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.

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!

Ulterior Motivation

This post took a lot out of me, and it was confusing to sort it out- so even though I’m only writing it out now, I actually thought up the majority of it a while ago. I actually had another post that I’ve been wanting to write (collectively) for ~4 months, but kept forgetting what it was about. that post would have been called “Confusion”, but in retrospect it seems that this post is in large part the culmination of that thought, so this is definitely a milestone post (milestone posts- which I’ll probably create a category for since they’re the most important ones, I designate based on two factors: (1) a cumulatively large amount of time was put into the thought for it [~2+ months] and (2) determined to contain breakthrough-level insights to the point that it signifies a major step towards truth/etc.

As I have acknowledged in previous posts, motivation is my greatest philosophical obsession. Recently, ulterior motives, due to their nature, became extremely intriguing to me. My thoughts regarding it climaxed when I developed the premise: “Every decision we make has potentially infinite ulterior motives.” I myself began to intensely self-analyze the motivation of my own decisions, to uncover and understand my own ulterior motives. While this premise might seem exaggerated to say “infinite ulterior motives”, please note that this follows the same reasoning as my proof that God doesn’t exist– which is that even if there were a limit, we would not know what it was, where it was, or how it might be defined. Also to be considered is that “we” cannot be defined with certainty either, for this same reason.

But this left me with quite the dilemma: how should I proceed from here, since evidently there are no right or wrong answers. To add to this, I have an innate desire, like all self-aware humans (We all have the innate desire, but for those humans that are not self-aware, that desire lies dormant; similar to the notion we all innately possess the potential for any sexual orientation. to perfect myself- which in essence means that every choice is wrong, because it’s not possible to make the right choice. That is, even though there are no right answers, there is still the potential for one, and I have an insatiable urge to find that which I know I cannot. In summary, motivation, being infinite, is a paradox.

For example, I can easily receive SSI (Supplementary Security Income), and doing so would be the most logical condition, considering what I want to do with my life. All the things that I want to do require nothing but time, and myself- I know I can do anything I want to, and the plan would be the succeed, and pay back every last penny when I have gained sufficient status that I could easily live independently. In other words, SSI would be an investment. I know I could do it, but this is where ulterior motives come into play: Why would I feel the need to do all these things? What is the meaning of it? Just to say I did it? That kind of motivation is shallow, and meaningless. I thought I would do it to get out of my Comfort Zone, but to what end? Why should I need to prove these things to myself? Is it society’s programming? In either case, it is a drawn-out, empty plan. Perhaps I just can’t stand simplicity, but I don’t think I could be satisfied with something like that. Don’t I want to improve my sense of responsibility? My ability to plan? Is there any reason why I want to, besides the fact that it’s considered a good trait? If there are no right answers, why put effort into anything?

I have all these questions flying at me, confusing my ability to reason. Whatever I do, it’s never good enough. I’m becoming quite the existentialist- how ironic, considering I just found out about it in philosophy (I actually don’t remember hardly any of it in class, but apparently I started becoming an existentialist quite before that, ~6 months ago writing a (still untyped) post titled “The Meaning of Life”. Then I found out a couple days ago from my brother that my thoughts in that (untyped) post are the same as Nietzsche– which was flattering.

From the look of things, it’s impossible to truly know or understand our motivation for anything, which would make any attempts to determine ulterior motives futile. But I feel that it’s important to understand them as best as I can, at least for those things that are most important. It may be a meaningless obsession, but in some ways I live for meaningless obsessions :P

But one thing that it’s probably best I don’t speculate over is whether or not something is “society’s programming, because even if it is, it’s for good reason (even if I can’t appreciate that reason), and there would be no way to know for sure in most cases. In these cases, we should just do the best we can with what we have, and only change the way we think when necessary. *Although only a debian/ubuntu/etc. user could appreciate this example*: It’s true that there are packages we don’t need, and packages we may need in the future. But if we act based on the mere possibility, we are more than likely to waste time and effort, and destroy the operating system (of which I’ve have more than enough experience :P ) i.e. *”if it[society’s programming] ain’t broke, don’t fix it!*

Although more understanding may be born of speculation on ulterior motives, it would “never end”, so the priority should be low, lest life itself transform into a formless blob amid the torrent of motives.

