Philosophical Rambling

The following was originally intended to be an email, but towards the end of it, I realized that it would probably just overwhelm them, as was mostly intended for self-edification. so I decided to put all this rambling together as a th3g1vr.com post, since most of the stuff here is, like it or not, for my own self-edification too anyway…

It’s rambling for the most part, but here’s some good news for the (likely non-existent) subscribers to my blog: this post is a sneak peek of at least 5 posts which, although I can’t guarantee I’ll post by today (assuming I do have subscribers, they would know how inconsistent my posting time-frame tends to be), but I will definite post at some point, and without a doubt within the month.

Note: At the time of writing this post, I am a bit confused regarding the relationship of subjectivity to objectivity. So keep in mind, when I use the words, although I am referring to the philosophical usage, I have applied my own meaning to it, and that meaning is destined for a harsh evolution, so take that particular part of this post “with a grain of salt”.

I believe that how we perceive other people- their thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc.- and how we perceive the thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc. of God– or for that matter, of anything that we perceive, or potentially can perceive as sentient, or even anything we perceive in general, are not how those things actually are, but ourselves reflected off of those things.

now that was pretty much me trying too hard to fit a lot of information into one sentence. so let me break it down:

In the simplest of words, I believe that it’s impossible to know the objective reality of anything or anyone. But that really is beside the point- because the point is Why it is impossible: that is (in my view) because what we perceive to be objective reality (although perception is [in my view] always subjective– how we perceive things [the nature of our own perception, as determined by ourselves] is always objective– this is in fact why I believe subjectivity and objectivity to be self-cancelling paradoxes)

–perhaps I could better explain this with an analogy: Why is the sky blue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation

it’s pretty much because most of the light scattered (reflected back) in the atmosphere has a short wavelength (450-495 nm)

Color	Wavelength
violet	380–450 nm
blue	450–495 nm
green	495–570 nm
yellow	570–590 nm
orange	590–620 nm
red	620–750 nm

during sunrise and sunset, and certain phenomena, other colors are shown, not because the wavelength ratios change, but because

light has the travel farther than short (i.e. blue) wavelengths can reach. interestingly enough, this would imply that such phenomena as aurora borealis would require an extremely high amount of balance between the different wavelengths, which makes it nothing short of amazing!

also of interest (on this topic) is how similar plants are in regards to light: while plants are usually greenish in color (due to the green pigment generated by chlorophyll) in the fall many plants change into a variety of colors– the reason for this is because the chlorophyll “runs out”, essentially making plants “naked”– but I can’t help but see the similarity, in that things being “stretched too far” results in the skewing of our perception.

I consider this concept one of my universal principles, meaning that has a theoretically infinite amount of potential applications:
to make such an application to our own perception of things- or more importantly, of sentient, or perceptively sentient beings:

In the same way that while we perceive the sky as being blue, it only appears that way because that most of the light reflected is within the blue wavelength of the spectrum– everything we perceive, regardless of whether our perceptions and reality coincide–

these perceptions are not reality, but reality reflected back to us. that is, our perceptions of things is the product of how we react when reality and us come into contact.

although it’s impossible to know what reality is, it is possible to know a great deal about ourselves- thus, we potentially have control of at least half of objective reality, and possibly more than that, depending on the actual nature of reality (i.e. if reality is largely intuitive, and it is possible to have psychic abilities (which in my opinion include witchcraft, psychic, meditation, hypnosis, prophesy, general intuition, etc; I will explain this in detail in future posts, which ideally I will write today).

thus, if as person is depressed, objective reality, and thus the only reality that we can be aware of, will change– I have occasionally be so depressed that the colors of Willow Glen change so much that it is completely unrecognizable– I have also been so disillusioned that I could not even recognize myself. I didn’t understand the latter until now, and- knowing now the nature of these things, I’m sure that other people have had similar experiences.

so what then, is subjective reality? when I ask that question, I’m clearly not asking for a textbook answer, although that might shed light of an actual answer. In the past, I have said “knowledge is power”, and written about it in several posts, but over time, knowledge has come to mean such that this might no longer be accurate. see, if knowledge is what I write, than it is power, but not for those who read it, but for I who writes it. that is because, although those who read it might know it, they do not understand it, and so that knowledge is useless. thus, what I write is not for others benefit as much as for my own. To apply the Epistles of the New Testament (although I’m paraphrasing) unless there is an interpreter, praying in tongues is not for the benefit of the church, but for self edification. (the original verses are 1 Corinthians 14:1-19)

thus, when I write, although it is my desire that others might benefit from it, ultimately it is for self-edification. ideally, all of such self-edification will be limited to blogging, that I might reserve my more emotional yearnings for those that might be important to me, and I to them.

