance of facts, we can also show, albeit tediously, that each possible outcome on each die is just as rare as any other. yet we cant help but wonder of cosmic intention when 'rare' things happen to us, like rolling 3 sixes, jackpotting the lottery, or even miscarrying a child. we just dont remember nor attribute significance to rolling a 1-3-5 or a 2-2-4, or even the number of times we bought a lottery ticket and thrown it away, or how common miscarriage actually is. but there is a rush to be felt when a triple-6 is rolled--this is usually an awesome thing in a typical dice game. and of course, winning a prize at the lottery is memorable--we only remember the things which matter.
so it is clearly part of the human psychology to seek answers and meanings when there almost always are none. without this awareness of memory bias, one could very easily be tempted into the theories of fate, destiny, deja vu or even synchronicity.
if we gave an infinite number of monkeys each a typewriter and have them bang at the keys, at least one would randomly bash out the entire work of Shakespeare verbatim. maybe in a string of an infinite number of random universes, ours is the one in which the elements were arranged just right, where entropy was low enough on just this region of space called Earth to qualify as life.
the fact that we are alive and made out of the very same elements which
form the deadest things in the universe goes to show how special we are. right? are we really? how can we claim we are special compared to 60kg of gasoline which contains so much more extractable energy than our own body?
not only do we think of objectively common events as rare whenever it suits us (such as winning $1000 for a betting on a random number), we also fail to see the importance of rare events whenever it doesnt suit us. it is precisely the ignorance to science that continues to chain so many of our people to the old ways of thinking--it is easier to be this way, say our human biases.
there is an entire universe out there for the scientific method to interpret but if only we could drop the psychological armor and constant need for meaning for a second we could see how things REALLY are--for its incomprehensible beauty that is beyond us.
Showing posts with label folly and wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label folly and wisdom. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
on history and what it has to offer
why is it that we know there is much to learn from history, yet we also know that we are doomed to repeat it? why do we look back at the past and pat ourselves on the back for our fortune today in individual liberty and accomplishment in social progress, yet fail to see the atrocities we commit today in the name of laws--the same ones the society of the future will pat themselves on the back for no longer having?
i have found a divide in people--one that separates the conservatives from the progressives and it is from my observation that the social travesties of history have always been perpetrated by the conservatives, compelling revolutions instigated by the progressives, and it is the perpetual wars of these two mental parties of humanity that have resulted in the cyclical nature of human progression and death (read: history) .
in the interest of order, consistency, security, conservatives have held on to rules, mores and laws that served them well in the past, yet grow ever obsolete in the changing times. status quo protectors form the resistance to diffusion and change, both bad words in the perspective of conservation. yet nature sees this differently, as do i: things merely and inevitably come to equilibrium over enough time, and it falls to the path of the progressives to accelerate this procedure, just as it comes under the conservatives to stall it.
but in this day and age of globalisation and the collective way, where should one place efforts in?
lets just say its easier to demolish a dam than to build one, and over time it is far wiser to spend energy on the former, because we all learn from the river of history eventually. perhaps the pessimistic fear inundation--i but wish for humanity to progress with as little hate and death as possible.
i have found a divide in people--one that separates the conservatives from the progressives and it is from my observation that the social travesties of history have always been perpetrated by the conservatives, compelling revolutions instigated by the progressives, and it is the perpetual wars of these two mental parties of humanity that have resulted in the cyclical nature of human progression and death (read: history) .
in the interest of order, consistency, security, conservatives have held on to rules, mores and laws that served them well in the past, yet grow ever obsolete in the changing times. status quo protectors form the resistance to diffusion and change, both bad words in the perspective of conservation. yet nature sees this differently, as do i: things merely and inevitably come to equilibrium over enough time, and it falls to the path of the progressives to accelerate this procedure, just as it comes under the conservatives to stall it.
but in this day and age of globalisation and the collective way, where should one place efforts in?
lets just say its easier to demolish a dam than to build one, and over time it is far wiser to spend energy on the former, because we all learn from the river of history eventually. perhaps the pessimistic fear inundation--i but wish for humanity to progress with as little hate and death as possible.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
zero sum
when people talk prosperity, more money, more things, a bigger house, a faster car--these are improvements that come over time as living conditions in a region improve over time. if we take a period of 50 years, or maybe even 20 years, most if not all regions will see some sort of financial prosperity.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
Monday, August 08, 2011
doctor you are wrong
when deadly affliction arrives, its easy to turn away from the doctor and his good recommendation, hoping he is wrong, while praying to God that He will do something instead. yet when we get a flu, or headache or chickenpox, we take both medication and instruction from the same doctor, knowing we will get better from it and we simply thank God that it was only chickenpox. it is a habit that the religious, the superstitious and the uneducated alike suffer with. which of them can deny that in difficult times, they only place all hope in their God because there is no one else to put it in?
a woman with certain religious values would be most conflicted in a time of ectopic pregnancy, where she would struggle to choose abortion, as opposed to carrying the foetus to term but risk her own life instead. it would be reasonable for this woman and her husband to see another doctor for a second opinion if they didnt like to the first one, but no doctor will ever forget to remind her that the final decision is hers to make. because the gravity of her situation exceeds her faith in not only her doctor, but also in her own ability to make a good decision, it is only at this point where she truly puts her faith in God. and because her faith was placed in the wrong order, no decision is made.
if the situation was simpler: dengue fever perhaps. does even the most religious man with dengue fever reject a doctor and say "I will pray instead. God will heal me."? even if one man were to do this, how far would his fever have to go before he finally says "Doctor, help me. I will pray after."?
a third scenario puts a man at the window of a burning building. he has to jump into the firemen's safety net 10 floors below. does not his faith in the ability of fire to burn and kill him compel him to jump? or does he ask God which choice to take, stay and wait or jump now. it is precisely because of his faith in real fire and ability to estimate his own chances of survival by jumping that helps him decide his course of action. God only comes into the picture after the decision is made, when the man leaps off the building and says in his heart, "God, help me."
in one scene similar to the first, where expert advice is available, suppose a boy is stuck at the edge of a cliff, both hands hanging to a vine for dear life. a helicopter arrives with a rescue worker suspended below it. the rescuer says "give me your hand." the boy is unwilling because his faith in his own two hands tells him he cannot release the vine even from one hand. the rescuer says "i am your rescuer. release your hand or i cannot save you." it is a combination of the immediate fear of death, and the present trust in this rescuer who speaks with confidence that motivates the boy to release the vine.
thus many times in life, at a tough point we refuse to make a decision because we cannot comprehend the urgency of it, and that we do not fully appreciate the value of advice coming from someone whom we should admit, knows alot more about the situation. it is the failure of understanding of both these concepts which causes us, in the time we need the most help, to reject it from the people who are most able to provide it, while telling ourselves it is all okay, because God will do something about it. at the end of the day, we dont make any decision with the false belief that we can do no wrong if we do nothing.
yet with our knowledge of today, is religion in the name of ignorance truly acceptable?
a woman with certain religious values would be most conflicted in a time of ectopic pregnancy, where she would struggle to choose abortion, as opposed to carrying the foetus to term but risk her own life instead. it would be reasonable for this woman and her husband to see another doctor for a second opinion if they didnt like to the first one, but no doctor will ever forget to remind her that the final decision is hers to make. because the gravity of her situation exceeds her faith in not only her doctor, but also in her own ability to make a good decision, it is only at this point where she truly puts her faith in God. and because her faith was placed in the wrong order, no decision is made.