Reverse Psychology

As hinted by the slowing in the amount of posts I’ve been writing (especially considering I was supposed to write considerably more, since there are about 50 posts that I have already written but not typed!), I have been in a state of great confusion. After having done so much, gotten so far, I have enjoyed the happiness that goes with looking down on the valley from whence I’ve come, while I myself am nearing the plateau, surrounded by clouds and fog. But with that happiness has come much negativity, these mixed feelings resulting in a mildly chaotic chaos. I believe that I have, to an unknown extent, the ability to see the future, or to be more precise, my future.Although I have a few examples of this, that is not really the priority, but it is something to look back on. When I get around to it though, I’ll add these to my living contradiction page, but FTR that page will be soon changed to this one: unique qualities. In my Essence of the Soul post, I conveyed the main character as having certain feelings, and going through certain surreal experiences– this came at a time where I had given up, and then restarted work on the book, finding new inspiration. Not long after restarting, for the first time I realized the true power of writing fiction- what I wrote were not words that I had any say in, they just came into being, flowed into my mind. It was as if I was merely writing the story that I was told. This is how true masterpieces are written I think- the true power of writing. I believe this is how the Bible was written- and *note I believe the Bible to be true. Although I call it fiction, I think truth is found in everything- fiction is how we convey truth that exists outside the physical world- fantasy, spirit, gods and demons- these are things that we cannot explain directly because they are not physical. Fiction is simply the metaphor of truth, that’s what I believe.

Of what I wrote, of which I did not understand, much of it I have felt these past few weeks, and just as in the book, these feelings have continued to grow, almost akin to an expanding throbbing. I have felt much confusion, and suffered because of it. I know I must make a decision, and I know which decisions are possibilities, but I don’t know which one to make. That is because I don’t know what I want, or rather, I desire too much, and have been overwhelmed by my insatiable amount of desires- thus the state of confusion.

Perhaps I foresaw this- no, I’m sure on some level I did- it really started when I was still living with my aunt. The time that it started happening was definitely puberty- that I’m sure of. That was probably when I started putting up walls- it first started with feelings being possessed, doing things that I know that there was no reason for me to do them, not knowing why, but only that I did them. There have been other times even when I was younger, but this was the most disturbing instance. It was as if I was sleepwalking, and then woken up, thinking “Why am I doing these things?”

After that came “the voices” no, not schizophrenic- these are voices that I could not understand. I understood the feelings from “the voices”- there were definitely feelings attached. I could not understand the words, but I think that this was because I understood the feelings- I saw beyond what I heard, and reached out. Well, now I’m talking surreal, about the spiritual world, something I as of yet cannot understand well enough. I am merely stringing together words hoping to convey matters that even now I do not understand, in hopes that another might reach these feelings, and help enlighten me about what they mean. Back then though, I did not understand all this. I heard the words, but only understood the feelings. The feelings were negative, chaotic, painful. Although it was but a glimpse, I knew that the source of these feelings must be in a state of agony, engulfed in hell. I did not want to experience such things, and was depressed, and ran away from these feelings. I wanted the voices to go away. I found the answer to how to make them go away, although I did not understand it. I began to open up to other people, began to talk a ridiculous amount- communication became the reason for my existence.

Even with talking, I was still plagued by confusion and chaos, though the effects were reduced to the background of my life. Then I discovered the power of writing. I first began writing to help other people. I found I was able to look at the different aspects of life, and understand and explain them as if I lived them- no, in my mind I had already lived them, just not physically. Any time that I have decided to do something, I always lose all motivation, because I feel that I have already done it. Perhaps it might be in part because, in doing anything, it would only prove that I can do it, and such a motivation is fragile and superficial.