But in regards to subjective reality, I’ve finally come to an answer: subjective reality exists, but its existence is, in the same way of tongues or my own blogging, only for our own benefit. To understand this, I appealed to the basics of mathematics, or the very least, algebra. Mathematics, and algebra in particular (I don’t know much of the nature of the higher levels of mathematics, but I imagine that calculus is even more abstract.)

so in other words, subjective reality is an abstract existence, an illusionary construct we created (or, like language, became intuitively aware of) in order to understand objective reality. If it is the latter (intuitive awareness of) as I believe it to be, would that not imply that subjective reality exists? it depends on whether existence requires perception (i.e. if a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?) but I think it also depends on if you agree with the controversial opinions first asserted (historically speaking) *I can’t remember who, and can’t find who it was right now*– “nonexistence is a particular”– that is, “non-existence” exists.

but what is the nature of non-existence, if it “exists”? I think that, like variables are in mathematics, “non-existence” exists only as an abstract object, and thus only “subjectively”, so that we might understand “existence” I think it is in this way that everything exists and its opposite, if only abstractly. What reality actually is- that’s besides the point– if God wanted us to know it, or if it was something we should know, we would. there is definitely a reason for why we perceive things the way we do, and for me that reason is because such a perception fulfills God’s will for us.

but getting back to the point (for the umpteenth time– and surprisingly umpteenth turns out to be a word) perhaps it would be better to concentrate not on objective reality, but on objective perceptions of other people:

our perceptions of other people, regardless of whether they coincide with actual reality, are reflections of ourselves, and the product of our contact with others. that premise in mind:

who other people are, at least as far as objective reality is concerned, are essentially who we are, not who they are. Or more accurately, they are a representation of part of who we are- that part being the one that exists only at the moment of a particular moment of contact, and only when in contact with each certain variable (environmental factor). Because there are theoretically infinite factors, and theoretically infinite moments, that means that what we call “the identity” is an illusion, presumably supported by intuition- that is, because God has given us that “knowledge” so that we might have an identity.

I am of the opinion that God does not have a logical identity (something that is infinite cannot logically have an identity, because- being all that is, there would be no standard by which to establish ones identity; although we have certain certain standards of God- these are not who God is, but who we perceive him to be– furthermore, most of those standards are the inevitable natural result of God’s status as the creator (i.e. because he is the creator, he decided what is true, what is right, and what is wrong– etc., so it’s impossible for him to lie on sin, because he’s the one that established those standards in the first place- even if he were to lie or sin, it would not be lying or sin, because the moment he did it, his doing it would render it true and righteous, because he’s the one who judges those things in the first place.)

If that is the case, it’s likely that God created us so that he might work through us, thus having an identity. so indirectly we are God, in that we are God’s identity. Of course, such a role is in par with someone that has temporarily assumed a role (i.e. acting Commander in chief) in that we are easily replaceable– but this does help me to understand why God, and infinite (and thus presumably perfect) being, would create us. After all, at least from our perspective, something is not created unless there is a need to create it, meaning that God needs us. I can’t easily accept religious perspectives on the nature of God point-blank, partly because I have a great concern for the nature of God. it’s my own ego yes, but that also helps me understand who I am, because I am after all made in God’s image, and thus am a reflection of God.

ps. “made in God’s image”– brings up the visual of a person looking in a mirror so they know what they look like– I can’t help but think that those verses support my thoughts above.

but if, in the same way, our perceptions of others are a small part of a reflection of who we are (in the same way as we each reflect a small part of who God is), then knowledge of oneself can only accurately be obtained by understanding (or in my case, analyzing) the nature of each such connection, and the nature of the reaction, as well as the source of each such connection– and not only of those between other people and ourselves, but also of all environmental factors, including nature, society, culture, and even animals and inanimate objects. that is, to understand ourselves, we must not only study who we are as an isolated variable, but also who we are as determined by our connections, reactions, of the causes of such connections with all aspects of reality that can potentially be deemed relevant.

note that the identity, and in particular God’s lack of, is only measurable in the way explained above logically–which has inevitable limitations due to the lack of logical comprehension of God– that is, God is for the most part illogical..from my perspective, he is primarily intuitively known. if that is the case, then God may intuitively have an identity, but because intuitive knowledge comes from God, our knowledge of God is limited to what he tells us. but what we do know intuitively is what God intends for us to know, to fulfill his purpose for us. thus, because I know that most of what I write is largely intuitive, the fact that it conflicts with traditionally-held Christian beliefs, tells me not that I am misled, but that God’s purpose for me requires such differences….after all, it is not for us to judge whether or not a person’s beliefs are right– we can only guide others according to what we believe, and trust in God to lead us according to his purposes.