if the situation was simpler: dengue fever perhaps. does even the most religious man with dengue fever reject a doctor and say "I will pray instead. God will heal me."? even if one man were to do this, how far would his fever have to go before he finally says "Doctor, help me. I will pray after."?
a third scenario puts a man at the window of a burning building. he has to jump into the firemen's safety net 10 floors below. does not his faith in the ability of fire to burn and kill him compel him to jump? or does he ask God which choice to take, stay and wait or jump now. it is precisely because of his faith in real fire and ability to estimate his own chances of survival by jumping that helps him decide his course of action. God only comes into the picture after the decision is made, when the man leaps off the building and says in his heart, "God, help me."
in one scene similar to the first, where expert advice is available, suppose a boy is stuck at the edge of a cliff, both hands hanging to a vine for dear life. a helicopter arrives with a rescue worker suspended below it. the rescuer says "give me your hand." the boy is unwilling because his faith in his own two hands tells him he cannot release the vine even from one hand. the rescuer says "i am your rescuer. release your hand or i cannot save you." it is a combination of the immediate fear of death, and the present trust in this rescuer who speaks with confidence that motivates the boy to release the vine.
thus many times in life, at a tough point we refuse to make a decision because we cannot comprehend the urgency of it, and that we do not fully appreciate the value of advice coming from someone whom we should admit, knows alot more about the situation. it is the failure of understanding of both these concepts which causes us, in the time we need the most help, to reject it from the people who are most able to provide it, while telling ourselves it is all okay, because God will do something about it. at the end of the day, we dont make any decision with the false belief that we can do no wrong if we do nothing.
yet with our knowledge of today, is religion in the name of ignorance truly acceptable?
Sunday, April 03, 2011
then i want to be a scientist
the humility of science is in its ability to be proven wrong; the beauty of it, its nature of only becoming more beautiful each time it is. the destruction of a part of science only adds to the whole.
as the sun rose from one horizon to set on the other, the scientists created models to understand this phenomenon, and found to their satisfaction, a mathematical equation to explain the movement of that great ball of fire as it orbited our world, the centre of the universe. it was a beautiful model, and it satisfied thirsts for understanding of the observable reality. we know what happened to that theory...
no, science is not always right. but think ahead: science is never truly right. looking back in history, we find repeatedly that science is, while never true at any one point, is also ever-changing, ever-improving, ever progressing. what i can be certain of however, is the fact that the Scientific Method affords us the best explanations for what is observable, in a manner that allows these explanations to improve our understanding of the world that we can experience with our senses. so the question arrives, 'why do we need to understand the world?' any man who has his food and shelter will eventually thirst for the intangible...that is to understand himself, his world, and his purpose.
the beauty of science is in its inherent ability to evolve upon its failures, each improvement making it more resistant to error, yet never immune to challenge. it is a beast that thrives upon efforts to take it down: a Nietszchean machine that cannot be killed, only made stronger.
science might well never be true, but because of how it is, it is damn well the closest thing to the truth that our minds can ever wrap around; when i say science can give us the best explanations, i therefore mean that it gives us answers that are most likely to be true. true or not true, if most likely true is the most one can get...
as the sun rose from one horizon to set on the other, the scientists created models to understand this phenomenon, and found to their satisfaction, a mathematical equation to explain the movement of that great ball of fire as it orbited our world, the centre of the universe. it was a beautiful model, and it satisfied thirsts for understanding of the observable reality. we know what happened to that theory...
no, science is not always right. but think ahead: science is never truly right. looking back in history, we find repeatedly that science is, while never true at any one point, is also ever-changing, ever-improving, ever progressing. what i can be certain of however, is the fact that the Scientific Method affords us the best explanations for what is observable, in a manner that allows these explanations to improve our understanding of the world that we can experience with our senses. so the question arrives, 'why do we need to understand the world?' any man who has his food and shelter will eventually thirst for the intangible...that is to understand himself, his world, and his purpose.
the beauty of science is in its inherent ability to evolve upon its failures, each improvement making it more resistant to error, yet never immune to challenge. it is a beast that thrives upon efforts to take it down: a Nietszchean machine that cannot be killed, only made stronger.
science might well never be true, but because of how it is, it is damn well the closest thing to the truth that our minds can ever wrap around; when i say science can give us the best explanations, i therefore mean that it gives us answers that are most likely to be true. true or not true, if most likely true is the most one can get...
Monday, February 14, 2011
intj part quatre
http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Introverted_Intuition
an almost obsessive trait of mine--the importance of being untainted by bias to obtain truth that cannot be shaken. any bias attached to a particular truth is a weakness to that truth. it is not obvious? i search for immovable anchors of truth because such are the only places worth the effort to find. i am motivated to do it because being wrong is a waste of time in many ways. it is also proof of poor judgment. do we not get ourselves educated to improve our judgment?
the world is filled with poor anchors such as simplistic explanations, overused arguments and positions taken for granted without proper understanding. it is easy to take sides in debates, but rarely does the participant appreciate the position he takes over the veil of weak assumptions held down tight by the rush of adrenaline from being in heated quarrels. why are you here? what is your argument? why are you arguing it? the digger you deep into yourself...
this explains the perpetual fact of my argumentative nature quickly transforming into the polemic style. many times i have gone into arguments coming out realising that when people get into disagreements about something, they are actually arguing about something else more fundamental. its fun to be one of the few who realise this. its not fun to know that people are wasting their time not realising that they are fooled by the very assumptions they adopt so readily.
so i am rarely impressed, and it all has to do with introverted intuition protecting me from too quickly internalising interpretations without first understanding them. this is skepticism in the purest form. this might lead me to reject many opinions especially ones that i have considered before, consequently giving the impression that i am never wrong or always right. on the other hand i already know that it is inherently fallacious to accept the popular opinion simply because it is popular. i already know the the Ni function is the least common of all the 8 jungian functions.
on one hand least deluded, on the other, most hated. such is the nature of nature.
INJs are typically concerned with finding an independent and all-encompassing perspective on whatever interests them, so they can see it without bias, without being fooled or led along by ways in which other interests have set things up, and without a merely partial understanding.
an almost obsessive trait of mine--the importance of being untainted by bias to obtain truth that cannot be shaken. any bias attached to a particular truth is a weakness to that truth. it is not obvious? i search for immovable anchors of truth because such are the only places worth the effort to find. i am motivated to do it because being wrong is a waste of time in many ways. it is also proof of poor judgment. do we not get ourselves educated to improve our judgment?
the world is filled with poor anchors such as simplistic explanations, overused arguments and positions taken for granted without proper understanding. it is easy to take sides in debates, but rarely does the participant appreciate the position he takes over the veil of weak assumptions held down tight by the rush of adrenaline from being in heated quarrels. why are you here? what is your argument? why are you arguing it? the digger you deep into yourself...
...you find yourself uncovering ever more and more hidden assumptions, and you feel the need to distance yourself from those, too, before you get your hands dirty or draw a conclusion.
this explains the perpetual fact of my argumentative nature quickly transforming into the polemic style. many times i have gone into arguments coming out realising that when people get into disagreements about something, they are actually arguing about something else more fundamental. its fun to be one of the few who realise this. its not fun to know that people are wasting their time not realising that they are fooled by the very assumptions they adopt so readily.
