what am i

many people do not understand themselves, let alone the motives behind their words and actions. while it may seem very clear to them, while we consider that it is only natural for every man to think he knows himself best, surely not every man knows himself to the same degree.

now suppose a man chose to live in numbers instead of feelings, emotions and the unquantifiable, would not this logical, mathematical man be free of personal bias? less his preference for the impartial, would he be guilty of any other personal preference? he would be unswayable by argument as he would simply be a servant of numbers. while a normal man is conflicted by interests in himself, would not the logical man be the best judge of what is what?

how can we know best that a man is drunk? surely his own word weighs less than the word of the testing machine which has no personal interest. now if everything a man does or even does not do is measurable by an outsider, so would this outsider know of what is within the man. the act of understanding a man is reducible to a series of results from tests performed on his outward behavior, such that this new understanding of him would be more far more accurate (verifiable) than any statement he gives, even one of his own claims of self understanding.

there is one weakness to the methods of the analytical observer: that this observer knows only as much as the subject reveals, whether accidental or voluntary. yet because it is rare that a man cannot live without revealing his motives, the only man who can honestly claim that no one truly understands him, is a sociopath.

cut off

i almost forgot but i was reminded ..scenarios of conversations run through my head like an endless generator. i want it to stop but maybe i secretly don't. maybe it doesn't stop because i don't want it to stop. i don't want to know what to say or do. i just want to sleep. i don't want a solution. i don't want to hear any more conversations. i want silence. i want distraction. i need to rest

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...

on individualist anarchism

through reason i have found it tempting to abandon the leadership of man in countless occasions. through experience i have found it advantageous. through intuition i have found this to be one of the more fulfilling ways to live a life. now the thing is, as good as it may be to hold this perception of reality, there exists a dilemma which troubles me from sharing this philosophy with others.

the paradox lies within the concept that each man only truly understands himself best, and so there is no greater mortal leader walking this earth other than this man himself. therefore who am i to lead anyone to what is best for him, since i myself have abandoned concept of someone else knowing what is best for me?

yet just as i have struggled and taken hold of my right to liberty, so should it be availed to all that which i have found for myself!

trust

nobody cannot be hypnotised, in a sense that they cant be made to do things against their will--people can only be unethically betrayed by someone they trust.

now when people willingly allow someone to lead the way, much like how disciples trust their rabbi, how much responsibility is weighed on the followers and how much on the leader should one day all that trust evaporates and all become suddenly aware?

once upon a time they were proud to feel like acolytes of a just cause, but now merely puppets of an insidious manipulator. how easily can the perception of someone change when respect is lost? the truth is appalling yet important to learn early: a respected image is afforded glorious amounts of good intentions and bright perceptions. a disrespected image is easy target for all that is unworthy. there is delusion in both; not everyone is truly good--not everyone truly bad.

when we respect someone, we follow them every step of the way, like a compass. we follow them on the path and off the track. we continue following them even after they lead us into the pit. we dont continue to follow them after this simply because we trust them. we do so because we respect them. time has taught us that respectable people are people of good judgment, therefore we trust in those whom we respect. somewhere along the line people muddle this up and and end up trusting in those whom others respect or in whom we are told to respect. and because this respect was demanded by herd logic, that this respect was never earned, from the get-go, the trust was invoked upon false respect. that trust is nonsense on stilts...

when push comes to shove, when the stilts fall away and trust is threatened, there is no earned respect to prop everything up. when the follower asks himself "why did i trust that man?", he does not get an answer, because that trust was based on respect that was not earned...

i often think of people who blame God when things dont pan out. they question the land, they gaze at the sky and they shout at the sea for things that neither the land nor sky nor sea had a hand in influencing...finally they blame themselves, and they do so wondering why they put so much trust in what they put their trust in: "why God? why me?" these very people, i have realised, are able to blame God because they are convinced of their own blamelessness. they are unable to be accountable for their own decisions.

they are the people who ask for legal advice but fire the lawyer when things dont work out. they are the people who pay for tuition but fire the tutor when things dont work out. they are the people who elect the president but revolt when things dont work out. they are the same people who join the cult but persecute the leader when things dont work out. they are the people who be believe in God but blame Him when things dont work out.

yes they are the very same people who continue to trust blindly for the convenience of limited accountability. who are you influenced by, and to what extent do you truly trust that person to follow even beyond your own understanding?