God is your friend

After not going to church for a while and on top of that renouncing Christianity, a couple months ago I finally started going back to church, and was surprised at how easy it was to. I had decided that I would start going back to church once I had gotten to know myself well enough to offset any discomfort (even when I was still a Christian, the reason I stopped going in the first place was discomfort- which was itself caused by some things that had happened in the past). But I didn’t think that my efforts paid off this much.

Once I started going though, I once again became aware of the single-minded thinking of much of the Christian community (though the college group is much more open-minded)– to me, this is ironic considering the emphasis on the “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” approach. It seems to me that many Christians do not take into account what it means to have a relationship with God- or rather, why bother calling it a “relationship” if the meaning of a relationship with God cannot be related to friendships with mere mortals. Although my relationship hasn’t been too good lately (Fear is keeping me from “experiencing God”), I do know what a relationship is.

Using myself as an example- there are many people that know me, but- for whatever reasons, they all know me a bit differently, and some a lot differently. In relationships of all kinds, and especially in friendships, this is natural. Part of the reason why is because different people (or want) friendship with the same person for different reasons- we all have different needs.

That is, who we are is not limited to how we perceive itself (although that might logically seem most accurate), who we are is that and also how others perceive us. This is explained quite thoroughly in the last couple episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion. So if we have a relationship with God, that would of course mean that God is different, and in many cases much different in the eyes of different people. Although there is a true God, and that God knows everything about himself, if he is our friend then we do not know how God perceives himself, but only how we perceive God.

The interesting thing about this- is that to contend that any single person’s understanding of God is wrong, is the same as saying that how someone knows me is wrong. If God’s understanding of himself is most accurate, then my understanding of myself is most accurate, but what good is that to other people. If we are in a relationship with God, then “God” is who we perceive him to be, not how we actually is. Since God’s will is always done, how we perceive him is how, for one reason or another, how he wants to perceived- just as we might act differently (subconsciously in some cases) around different people to appeal to different needs, and thus achieve the desired feedback. Or conversely, we act as we are expected to by others to give us an identity (which normally I do not do)

Although it might be considered blasphemous to think it, there is the possibility (and one I tend to favor) that God created us with freewill to give himself an identity. If we truly have friendship with God, that entails interdependence- which means that not only do we need God, but God needs us. It’s quite ironic that Christians would validate my own (otherwise controversial) theories about God, without even knowing what their words mean. Perhaps “friendship” has a different meaning when it concerns God, but if so, why use it.

One of the aspects of my theory is taking into consideration the fact that God is infinite, and something that is truly infinite cannot be distinguished from itself. That is, if God is infinite, he would not be able to recognize himself, since there would be no end by which to appreciate- a big blob. To recognize himself, God must to some degree limit himself, and thus become finite. I would go deeper into the aspects of infinity that support these assertions, but I have to some extent already in previous posts, and I’m starting to get a headache as things become “infinitely” complex. Who we know as God is not God- for if it was then he would not be God, because God is infinite and thus cannot be known. God as we know him is a paradox, and so it would appear he cannot be known.

But when we refer to “knowing God”, we are not talking about having knowledge of God ourselves, for if we did we would be God. Then again, confusing as it already is at this point, God (IMO) does not know himself, being infinite. Perhaps God both knows himself and does not. In my more controversial theories, God “as we know him” is both Satan and God, and through the interactions of these two infinitely opposite forces, God achieves appreciation of himself, and we of him. That would of course require redefining Satan, but from my current thought (which I’ll detail in future posts) God has a natural advantage to Satan, because God’s essence is Positive (Creative) whereas Satan’s is Negative (Destructive). While destruction has no intelligence, creation does- that is God’s advantage. I’ll also detail my reasoning of this later on.

But in either case, it’s important to keep in mind that if we are to truly have a relationship with God, we should accept the fact that in such a relationship, everyone will know God differently.