..you might feel very impressed upon meeting a man wearing a fancy Italian suit (signs call forth a natural response and need no interpretation); from an Ni perspective, you would consciously say to yourself that he's wearing an Italian suit and this is supposed to make you think he's wealthy or upper-class or really has his act together or something like that, and therefore is supposed to make you feel impressed (signs and what they mean are connected only arbitrarily). Whether he really does have his act together is a matter upon which you reserve judgement. Consequently you don't feel impressed.
so i am rarely impressed, and it all has to do with introverted intuition protecting me from too quickly internalising interpretations without first understanding them. this is skepticism in the purest form. this might lead me to reject many opinions especially ones that i have considered before, consequently giving the impression that i am never wrong or always right. on the other hand i already know that it is inherently fallacious to accept the popular opinion simply because it is popular. i already know the the Ni function is the least common of all the 8 jungian functions.
on one hand least deluded, on the other, most hated. such is the nature of nature.
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.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
on parallel lines intersecting with reality
how do we know that parallel lines do not intersect? the perpendicular distances between them at any point on either line are equal in all cases..but how can we be sure that the ends of the lines do not meet at infinity? yes, surely a physically drawn line can never be perfectly straight, just as any object existing in three-dimensional reality is not perfect. but consider simply the idea of a straight line, and then the idea of two such lines satisfying the colinear property...then those lines will never intersect--not now, not later, never even at infinity.
so then here lies the point of the issue--it is not possible for reality to match up to ideality, much like how the best execution of an idea will never truly fulfill it: that the truest form of reality, is not real.
everything we act upon with our human bodies, are but projections of perfect ideas existing in our human minds. with better methods, one can at best produce a favourable estimate, but never the realisation of what we think. when we think of triangles, we know they exist, because we can draw triangles. but few of us know that no one can truly draw a triangle, only a triangle simulade. yet because we have been drawing triangles for thousands of years, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have achieved such an idea. the corresponding delusion is that triangles do exist. in the fundamental sense...triangles do not exist--at least not in reality.
yet we are able to define what a triangle means: three straight lines, with each line intersecting the other two. we are able to form this definition of a triangle, only because we already possess knowledge of the idea of a straight line. continuing, we are able to form this definition of a line because we possess the knowledge of the idea of an interconnected series of dimensionless points..even though it is impossible to line up dots if each dot has no dimensions. straight lines cannot exist. yet we accept the idea of it, because it is useful (we can make triangles outta those! spiffy!).
therein lies the next point: we humans are really not concerned with what is real or unreal, but instead we accept anything that works. it has become a property of humanity that we define reality according to what is useful to us, not whether reality is real or not. this is the real reason for the existence of philosophers: we need them, because without them, we humans warp reality to our own faulty understanding of it. we need the philosphers to remind us that we are subjects of reality, not vice versa, as our repeated successes with controlling our environment has given us false confidence in.
yes, i think it is bad that we define reality as things that work for us. but there is one greater sin: defining unreality as things which do not work for us. this would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. eg, a particular fruit not being an apple is not grounds for claiming that an apple is not a fruit.
we have accepted the definition of a dimensionless point, even though we know they cannot exist. we have accepted the definition of a straight line, even though we know they cannot exist. we have also accepted the definition of the triangle, even though we know they cannot exist. we have done all this because the point, the line and the triangle are useful ideas. they exist, because we have defined them to exist.
so when the question arrives, "Does God exist?" we cannot prove the answer; we can only define it's usefullness. the debate on it is fruitless abandon to all participants not educated on their own delusions of what reality actually is. these men and women should not lie on the bed of truth thinking they can define reality simply because they can make definitions.
so then here lies the point of the issue--it is not possible for reality to match up to ideality, much like how the best execution of an idea will never truly fulfill it: that the truest form of reality, is not real.
everything we act upon with our human bodies, are but projections of perfect ideas existing in our human minds. with better methods, one can at best produce a favourable estimate, but never the realisation of what we think. when we think of triangles, we know they exist, because we can draw triangles. but few of us know that no one can truly draw a triangle, only a triangle simulade. yet because we have been drawing triangles for thousands of years, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we have achieved such an idea. the corresponding delusion is that triangles do exist. in the fundamental sense...triangles do not exist--at least not in reality.
yet we are able to define what a triangle means: three straight lines, with each line intersecting the other two. we are able to form this definition of a triangle, only because we already possess knowledge of the idea of a straight line. continuing, we are able to form this definition of a line because we possess the knowledge of the idea of an interconnected series of dimensionless points..even though it is impossible to line up dots if each dot has no dimensions. straight lines cannot exist. yet we accept the idea of it, because it is useful (we can make triangles outta those! spiffy!).
therein lies the next point: we humans are really not concerned with what is real or unreal, but instead we accept anything that works. it has become a property of humanity that we define reality according to what is useful to us, not whether reality is real or not. this is the real reason for the existence of philosophers: we need them, because without them, we humans warp reality to our own faulty understanding of it. we need the philosphers to remind us that we are subjects of reality, not vice versa, as our repeated successes with controlling our environment has given us false confidence in.
yes, i think it is bad that we define reality as things that work for us. but there is one greater sin: defining unreality as things which do not work for us. this would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. eg, a particular fruit not being an apple is not grounds for claiming that an apple is not a fruit.
we have accepted the definition of a dimensionless point, even though we know they cannot exist. we have accepted the definition of a straight line, even though we know they cannot exist. we have also accepted the definition of the triangle, even though we know they cannot exist. we have done all this because the point, the line and the triangle are useful ideas. they exist, because we have defined them to exist.
so when the question arrives, "Does God exist?" we cannot prove the answer; we can only define it's usefullness. the debate on it is fruitless abandon to all participants not educated on their own delusions of what reality actually is. these men and women should not lie on the bed of truth thinking they can define reality simply because they can make definitions.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
the unhypocrites part deux
the unhyprocrites, part deux, written 2-3months ago:
its so easy to point fingers isnt it? when i was 7 my chinese teacher said something in class about how pointing your finger at someone also meant having three of your own pointed at yourself. it seemed like a pretty cool discovery at the time, and i think i got the message. and then i forgot about it because i kept receiving the same visualisation from so-called wise people that i met along the next decade or so.
we people like to point our fingers at things unknown to us, things that make us uncomfortable. and if theres one thing ive observed in humans, its our aggressive requirement for security and reliability in our perceived reality. anything or anyone who threatened our bubble world would be pointed at and struck down by words, if not sticks and stones.
discrimination is a powerful tool--it is powerful not because of its efficacy but for its accessibility and widespread use. when two different groups are put together, their first impressions of each other are formed from firstly the gathering of similarities in appearance, behaviour, ideology. if none is found, then the notion of imminent mutual threat is quickly reconciled. i note that this threat is merely perceived at this point--not that it is cannot exist, rather that it is believed to be at this moment; whether the threat is real or not is inconsequential because a perceived threat is no more unreal than a truly existent one to a mind that is easily threatened. and people do all sorts of things when they are afraid. granted, in the civilised societies that earthlings have made for themselves, they no longer murder each other out of mass fear and hysteria. think kkk, nazi, salem, etc. how embarrassing it would be for all of them if i were an alien who came to this world and observed them and told them that they are just as barbaric as they were a century or two ago. if not in action, then in words, if not in words then in thought.