I soon found that I could also write for my own benefit, and eventually my writings, which started with the motivations of humanity, changed to my own motivation. In this I began to find my greatest happiness, and it was at this point that my hobby turned to obsession- my interest turned to a dream. I have been living through a dream since I began this journey of self-discovery, and I have learned much in this dream, and improved upon my character much. But this is a dream which I must either decide is reality, or wake up from. Time will go on, and so must I. I must either choose the reality of my own making, or the reality prepared for me. I also foresaw this decision in the Essence of the Soul with these lines:

“As he relentlessly struggled towards finding the reason and underlying meaning of all this, a third wave pulled Jason away from it, and the ensuing exchange of willpower threatened to consume his body, if it were not ravaged to dust first. Then a miracle occurred…”

I consulted a friend to advise me on making this decision- to which he responded “first list the things that you want”. But of course, I want too much! So I puzzled over the question “what do I want?” This is a question I have thought about for sometime, though to little avail. But then I remembered what I had written other posts in the past- something that (once I get around to it) it be rightfully added to Premises, under “Motivation”: “The most effective way to define anything is to determine its exact opposite, and compare them”; and “The most effective way to change anything is to concentrate on doing its exact opposite”.

It was then that I realized that, although my desires are overwhelming and innumerable, what I hate- that which I do not desire- these are relatively few. This is wear “Reverse Psychology” comes in. Not the usually meaning, but the process by which it’s done- reverse psychology on myself, in certain respects. Those things that I want most- that in my mind I have a special place for- they would be the exact opposite of what I hate, what I want the very least- those things that would pain me most. By knowing this, I already can know what I really want, who I really am. By this method I can separate the chaff from the wheat, metaphorically speaking, and know what I truly want, and what are just things that I “happen” to be interested in.

Of course, there’s nothing that I truly hate, I just hate some things more than others. Hatred is, after all, not an object. It is a measure- an ideal. Hatred both infinitely exists and does not exist- it’s existence, like all ideals, can only be determined on an individual basis. But I can determine what I desire most by what I hate most, and determine my priorities using this scale.

This is not just for me though- I know that everyone can use this same method to determine their true desires, and it is my desire that others may benefit from this knowledge, as I have.

For example: I know I don’t want enemies- therefore I want friends. However, I also want enemies, but only out of curiosity. This is mirrored in an ironic way- as I want friends mainly out of curiosity. The opposite affect each other thus. I don’t want to be alone- that is something that I don’t want for any reason. So I know that I want to socialize. Even though, out of curiosity I  may want enemies, I know that I don’t want to be hated- therefore I want to be loved. These are things that I knew, but did not understand- I can understand because I have a standard by which to compare. That is the power of Absolutes- only with absolutes is understanding possible. This is also why absolutes (words) are an essential part of communication. I have made my decision, but that will be highlighted another post.

Denial

Although I have only thought of the contents of this post right now, this post is a milestone post because (a) It is the cumulation of what I have written in several posts in the past (most of which are still untyped, unfortunately) and (b) these thoughts are breakthrough-level insights.

In my inquiries regarding motivation (which have been the cause of much anxiety in the past week), I have gained many insights and had some exciting discoveries, of spiritual, mystical, and psychological nature. Now I have finally reached the single answer to what motivates us all. Of course, in my post Pride I had pretty much figured it out, but an answer is useless if you do not understand it, as I do now. See, although it is true that everything we do is motivated by pride, I failed to consider “Why?” The reason why can naturally be answered in one word, which (as you have no doubt guessed) is Denial. Yes I have to bold it, for emphasis :P

In other words, we live life in denial, running away from the truth, and using pride as an excuse. I can think of examples of this all over the place- the Crusades, the gross amount of deception in many relationships, politics, religion, and the paradox of trust. What is the paradox of trust, you ask? Well actually I coined the term, but it goes like this:

(1) Trust has the innate requirement of honesty, with complete trust requiring total honesty.

(2) Trust also requires that someone/something is dependable, as trust is the essence of dependence.

(3) Nothing in this world is dependable, because, in and of itself, nothing is perfect.

(4) Therefore, trust requires assuming the impossible- in other words, any level of trusting something/someone requires believing in lies (to compensate for imperfection) or if possible, completely ignore the imperfections, to the point that they do not (perceptively) exist.

(5) Inversely, gaining someone’s trust requires deceiving when needed to compensate for one’s perceived imperfections, and/or manipulating others into completely ignoring one’s imperfections.