Misfit

I haven’t written for a while (again), partially due to personal issues, and also because I’ve been thinking about enough different things that by the times I’m satisfied enough to write it all down- it will take the form of several milestone-class posts. In fact, only a small portion of this post is based on these thoughts- the majority was thought up within the last couple days, or sitting dormant for several years. *you’ll see what I mean by “dormant”*

A wise man once told me, “about 80% of all communication is body-language.” My immediate thoughts on this (which I vocalized) were “If that really is the case, then I’m missing out big-time!” To be honest, when he first said it, I thought it was a hyperbole— it was a bit disconcerting to realize that that might really be the case- after all, I am incapable of reading most body-language.

But thinking about it now, it makes sense. Most of communication between individuals is by means of culture. As I’ve  briefly gone over in the past, Culture is basically made up of two things: expectations, and those who live according to them. The group of people can be any size, depending on the common interests of the culture– from global culture (the largest unit), to a clique (the smallest unit).

In any culture, expectations are an inevitable and crucial prerequisites to identifying with one- that is because expectations are the foundation of any culture, of a necessity of any civilization. One such expectation that is believe to be what enabled civilization to exist- is farming. At some point nomads settled down and took the risk of starvation, trusting in the expectation that the crop will grow. Although nomadic culture existed prior to that, and still exists (i.e. homeless people), civilization requires culture, and by extension expectations. For a person to be identified with a particular culture, they must meet those expectations- which are more specific in cliques, and more loosely-defined in a broader range of people.

Of the expectations of culture, most are not said directly, but instead communicated through body-language. This is because, among other reasons, those of a particular culture group are expected to already know– Those who don’t know already don’t need to know, since they are not part of that culture (not meeting the expectations). If we are not part of a culture and want to be, we must either figure it out on our own, or directly request info on that culture from someone who is part of it. Although this does make communication more efficient, I think that the primary reason things work this way, is also unsaid- that is, because it’s unnatural and overcomplicated to interpret everything to be understood universally.

This is where, for me, the problem lies: Although smaller cultures are optional and and specific, global culture is universally mandatory for anyone who identifies as human, and is collectively known as “common knowledge“. I cannot read most body language, and so my common knowledge is limited to what I have taken the initiative to learn– which in turn means that if I do not even know about the existence of something, I am not even capable of learning it unless someone tells me, or I find out about it by chance.

People that have similar problems are those with Asperger’s Syndrome, which in turn is sometimes synonymous with the stereotypical geek. Although I do not know if my own issues fit well even in Aspie culture, the lack of ability to read body language has adversely affected me, in that because most expectations are communicated through body language, and other culture-specific methods, I am unable to appreciate, or even be aware of the vast majority of expectations that other people have of me.

In my previous thoughts concerning what other expected, and expect of me, and how that impacted my own expectations (our own expectations are the cumulation of others- we do not (usually) gain more complete independent expectations until adolescence), I decided that it was because my family had very little demonstrated expectations of me. This perception was also based on the fact that my dad avoids confrontation of any kind, and tends to communicate passively- that is he rarely spells out anything directly, implying his preference instead of asserting his will. Aside from the fact that I spent most of my adolescence (the most crucial period for developing expectations) with people that (from my perspective) had more demonstrated expectations of me, I’ve realized a much more pressing concern:

If, as it appears, about 80% of communication uses body-language and other culture-specific methods, that means that I am completely oblivious to 80% of what is expected of me, and thus cannot appreciate, acknowledge, or (most importantly) apply and benefit from the vast majority of what is expected of me. Considering that, prior to adult-hood, our thinking is more simplistic and we are more easily influenced, such a deficiency would have a drastic impact of the development of individual expectations.

In fact, in my entire life, the expectations that this wise man had of me, and communicated directly so that I would know in its entirety– It seems to be the first time I felt that anyone expected anything of me. That is, prior to that, I was aware of many expectations that people (in particular institutions, like school and work), but expectations cannot be appreciated logically or even empirically, but must be known, (quoting The Matrix), “you just know it, through and through”.

This is very unfortunate, because expectations are a crucial aspect of not only culture, but essentially every aspect of interpersonal relationships. A person without expectations cannot develop [reciprocal] friendships, and their ability to love is limited and imbalanced.

Expectations are also a necessity in mustering motivation for any task that does not immediately accomplish the goal(s) one might work toward. This can be understood by applying the Triangular Theory of Love, developed by Robert Sternberg:

Love can be split into three primary aspects: Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment. as I will explain in future posts, these correspond directly the Sigmund Freud’s Id, Ego, and SuperEgo (in that order- the Id being our source of passion, Ego of intimacy, and SuperEgo of commitment.