discrimination is a powerful tool, but its use is flooded by abuse. this tool is but a defense mechanism to increase the sense of security of life and limb of its user, who never knows the ugly side of it: this tool is a selfish tool. it increases our quality of life at the expense of another party. if my theory is right, then such use of this tool would lead to null progress for all mankind in general. i suspect if people were mature and selfcongnitive enough, they should realise this on their own eventually, that low-level defense mechanisms are animal in nature (kill or be killed). whosoever debases a person to increase his security does inadvertently makes himself into an animal which will always be lower than the lowest person.
people they think thoughts, say words, and do actions and they do all of it for self-preservation. they dont know this, so i cant really blame them anyway. but some really try and go out of their way to push people down and make them stay down. those i cannot forgive; those who take this terrible tool and use it, and claim divine instruction from religion--my religion, and so taint it with their human imperfections: who are they, with their own lacking human wisdom, to take from some 700 listed sins a few chosen ones and place them prominently against the rest, as if some sins are worse than others. who are they to then proceed to condemn their neighbours who are guilty of one of their chosen sins, when they themselves, the pointer of fingers, are guility of the other 699? is not the divine wage of any of those 700 the same? i know the punishment is the same, and that the penance for forgiveness is also the same for any and all of them.
like i said in part one, it takes one to know one, and until we find similarity with discomfort, we can never accept it as part of life, and by unfortunate virtue of our humanity, we will blindly try to eliminate that discomfort at the cost of our neighbours comfort, and because we are blind, also at the cost of our very humanity.
if by pointing a finger at someone makes all of us realise that we dont really like strange people, then i hope we also realise the second truth--that we are only doing it to regain lost security. and the third truth if possible, that both the danger and gained security are likely false, and that the discrimination was a result of personal hypocrisy. hopefully some will grasp the fourth, that as sentient beings we are capable of transcending animal instinct and so resist them just because we can--because there should be more meaning to life; to discover and exercise the reason for our sentience--raison d'etre.
if only mr loh told me this instead of his selfpointing idea, i would have believed him. but i was 7. and that age, anyone is likely to stop pointing if someone said to them that they were also pointing at themselves--after all, nobody likes to point at themselves. they only stop doing it because they realise they are also hurting themselves. seven year olds cant achieve a level three clarity. hey, cant blame them. but most forty seven year olds still dont. what gives?
there is happiness outside of the bubble world too.
its so easy to point fingers isnt it? when i was 7 my chinese teacher said something in class about how pointing your finger at someone also meant having three of your own pointed at yourself. it seemed like a pretty cool discovery at the time, and i think i got the message. and then i forgot about it because i kept receiving the same visualisation from so-called wise people that i met along the next decade or so.
we people like to point our fingers at things unknown to us, things that make us uncomfortable. and if theres one thing ive observed in humans, its our aggressive requirement for security and reliability in our perceived reality. anything or anyone who threatened our bubble world would be pointed at and struck down by words, if not sticks and stones.
discrimination is a powerful tool--it is powerful not because of its efficacy but for its accessibility and widespread use. when two different groups are put together, their first impressions of each other are formed from firstly the gathering of similarities in appearance, behaviour, ideology. if none is found, then the notion of imminent mutual threat is quickly reconciled. i note that this threat is merely perceived at this point--not that it is cannot exist, rather that it is believed to be at this moment; whether the threat is real or not is inconsequential because a perceived threat is no more unreal than a truly existent one to a mind that is easily threatened. and people do all sorts of things when they are afraid. granted, in the civilised societies that earthlings have made for themselves, they no longer murder each other out of mass fear and hysteria. think kkk, nazi, salem, etc. how embarrassing it would be for all of them if i were an alien who came to this world and observed them and told them that they are just as barbaric as they were a century or two ago. if not in action, then in words, if not in words then in thought.
discrimination is a powerful tool, but its use is flooded by abuse. this tool is but a defense mechanism to increase the sense of security of life and limb of its user, who never knows the ugly side of it: this tool is a selfish tool. it increases our quality of life at the expense of another party. if my theory is right, then such use of this tool would lead to null progress for all mankind in general. i suspect if people were mature and selfcongnitive enough, they should realise this on their own eventually, that low-level defense mechanisms are animal in nature (kill or be killed). whosoever debases a person to increase his security does inadvertently makes himself into an animal which will always be lower than the lowest person.
people they think thoughts, say words, and do actions and they do all of it for self-preservation. they dont know this, so i cant really blame them anyway. but some really try and go out of their way to push people down and make them stay down. those i cannot forgive; those who take this terrible tool and use it, and claim divine instruction from religion--my religion, and so taint it with their human imperfections: who are they, with their own lacking human wisdom, to take from some 700 listed sins a few chosen ones and place them prominently against the rest, as if some sins are worse than others. who are they to then proceed to condemn their neighbours who are guilty of one of their chosen sins, when they themselves, the pointer of fingers, are guility of the other 699? is not the divine wage of any of those 700 the same? i know the punishment is the same, and that the penance for forgiveness is also the same for any and all of them.
like i said in part one, it takes one to know one, and until we find similarity with discomfort, we can never accept it as part of life, and by unfortunate virtue of our humanity, we will blindly try to eliminate that discomfort at the cost of our neighbours comfort, and because we are blind, also at the cost of our very humanity.
if by pointing a finger at someone makes all of us realise that we dont really like strange people, then i hope we also realise the second truth--that we are only doing it to regain lost security. and the third truth if possible, that both the danger and gained security are likely false, and that the discrimination was a result of personal hypocrisy. hopefully some will grasp the fourth, that as sentient beings we are capable of transcending animal instinct and so resist them just because we can--because there should be more meaning to life; to discover and exercise the reason for our sentience--raison d'etre.
if only mr loh told me this instead of his selfpointing idea, i would have believed him. but i was 7. and that age, anyone is likely to stop pointing if someone said to them that they were also pointing at themselves--after all, nobody likes to point at themselves. they only stop doing it because they realise they are also hurting themselves. seven year olds cant achieve a level three clarity. hey, cant blame them. but most forty seven year olds still dont. what gives?
there is happiness outside of the bubble world too.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
personal questions
G201
h.c: so greg, on a scale of 0 to 10, how anal are you?
huh, zero to ten? thats like 11 datum points...normally its like 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. 1 to 3 is easy and at least the middle of 1 to 5 is a "3". but the midpoint of 0 to 10 is 5.5. would you accept a decimal answer? its so hard to visualise an 11. what if i feel that im only three quarters to completely anal? thats like eight-point-something. how to calculate? why your scale so weird one?
h.c: just say 11 la. (*)@#^
h.c: so greg, on a scale of 0 to 10, how anal are you?
huh, zero to ten? thats like 11 datum points...normally its like 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. 1 to 3 is easy and at least the middle of 1 to 5 is a "3". but the midpoint of 0 to 10 is 5.5. would you accept a decimal answer? its so hard to visualise an 11. what if i feel that im only three quarters to completely anal? thats like eight-point-something. how to calculate? why your scale so weird one?
h.c: just say 11 la. (*)@#^
Saturday, February 13, 2010
rules part deux
- the rate of progress of success in any group is seated in the ability of its leader(s) to discover the most efficient method
- some people appear to be more intelligent than the rest
- these people are bound to step up and lead in a group that has drive for said success
- enforcement of the most efficient method requires that the less intelligent obey the leaders
- hierarchy of command is sacrosanct to such enforcement, thus rules are made
- many rules are created to address specific aspects of group activity in order to optimise the usage of group-owned resources for the sake of a group-shared vision
- excessive rule creation is symptomatic of leadership that is obsessive in nature; however well intended such obsession is...