Thus, the only way to solve the paradox of trust is to compensate one’s imperfection with lies, and not get caught (if one gets caught lying, that would destroy the trust achieved). But this only half-solves it, as all those between which the trust is built are still lying, and being lied to. Even if awareness of the lies are limited to each individual, they are still lies, and so true trust does not exist. Even if God is perfect, we still cannot truly trust him, as trust is mutual, and God cannot trust us, knowing we are imperfect.

Getting back to the point: What is it then, that we are in denial of, that we are running away from? Well, as illustrated in “the paradox of trust” (as I hereby coin it), we are running away from the truth.

The truth hurts. While searching for views on truth, I found a blog post here. At the beginning of the post, thoughtsonquotes summarized what I’m about the clarify in this post, with the following words:

Most people don’t want to know the truth. Instead, they want validation for existing beliefs or positions. They do this for several reasons: ego, denial, ignorance and insecurity.

My take is that “ego”, “ignorance”, and “insecurity” all fall under “denial”, of course. In my post Love, although lacking in many areas, was correct in underlying premise:

Humans have certain beliefs that, although intrinsically illogical, our mind relies on to some extent for survival, such as:

(a) “We are more important than [at least a few] other people” (b) “We will live forever”                 (c) “We have a defining purpose for our existence” (d) “[at least some] people need us”

The fulfill these impossibilities, we force ourselves into denial, believing lies in order to maintain our “sanity”, and/or happiness. Thus, the best way to be happy is to give ourselves dreams that cannot be fulfilled, and spend our lives trying to achieve them.

To immortalize ourselves, we become “good people” (believing in the lies of religion) or invest in the community (utilizing the “paradox of trust) or prepare our children for a better future (which relies on the fallacy that the future is a reflection of the past, or that we can know anything with certainty. (as you might have realized by that last assertion, I am a total skeptic. Well, I guess I have been for a while, but just never seriously considered it. This is one of my Living Contradictions.

Well, the rest is adequately explained in the Love post.

So why is it that the truth hurts? What agony could be so great that we have an innate compulsion to run away from it, live in this denial, lest the truth overtake us, and we be overwhelmed by it? If it exists and has a nature similar to that which I am discovering it to be, the soul knows the answer, and in all probability, the pain we feel when awareness of the truth peaks- it may well reflect the agony that the soul is experiencing. But while I do not know the answers, one thing that I am certain of (although no more “certain” than everyone else is “certain” of their lies :P ) :

In order for the truth to exist there must be lies- I feel that the fact that we are in denial is out of necessity, to maintain balance. That is, without truth, nothing would exist, because truth is the essence of lies. This brings up another important question: What is lies? No, not what common sense, or the dictionary tells us. I never was one to follow “common sense” anyway. But rather, “Why?” do lies exist (even outside the necessity by which to distinguish truth), what purpose do they serve, ultimately. Of course, this is a question well beyond the nature of deception, however.

This goes beyond the word, even the concept, and is probably a question that will go unanswered, because it relies on the unreliable premise that things are as we perceive them, which I don’t believe in to begin with. Perhaps things are how we see them. That’s how my brother sees things, being a materialist. Perhaps I am an idealist not because I have intuitively concluded so, but simply because I am in denial, that I don’t want to accept the way things are. This isn’t unlikely, because I, being human, have the innate desire for change, and to perpetually view the world differently, making the present and the future one, and the past irrelevant.

Id versus Ego

What distinguishes the truths of logic and emotion? A few months ago, I realized that logic and emotion are two types of truths that are irreconcilable. Because I did not know why they were so much at odds, I took into account the possibility of other types of truth existing. While this might still be the case, I’ve concluded that the vast majority of truth falls under these two. In either case, I have gotten my answer, and it begins with Sigmund Freud’s Id and Ego.

Id >> emotion; is the source of “faith”, “passion, “fear”, “happiness”, etc.

Ego >> logic; is the source of “reasoning”, “habits”, “planning”, etc.