The SuperEgo seeks to improve upon itself or others, which in turn requires change.

*note: as I will also explain in future posts, the SuperEgo may conversely seek to destroy itself or others– this is because, just as “the means” (the shape and quality of what is accomplished) is determined by the Id (level of passion/ desire), Ego (level of security/control) and SuperEgo (level of expectations), “the ends” (the ultimate result) can either be creative or destructive. Although religions tend to assert that good and evil are objective, I think subjective would be more accurate- but regardless of whether of the nature of their existence, it would be more accurate to think of good and evil as “creative and destructive”, because not only are there things that appear creative to some and destructive to others, but to some extent, creating anything requires destroying other things, and destroying anything requires creating something else- this is a natural consequence of change, which is why all change has risks.

In other words (The following describes the consequences first of the creative SuperEgo, then of the destructive SuperEgo BTW.):  To progress in the future requires digressing from the past, and to digress in the future requires progressing (emphasizing) the past (FTR progressing the past sounds a bit confusing, which is why we use “regress” to describe that).

If commitment is achieved through expectations, any long-term goals are impossible without oneself and/or others having the expectation that the goal will be accomplished, and of course the individual(s) the goal concerns must be aware of those expectations. I find it interesting (and very surprising) to realize that friendship does not require expectations- that is, a person doesn’t need to be important to be a friend. In and of itself, the level of friendship is dependent on the level of intimacy (since friendship is the product of intimacy), and intimacy, in and of itself, is motivated by the Ego- that is, the need for security and control. When I previously defined friendship, I was too idealistic about it- “true friendship” as we know it is produced from reciprocal fulfillment of the need for security and control (intimacy), that is complimented by reciprocal fulfillment of the need for expectations. So interestingly enough, my previous thoughts regarding friendship (see my Love post) although harsh and oversimplified, were more accurate than I had thought. “True friendship”, according to the Triangular Theory of Love, is the product of “Companionate Love”.

But here’s the crucial dilemma (and the original intended focus of this post): How should one (i.e. myself) go about living life if they expect very little of themself, and do not know (and thus cannot appreciate or benefit from) what others expect from them?

Well– actually, come to think of it, there is a dilemma that is far more severe, and the worst part about it is that I know just how hopeless it is:

I believe that, in accordance with balance, to change any characteristic of oneself, it requires the same amount of effort (be it conscious or subconscious) that was put into developing those qualities to neutralize them, and twice the effort to develop qualities of the opposite nature. To put into context– History demonstrates how, in spite of centuries of research and experimentation with various treatments, in most cases the success rate for correcting homosexual attraction is either 0%, or close to it. Since homosexuality is not genetic (if it was it would have died out over 4 millennia ago), it must be behavior. My explanation for why sexual behaviors are so (impossibly?) difficult to treat is because sexual desire is the first type of behavior to develop in life, beginning with the first love (normally the mother) *note when I say “sexual”, I’m referring to libido. To clarify- Those who conform of Freud psychology believe babies are pure Id- they know they want, but know not what they want (Ego) or how to get it (SuperEgo).

Freud introduced the controversial notion that human development is ultimately motivated by sexual desire (and due to complications in justifying the theory, became a major enemy of feminists (see Penis Envy), so that leads me to believe that “libido” could also mean simply “desire”- but it makes more sense to me by putting it like this: Id is the part of our consciousness motivated to gain back what we lost. Thus, from a broader perspective, desire is born out of a need to regain something which, even if only in our own mind, we once had in some form. Considering the simplicity of a baby’s mind (and their life in general), after weaning is completed, the primary thing to get back is obvious.

With gays this would not (normally) apply- so, from what I can tell, the desire (and thus the gay attraction) normally originates in an early childhood memory. That is because the earlier the attraction originates (memories), the more years of effort (in the form of desire) have accumulated in that direction, making change virtually impossible (not only would you have to have to desire to change, but the change cannot occur until present desire accumulates to match and exceed the total amount put in the past.

The dilemma I have now, is that in my entire life up till now, I was not aware other the vast majority of others expectations, and so I was not able to appreciate or benefit from them, and behaved as if very little was expected of me. It’s very likely that I gave a bad impression of myself as a result, and my natural talents and love of acquiring and sharing knowledge did not impress people around me as it would have if I had met, or at the very least acknowledged all their other expectations. I did not realize this until relatively recently, and did not understand it until now– but now that I know this of what good is it to me? It’s not a simple feat, after all, to undo and redo 20 years worth of living, and even if I could accomplish it, would it really be worth it? Even if I am a misfit, I’m satisfied with myself, which really doesn’t give me any motivation for such an aspiration the first place. Before I could begin such an endeavour, I would first have to know what is expected of me in the first place, and I wouldn’t even know where to begin with that!