- it is tantamount to oppression of a higher class upon a lower class,
- a failure of man that is not caused by the concept of rules but simply revealed by its large scale employment
- likelihood of psychological revolution to occur is a function of the number of rules sanctioned and the intelligence of individuals constrained by those rules--it is a matter of time.
- intelligent subordinates begin to question the rationale of some rules and upon analysis discover them to be ironically, but assuredly irrational.
- the discovery of one bad rule encourages the scrutiny of another, and another, and yet another...
- until it is realised that most rules are bad, insofar as they place in higher priority a small progress for the group at the disproportionate expense of the individual constrained by those rules
- the revelation that not all rules are equal posit the possibility that rules cannot be absolute, derived from the premise that man-made rules are made by man (5.) and that man is far from perfect (9.)
- by extension, rules are only as fit as the creator of those rules
- and since a fit creator may make unfit decisions
- all rules must be scrutinised by the individual regardless of the level of his own intelligence with regard to the leaders'. ie, no matter how stupid you think you are or how smart you think your leader is, skepticism pays.
- such scrutiny should be performed to produce at minimum, sound raisons d'etre for those rules.
- if said rationale may be achieved through other means, then the rule may be disregarded, for it is an incompetent rule. if no better means may be found, then the rule, though bad, is rightful in existence, and should be followed.
- disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain
- complete regard for rules will indefinitely yield group gain, at definite personal cost
- complete disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain at definite and great group cost
- thus the fairest position for both person and group is to minimise all costs--by way of choosing which rules to follow and which rules to disregard
- minimisation is a feat for the intelligent; fairness is a feat for the ethical
- so while all rules are bendable, only some people are fit to bend them
Monday, January 11, 2010
fate
we are special creatures arent we? the only animal that has not only the physical capability but the mental capacity and a definite history in choosing to kill others of its own species for no reason similarly applicable to the rest of the living kingdom. the only animal that, also on the above premises can choose to sacrifice itself for some greater purpose, again an unknown concept in the rest of the animal world
dictionary calls it good and evil. i call it choice. choice or the hand of God: if you chose to slap your college professor and did, was your criminal assault God's plan? if you chose to set fire to a house and did, and four children died in the smoke and ruin, was your arson and homicide God's plan? if you chose to fly a jetliner into a skyscraper and did, and three thousand people perished, was your mass murder God's plan? if you chose to lead your nation into a new world order of one sole superior race by exterminating millions as means to that end and did,...i can go on with scenarios of sequentially increasing bodycounts, but i neednt. this is where most would take the easy road out and answer safely "yes, it was all part of God's plan."
choice is a divine power that the Creator bestowed on us, a power used for even the most meagre dilemmas such as which sauce to put on your Subway sandwich, the very same power to reckon with the weight of the world, such as the finger that rests next to the red button that launches 5500 nuclear warheads across hemispheres. people have this biased perception of God's omnipotence and omniscience, such that He is the reason for all the good things displayed of humankind, but not the bad things. people neglect to use the same wording, but instead call it part of His Plan. if i asked ten people if God planned for me to choose honey mustard for my cold cut trio, id get weird stares and no useful answer. but if i asked them if God planned the holocaust, suddenly i am taken seriously, but expectedly id get ten answers to the tune of God not having been the one who planned it but having it in His plan, or some similarly cheap semantic trick to conveniently relieve God of responsibility for the ugliest photographs of our past.
before you misunderstand me for blasphemy, i think the only thing God is responsible for is having created us with the express permission to deny Him. every single one of our actions from the ones that seemingly make no discernible impact to the world, to the ones that change the universe as we know it on a daily basis--those actions, we are solely and completely responsible for. that must be the case, for if it were not, we cannot reasonably nor fairly be put next to the pulpit on judgment day and weighed and measured at the doors of hell and sent to eternal damnation for unforgiveable evils committed in subservience to the vice-grip of destiny. neither can God come up to our side and greet us at the Gates and say "My son, my daughter, you have made me proud and are worthy of being by my side for the rest of eternity" if our acts of goodwill were of His own doing in the first place.
i believe that God simply made the paper but gave us the pen, for there is little meaning in life for us or even for Him creating us if He simply wrote all the books and had us individually narrate them to him, from prologue to la fin. yes, i can agree that God has a vision for each and every one of those stories; i understand this to be the truth behind what preachers would tell you in church: God has a plan for you. but i also understand that His plans dont always pan out because people either gave up writing, or threw away their pens, or wrote lies, or tore out the pages, or drew ugly pictures, or had bad handwriting or they simply chose Satan to be their editor instead. neither fate or destiny determined the endings to any one of those stories. pure choice. God gave adam and eve that power. and guess what, He gave you that power, why deny your God-given potential by claiming subordination to an unknown force that the defeatists are so familiar with?
if destiny/fate determined a fixed end point in your life, then destiny/fate must also be the decider of whether you end up in heaven or hell for eternity. hell was created for a reason, and as such there will be occupants. ie, if some people end up in hell, and fate controls all endings, then some people are fated to end up in hell. so i ask now: how might it irk you to consider that there are some people on this earth or even some yet to be born onto it who are fated to go to hell? what a lachrymose image: from before the moment you were born God already planned for some of you to end up burning in sulphur and brimstone for the rest of eternity!
outrageous. if all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players, then God is not the director; He is the audience.
dictionary calls it good and evil. i call it choice. choice or the hand of God: if you chose to slap your college professor and did, was your criminal assault God's plan? if you chose to set fire to a house and did, and four children died in the smoke and ruin, was your arson and homicide God's plan? if you chose to fly a jetliner into a skyscraper and did, and three thousand people perished, was your mass murder God's plan? if you chose to lead your nation into a new world order of one sole superior race by exterminating millions as means to that end and did,...i can go on with scenarios of sequentially increasing bodycounts, but i neednt. this is where most would take the easy road out and answer safely "yes, it was all part of God's plan."
choice is a divine power that the Creator bestowed on us, a power used for even the most meagre dilemmas such as which sauce to put on your Subway sandwich, the very same power to reckon with the weight of the world, such as the finger that rests next to the red button that launches 5500 nuclear warheads across hemispheres. people have this biased perception of God's omnipotence and omniscience, such that He is the reason for all the good things displayed of humankind, but not the bad things. people neglect to use the same wording, but instead call it part of His Plan. if i asked ten people if God planned for me to choose honey mustard for my cold cut trio, id get weird stares and no useful answer. but if i asked them if God planned the holocaust, suddenly i am taken seriously, but expectedly id get ten answers to the tune of God not having been the one who planned it but having it in His plan, or some similarly cheap semantic trick to conveniently relieve God of responsibility for the ugliest photographs of our past.
before you misunderstand me for blasphemy, i think the only thing God is responsible for is having created us with the express permission to deny Him. every single one of our actions from the ones that seemingly make no discernible impact to the world, to the ones that change the universe as we know it on a daily basis--those actions, we are solely and completely responsible for. that must be the case, for if it were not, we cannot reasonably nor fairly be put next to the pulpit on judgment day and weighed and measured at the doors of hell and sent to eternal damnation for unforgiveable evils committed in subservience to the vice-grip of destiny. neither can God come up to our side and greet us at the Gates and say "My son, my daughter, you have made me proud and are worthy of being by my side for the rest of eternity" if our acts of goodwill were of His own doing in the first place.
i believe that God simply made the paper but gave us the pen, for there is little meaning in life for us or even for Him creating us if He simply wrote all the books and had us individually narrate them to him, from prologue to la fin. yes, i can agree that God has a vision for each and every one of those stories; i understand this to be the truth behind what preachers would tell you in church: God has a plan for you. but i also understand that His plans dont always pan out because people either gave up writing, or threw away their pens, or wrote lies, or tore out the pages, or drew ugly pictures, or had bad handwriting or they simply chose Satan to be their editor instead. neither fate or destiny determined the endings to any one of those stories. pure choice. God gave adam and eve that power. and guess what, He gave you that power, why deny your God-given potential by claiming subordination to an unknown force that the defeatists are so familiar with?
if destiny/fate determined a fixed end point in your life, then destiny/fate must also be the decider of whether you end up in heaven or hell for eternity. hell was created for a reason, and as such there will be occupants. ie, if some people end up in hell, and fate controls all endings, then some people are fated to end up in hell. so i ask now: how might it irk you to consider that there are some people on this earth or even some yet to be born onto it who are fated to go to hell? what a lachrymose image: from before the moment you were born God already planned for some of you to end up burning in sulphur and brimstone for the rest of eternity!
outrageous. if all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players, then God is not the director; He is the audience.
Friday, January 01, 2010
manifesto 2010
oh look, its 2010, just two years from apocalpyse. while each from the rest of humanity eagerly writes his/her new year's resolutions and then not follow them up with the necessary resoluteness (as usual), i figured id come up with a more enjoyable waste of time. here's a list of things which i hope people will resolve not to do this year. or rather a list of things things which i have decided people should no longer say in 2010, since the following have overstayed my welcome in the 21st century vernacular:
1. "Needless to say, ..."
ok if its needless to say then there should be no need to say it anyway. stop saying it. srsly. damn dulan. krrrrr.
2. "Basically, ...", "Essentially, ...", "Fundamentally,..."
in decreasing order of annoyance level. my doctor said to me while looking at the sphygmomanometer "basically, mr chua, you have hypertension. essentially it means your blood pressure is above normal...so you need to take things easy for now. fundamentally this is indication o-mr chua! mr chua are you ok?" NO I AM NOT OK YOU IDIOT I AM FOAMING AT THE MOUTH.
3. "You know,...", "..., you know, ...", "... you know."
"i was like, you know that guy right, he was like, you know, looking at me all funny like my eyeliner was smudged you know!" no i dunno. i dont want to know. stop telling me. shut up.
4. "My two cents"
ok im guilty of this one last year. i promise not to use it in 2010. its a very irritating phrase. its almost as if stating the value of your opinion as $0.02 would encourage people to listen to you since 2cts > 1ct and we all know we hate it when the Econ auntie gives you 1-cent coin in your change. cb. one day i will collect 180 of them and buy my Coke Zero© with it and see how you like it.
5. "...of sorts"
"The chef took the ingredients and whipped up a delectable concoction of sorts." "The characters in this painting project an unusual feeling onto the viewer, producing an eerie feeling of sorts." this one makes me FURIOUS. you only use of sorts because you are too lazy to come up with a competent description. use dictionary.com. no wait, go flip through a real dictionary you lazy bastard (bitch, if female. *delete if not applicable).
6. "... ad nauseam."
ill explain this one once im done vomitting.
7. "aLtErnAtiNg cAPS. vEwwwy coOlz wOrxzxz T_T ;) @_@"
what not to say when online. anyone not guilty please lick your elbow? all guilty. please dont do that. solve singapores ageing population by having more children not acting like them.ok? thXz ;p ^.^
8. "Unprecedented."
9/11 was unprecedented. its been bloody 9 years since then. every cock and bull story on the news since then has been called unprecedented. unprecedented is when journalists find a new word to use when they are surprised. meanwhile, tomorrow's straits times headline, OIL PRICES SOAR ABOVE US$82:FINANCE MINISTER CALLS INCIDENT "OHNOES SMLJ?!"
eight should do the trick. three would already take monumental effort for some people. so i hereby invoke my will and place the morsels of my integrity upon these eight daring examples of things i will refrain from in 2010.
additionally, i will also give up sarcasm for the entire year. hahah, right.
1. "Needless to say, ..."
ok if its needless to say then there should be no need to say it anyway. stop saying it. srsly. damn dulan. krrrrr.
2. "Basically, ...", "Essentially, ...", "Fundamentally,..."
in decreasing order of annoyance level. my doctor said to me while looking at the sphygmomanometer "basically, mr chua, you have hypertension. essentially it means your blood pressure is above normal...so you need to take things easy for now. fundamentally this is indication o-mr chua! mr chua are you ok?" NO I AM NOT OK YOU IDIOT I AM FOAMING AT THE MOUTH.
3. "You know,...", "..., you know, ...", "... you know."
"i was like, you know that guy right, he was like, you know, looking at me all funny like my eyeliner was smudged you know!" no i dunno. i dont want to know. stop telling me. shut up.
4. "My two cents"
ok im guilty of this one last year. i promise not to use it in 2010. its a very irritating phrase. its almost as if stating the value of your opinion as $0.02 would encourage people to listen to you since 2cts > 1ct and we all know we hate it when the Econ auntie gives you 1-cent coin in your change. cb. one day i will collect 180 of them and buy my Coke Zero© with it and see how you like it.
5. "...of sorts"
"The chef took the ingredients and whipped up a delectable concoction of sorts." "The characters in this painting project an unusual feeling onto the viewer, producing an eerie feeling of sorts." this one makes me FURIOUS. you only use of sorts because you are too lazy to come up with a competent description. use dictionary.com. no wait, go flip through a real dictionary you lazy bastard (bitch, if female. *delete if not applicable).
6. "... ad nauseam."
ill explain this one once im done vomitting.
7. "aLtErnAtiNg cAPS. vEwwwy coOlz wOrxzxz T_T ;) @_@"
what not to say when online. anyone not guilty please lick your elbow? all guilty. please dont do that. solve singapores ageing population by having more children not acting like them.
8. "Unprecedented."