In the End

In Linkin Park’s song of the same name (yes this is another homage to them), they express their feelings regarding the aftermath of a failed LTR, right? Well, that might be the superficial message, but as I explained in Dear Diary, there is another underlying message- which in this case is a metaphor of the journey of life, or- more importantly, not taking anything for granted, as especially not the amount of potential we each have. Since I saw the underlying messages of Hybrid Theory prior to listening to Reanimation, I was stoked when I realized that many of the songs in Reanimation, in addition to the obligatory remixing, explained the underlying messages. I have a feeling it’s more fan service to those who already knew, because those who didn’t might not even see the connection. Well, maybe the “ignorant aren’t as stupid as I think :P- so who knows.

The message in “In the End”, is, in addition to “don’t take life for granted”- No matter what the outcome is, the journey itself is more important. What we’ve learned in life proves to be invaluable, and thus of far more worth than material gain, “perfection”, or anything else. This also means that mistakes are what makes life worth living. The Ends doesn’t justify the Means, and the Means doesn’t justify the Ends, because both are irrelevant. The Journey itself is all that really matters in the long run. That’s the message, in fewer words, they [Linkin Park] were trying to convey.

That’s also a lifestyle which has defined my whole life, although I didn’t *know* it till recently. I think in many ways, I was living life the *right* way long before I knew what was right, as if I was being guided by God, spirits- use your imagination…(!) I’ve learned (to word things a bit differently) that what’s really important is not *what* we decide, the decisions we make, or the outcome of these decisions- be it good or bad. These things are trivial in comparison to the importance of knowing why we ourselves made those decisions. That is, motivation is what is most important.

As I said in Pride, “we exist to find meaning”, and that meaning is in our motivation- because without motivation, which is in turn ultimately driven by pride, “we are nothing”. That is, we cannot learn from our mistakes unless we know why we made them, and we cannot help others with their problems unless both of us know why the problems exist. I have written a few posts that were inspired by the troubles of a certain co-worker, but I did not until recently consider that I could not help them until I knew the source of their problems. Well, I was looking for the source, but in all the wrong areas. I was thinking circumstantial, when I should have been looking life. Once I considered that they had perhaps not learned from their mistakes because they did not know what the mistakes were- it became clear: they were immature. I will detail this in a future post, probably named “Immature”, but don’t expect it too much :P

I have spent so much time these past couple years trying to get to know myself- an unrelenting obsession. Although I was doing it for myself, I had no idea how much that the problems in the world, and lack of success of people can be directly attributed to people not knowing themselves. most people assume they do, and/or allow other people to take that responsibility, when those very people don’t know themselves either. In other words, it’s the Blind leading the Blind– a one-way ticket to hell-on-earth, to hyperbolize.

I’ve always considered myself the “unconventional” type, but really, what is convention? If convention is merely a signature characteristic, then I just have more unique conventions than most. One of these conventions is doing or saying things that I know are radical, unusual, controversial or just-plain-stupid. The reason why is not because I want to look like an asshole, dunce, or know-it-all, but so that I can find out why things are the way they are- what the motivation behind traditions, “common-sense”, “do-not’s”, etc. is. I want to know, even if it means getting hurt (actually, I’m jaded to pain by now). Just the other day, I pedaled my bike to full-speed, then slammed on both breaks simultaneously, in from of a parked vehicle. I knew it was dangerous, but I wanted to find out exactly why. I knew I would fall, but that wasn’t important. It was a very exhilarating experience- the bike did a full 180* flip- and luckily I didn’t get a scratch. The bike was fine too, although the light was completely busted.

Every once in a while I come across an opportunity which a voice inside tells me is fate. When that happens- it’s quite magical, because it’s almost like I have power over the future. The first instinct was to go along with fate, but after thinking about it a while, I realized that fate does not exist to decide life for us, over even to give us the decision. Fate exists so that we do not take life for granted. Fate exists, so that we can recognize why we made the choice- that’s the gift God has given us. The only thing we can’t control is destiny- for all of us it’s the same- pretty simple: we die.

So not every time I see fate reveal itself, I thank God (though I don’t know who or what “God”, or even if he “is”) for the opportunity given me, to not just make the choice, but understand why I made it.