9/11 was unprecedented. its been bloody 9 years since then. every cock and bull story on the news since then has been called unprecedented. unprecedented is when journalists find a new word to use when they are surprised. meanwhile, tomorrow's straits times headline, OIL PRICES SOAR ABOVE US$82:FINANCE MINISTER CALLS INCIDENT "OHNOES SMLJ?!"
eight should do the trick. three would already take monumental effort for some people. so i hereby invoke my will and place the morsels of my integrity upon these eight daring examples of things i will refrain from in 2010.
additionally, i will also give up sarcasm for the entire year. hahah, right.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
karma chameleon
so this has been at the back of my head keeping me up till 3 and staring at the ceiling for the past 4 days. need to write this down once and for all so i can sleep tonight.
it seems like the hindu cycle of causation is being taken too literally nowadays, such that altruism as a potentially rewarding way of life is reduced to a bastardised teaching of giving to get. that somehow there is a cosmic auditing company keeping tally of our thoughts and actions, and adding up their value in supposed virtue is already quite dubious. that we are to accept that our futures yet unwritten are dependent on the dividends of our deposits in those karmic accounts is bordering on ludicrous.
assuming even that the concept of karma is sound, it has never even been taught in hindu scripture that all our supposed dues be paid in the same lifetime. in fact it has been explicitly stated that that is impossible--that one lifetime is simply too short for one to experience all your karmas, and as such some will overflow into your next life and by extension any supposed fortune or misfortune befalling you today might and very likely have been due to actions from a past life.
of course now we are to acknowledge the concept of samsara. which if i did, i'd hope i wouldnt be a roach in my next life because id hate the way i walked, smelt and looked. i'd find the nearest Baygon canister and eat the nozzle.
but then i'd just be reborn as a human eventually, with no knowledge of past lives but somehow still under the crux of my past lives; a fucking curse i say. assuming i then became a devout hindu and followed the teachings of gautama buddha to the T, racking up a bitchin' list of good deeds, it would all have been for someone else, who according to the samsara is actually me but according to honest opinion is really fucking somebody else. and that fucker better be a nice guy too lest my next life be weighed down by the heavy hand of the cosmic PriceWaterhouseCoopers,LLcP (limited liability cosmic company). obviously the concept of causality in samsara was conceived as a/an dis/incentive. really now, are we supposed to be good for the sake of others' happiness or our own? this kind of crap really fucks with my head keeps me awake at night.
then the vedas talks about exiting the curse of the infinite cycle by attaining nirvana which i would liken to having a bafunkajillion orgasms simultaneously but also consecutively in a time period of negative infinity. and we will achieve nirvana when we finally accept our situations and wish for no more of impermanent things, like money, fame, power etc. ahh conformism really sums it up: wanting what we think everyone else wants. chameleons of the same colour.
funny how karma encourages its own perpetuation and destruction, that on one hand it ensures the propagation of the samsara knowing people are inherently sin abounding, and on the other hand challenging them to transcend the wheel of fuck...which is mindblowing considering if everyone was nirvanic,
HOW THE HELL CAN WE CONTROL THEIR ACTIONS WITH THREATS OF BAD LUCK NOW?
it seems like the hindu cycle of causation is being taken too literally nowadays, such that altruism as a potentially rewarding way of life is reduced to a bastardised teaching of giving to get. that somehow there is a cosmic auditing company keeping tally of our thoughts and actions, and adding up their value in supposed virtue is already quite dubious. that we are to accept that our futures yet unwritten are dependent on the dividends of our deposits in those karmic accounts is bordering on ludicrous.
assuming even that the concept of karma is sound, it has never even been taught in hindu scripture that all our supposed dues be paid in the same lifetime. in fact it has been explicitly stated that that is impossible--that one lifetime is simply too short for one to experience all your karmas, and as such some will overflow into your next life and by extension any supposed fortune or misfortune befalling you today might and very likely have been due to actions from a past life.
of course now we are to acknowledge the concept of samsara. which if i did, i'd hope i wouldnt be a roach in my next life because id hate the way i walked, smelt and looked. i'd find the nearest Baygon canister and eat the nozzle.
but then i'd just be reborn as a human eventually, with no knowledge of past lives but somehow still under the crux of my past lives; a fucking curse i say. assuming i then became a devout hindu and followed the teachings of gautama buddha to the T, racking up a bitchin' list of good deeds, it would all have been for someone else, who according to the samsara is actually me but according to honest opinion is really fucking somebody else. and that fucker better be a nice guy too lest my next life be weighed down by the heavy hand of the cosmic PriceWaterhouseCoopers,LLcP (limited liability cosmic company). obviously the concept of causality in samsara was conceived as a/an dis/incentive. really now, are we supposed to be good for the sake of others' happiness or our own? this kind of crap really fucks with my head keeps me awake at night.
then the vedas talks about exiting the curse of the infinite cycle by attaining nirvana which i would liken to having a bafunkajillion orgasms simultaneously but also consecutively in a time period of negative infinity. and we will achieve nirvana when we finally accept our situations and wish for no more of impermanent things, like money, fame, power etc. ahh conformism really sums it up: wanting what we think everyone else wants. chameleons of the same colour.
funny how karma encourages its own perpetuation and destruction, that on one hand it ensures the propagation of the samsara knowing people are inherently sin abounding, and on the other hand challenging them to transcend the wheel of fuck...which is mindblowing considering if everyone was nirvanic,
HOW THE HELL CAN WE CONTROL THEIR ACTIONS WITH THREATS OF BAD LUCK NOW?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
the smell of life
when i was 9 our science teacher asked us..."do smells have weight?"
i shouted "well milady, apparently you have not experienced my fart, which carries with it the full force of a runaway train. tell me if that doesnt have weight." well i didnt really say that. wish i did. instead i was perplexed into deep stupor. i still remember her condescending smirk laced with a couple of those smug chin lifts and corner-of-the-eye lookdowns. ya la ya la u smart la. atas bitch.
and the truth eluded me for years--because the answer could not exist. the question was...inherently flawed. suppose if we were to ask ourselves, 'do smelly things have weight?', the answer would be obvious. yes, even supermodels' gym clothes weigh something, even if the ladies themselves dont.
and then any uneducated simpleton would challenge "yes smelly clothes have weight but does the smell of smelly clothes weigh anything?" tersely put, ammonia (or hydrogen sulphide--the stuff of which legendary farts are made--i know my farts ok) molecules DO have weight. realise then that we had just started swirling down a different drainpipe because this answer is still not compatible with the original question.
"yes smelly clothes have weight and the ammonia molecules that make it smelly have weight but does the smell of smelliness of smelly clothes weigh anything?"
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! DIE! SHUT!!!
at this point i hear a click in my head (no, not aneurysm bursting). can i apply this question to our other senses? do images have weight? do tastes have weight? do sounds have weight? then i ask the fifth and the last and realise how terribad the question really is--do tactile feelings have weight? eureka. of course they dont. things we experience have weight. the experiences themselves weigh nothing.ss
so why is it that i believe that my memories are worth more to me than anything material? why does failure and regret feel so heavy? why is it that i believe i would never trade my experiences, including and especially all the bad ones, for tons of money, good looks and a restart on life with a blank, wiped slate? if im lucky i'll have an answer in 12 years.
i shouted "well milady, apparently you have not experienced my fart, which carries with it the full force of a runaway train. tell me if that doesnt have weight." well i didnt really say that. wish i did. instead i was perplexed into deep stupor. i still remember her condescending smirk laced with a couple of those smug chin lifts and corner-of-the-eye lookdowns. ya la ya la u smart la. atas bitch.and the truth eluded me for years--because the answer could not exist. the question was...inherently flawed. suppose if we were to ask ourselves, 'do smelly things have weight?', the answer would be obvious. yes, even supermodels' gym clothes weigh something, even if the ladies themselves dont.
and then any uneducated simpleton would challenge "yes smelly clothes have weight but does the smell of smelly clothes weigh anything?" tersely put, ammonia (or hydrogen sulphide--the stuff of which legendary farts are made--i know my farts ok) molecules DO have weight. realise then that we had just started swirling down a different drainpipe because this answer is still not compatible with the original question.
"yes smelly clothes have weight and the ammonia molecules that make it smelly have weight but does the smell of smelliness of smelly clothes weigh anything?"
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! DIE! SHUT!!!
at this point i hear a click in my head (no, not aneurysm bursting). can i apply this question to our other senses? do images have weight? do tastes have weight? do sounds have weight? then i ask the fifth and the last and realise how terribad the question really is--do tactile feelings have weight? eureka. of course they dont. things we experience have weight. the experiences themselves weigh nothing.ss
so why is it that i believe that my memories are worth more to me than anything material? why does failure and regret feel so heavy? why is it that i believe i would never trade my experiences, including and especially all the bad ones, for tons of money, good looks and a restart on life with a blank, wiped slate? if im lucky i'll have an answer in 12 years.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
the glass
water in a glass. air in a glass. weve all heard of the pessimist and the optimist. just two--perhaps too simple and elegant? :)
and said in a way to inspire optimism in the many who have
chanced upon this nugget of wisdom, by making the pessimist sound ridiculous. ahh..but whatever was so bad about the ability to anticipate the worst, save for the possibility that it might eventually be all one ever could see? willful blindness: an extreme scenario; and i could say the same for unguided optimists.
but now im just getting hung up on another false dichotomy, because we really are a world of many and while
the optimist might say "your glass is half full",
the pessimist would say "your glass is half empty" and
the enviromentalist would say "is your glass recyclable?" while
the philosopher would say "your glass of water is tecnhically not really there", followed by
the communist, who would say "your glass is actually our glass". but
the polemicist says "there is no issue with the glass. it has always been about the cup". to which
Lara Croft would say "my cups are Double D". not forgetting
Ris Low, who would say "your glass is half boomz and half shingz" and
the engineer who would readily inform that "your glass needs ╥*r²*(H-x) more water". next,
the jaded man who says "fuck your glass" and
the feminist who says "your glass is a phallic contruct. i refuse to answer this question" as
the buddhist says "in my past life, i was a glass of water". so
the singapore govt would say "we shall take our shit and our piss and treat it and pour it into your glass" right before
Chase says "dun care what water... your glass A-list anot?" and quickly after,
the Marxist would shout "your glass is the symbol of oppression on the water which is the working class" and
the fascist, "your glass is half of whatever I tell you it is" and then of course what we imagine
Jesus would say: "your glass overfloweth."
amen.
and said in a way to inspire optimism in the many who have
chanced upon this nugget of wisdom, by making the pessimist sound ridiculous. ahh..but whatever was so bad about the ability to anticipate the worst, save for the possibility that it might eventually be all one ever could see? willful blindness: an extreme scenario; and i could say the same for unguided optimists.but now im just getting hung up on another false dichotomy, because we really are a world of many and while
the optimist might say "your glass is half full",
the pessimist would say "your glass is half empty" and
the enviromentalist would say "is your glass recyclable?" while
the philosopher would say "your glass of water is tecnhically not really there", followed by
the communist, who would say "your glass is actually our glass". but
the polemicist says "there is no issue with the glass. it has always been about the cup". to which
Lara Croft would say "my cups are Double D". not forgetting
Ris Low, who would say "your glass is half boomz and half shingz" and
the engineer who would readily inform that "your glass needs ╥*r²*(H-x) more water". next,
the jaded man who says "fuck your glass" and
the feminist who says "your glass is a phallic contruct. i refuse to answer this question" as
the buddhist says "in my past life, i was a glass of water". so
the singapore govt would say "we shall take our shit and our piss and treat it and pour it into your glass" right before
Chase says "dun care what water... your glass A-list anot?" and quickly after,
the Marxist would shout "your glass is the symbol of oppression on the water which is the working class" and
the fascist, "your glass is half of whatever I tell you it is" and then of course what we imagine
Jesus would say: "your glass overfloweth."
amen.
Friday, October 30, 2009
folly in the black and white
which came first, the chicken or the egg? isnt it funny that nobody asks "which came first...egg or the chicken?". maybe that's really not important. what is is that creationists answer: the chicken and that evolutionists say: the egg (the first chicken on earth hatched from an egg that wasnt laid by a chicken).
us silly humans... always looking for a way to categorise the world into discrete packets of understanding. people tend to forget the great continuity of our universe and its infinitely many shades of grey between the black and the white. we cant possibly classify every known object and/or concept into its own category--that's a paradox; neither can we take everything and draw a line to split them in twain. but that's what's been happening with civilisation lately, or maybe its a just a late observation.
bad questions have since the beginning been the basis for endless debate filled with poison and ill logic, where each struggling side finds refuge only in demonising those of the other. people find beauty in simplicity and accord grand worship to its apparent elegance. whats underneath is but terrible ugliness in the unnecessary reduction in the terms of all such discussion. should the death penalty be abolished? should gays be allowed to marry? creationism or evolution? is terrorism ever justified? euthanasia? does singapore need freedom of expression? questions like this with the ability to plague the fabric of society have also always carried the option of the reconciliating answer, such as, for one of them, the postulation that Adam and Eve were really...just monkeys that gave birth to better and better looking descendants.
trivial attempt at conflict resolution? or could it just have been a trivial conflict to begin with?
one born from the simplicity of human mentality. primitive thinking--that everything must be one or the other, reduced to the great binary theory of everything, that social and economic freedom must mean anarchy and that social and economic restriction must mean facism, that you must be against me because you are not with me, that you are my enemy because you are not my friend, that you hate me because you dont agree with me, that i must be cursed because i am not blessed, that i am ugly because nobody told me i am beautiful, that i am a failure because i have not succeeded.
but even a coin with two sides shall one day land on its edge, every battle, a possibility to result in stalemate. and every rainbow be seen to have more than seven colours and every question worth asking be receptive to more than two answers, and every fool, know the ability in him to open his own eyes to the greyscale in a world so caught up with the folly of black and white .
us silly humans... always looking for a way to categorise the world into discrete packets of understanding. people tend to forget the great continuity of our universe and its infinitely many shades of grey between the black and the white. we cant possibly classify every known object and/or concept into its own category--that's a paradox; neither can we take everything and draw a line to split them in twain. but that's what's been happening with civilisation lately, or maybe its a just a late observation.
bad questions have since the beginning been the basis for endless debate filled with poison and ill logic, where each struggling side finds refuge only in demonising those of the other. people find beauty in simplicity and accord grand worship to its apparent elegance. whats underneath is but terrible ugliness in the unnecessary reduction in the terms of all such discussion. should the death penalty be abolished? should gays be allowed to marry? creationism or evolution? is terrorism ever justified? euthanasia? does singapore need freedom of expression? questions like this with the ability to plague the fabric of society have also always carried the option of the reconciliating answer, such as, for one of them, the postulation that Adam and Eve were really...just monkeys that gave birth to better and better looking descendants.
trivial attempt at conflict resolution? or could it just have been a trivial conflict to begin with?
one born from the simplicity of human mentality. primitive thinking--that everything must be one or the other, reduced to the great binary theory of everything, that social and economic freedom must mean anarchy and that social and economic restriction must mean facism, that you must be against me because you are not with me, that you are my enemy because you are not my friend, that you hate me because you dont agree with me, that i must be cursed because i am not blessed, that i am ugly because nobody told me i am beautiful, that i am a failure because i have not succeeded.
but even a coin with two sides shall one day land on its edge, every battle, a possibility to result in stalemate. and every rainbow be seen to have more than seven colours and every question worth asking be receptive to more than two answers, and every fool, know the ability in him to open his own eyes to the greyscale in a world so caught up with the folly of black and white .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)