What is key here is the connection to happiness: Hapiness is an emotion- thus, if one tries to validate or measure it, it will immediately be corrupted, because such actions would fall under reasoning. Happiness, after all, cannot be reasoned- it is in fact unreasonable, and thus illogical. (I have wondered about the difference between logic and reasoning, and I do not actually know [haven’t researched it yet], but since logic is a much older concept, I’m assuming that logic is the parent of reasoning. Thus, all reasoning is logic, but not all logic is reasoning. Compare to bug-insect relationship). Thus, the Ego is corrupting the Id, by treading this forbidden ground.

As I said in my Forgotten post, there is a Bible verse, attributed to Jesus- Matthew 6:3 “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” I’ve thought of a good variation of this verse that makes for a good summary of the above: “do not let your Ego know what your Id is doing.”

Question: would pride fall under “Ego” or “Id” ? My first “instinct” (lol you’ll get the pun as you read on) is that pride is Id, because- at least apparently, pride is not logical. Well, I’m pretty confident with that answer, so I’ll go with that. so, FTR: “pride is Id, because pride is not logical.”

After coming to these conclusions (independently of pre-existing thought) It dawned on me that a very famous man (who lived a long time ago) would agree with me- Aristotle. To quote from my philosophy book, “Discursive reasoning is the basis of the natural sciences but also provides a way of understanding ourselves and our everyday lives. But Aristotle believed that there is an entirely different kind of thinking that is at times necessary, namely, intuition. Intuition is an immediate, direct seeing of a certain truth. God’s existence and nature can be roughly intimated as the cause of the natural world. But a deeper, more compelling comprehension of god requires intuition”

Right now I realized another important facet- explaining the relationship between Ego and logic, and between Id and intuition: Ego and Id are (obviously not knowledge themselves.

Ego is the source of logically-derived knowledge

Id is the source of intuitively-derived knowledge.

Thus, intuition is using instinct to derive knowledge, and the knowledge acquired using this method falls under intuition. This also explains Aristotle’s reasoning regarding the three souls. Aristotle believed that humans have three souls: the vegetative (plant) soul, the animal soul, and the nous, or rational soul. I was confused by this, because it would imply that intuition does not derive from instinct, since animals also have instincts but lack intuition (not being rational). Intuition, as Aristotle saw it, was necessary to experience God (as explained in the quote above). But Aristotle contended only the rational soul can experience God. While at first these premises appear to contradict, I now understand:

The third soul refers to knowledge, and derivation thereof. While the animal has instincts, they cannot derive knowledge from those instincts, lacking a third soul and thus intuition. This definitely accords with the Id, which being pure desire, knows that it “wants“, and “wants now“, but does not know what it wants. This also recognizes the relationship between instinct and Id- which again, is “all Id is instinct”, but not all instinct is Id”. Animals, after all, could not survive if they were pure Id. When intuition (knowledge derived from Id, which in turn is derived from instinct) is applied, the Id gains access to the transcendental aspects of the nous. But the Ego, being derived directly from the nous, has a more intimate connection with trancendental aspects.

Perhaps this offers insight into why emotions and intuition are unstable, inconsistent, and even contradictory. While logic and reasoning can sometimes be so also, to a far less extent. Also important is that intuition, despite having a less direct connection to the nous, is essential to have a mystical experience (experiencing God). I think the reason for this is that intuition effectively unifies the two otherwise different souls, allowing us the nexus necessary for such an experience.

Question: Why is happiness corrupted but emotions, such as fear, are forgotten? This question is due to a misconception. Happiness is corrupted because it is challenged, as Ego attempts to measure it and validate it through reasoning. When I “forgot” fear by deeming it as illogical, it was not challenged, but ignored. A good analogy of this is the results of different psychological approaches when dealing with people. If a person were to try to tell me how “happy” was was, I’d likely be angry, defensive, and have all sorts of mixed feelings. If someone told me I was happy, even then I would have mixed feelings, both positive and negative. But, if I were to ask that same person a question, they “pretended I didn’t exist” (regardless of what their “reason” was), eventually it would be as if I didn’t, because I would find that my efforts in asserting my existence were a waste of time and effort. The same applies to the interaction between the Id and Ego.

POD

No it’s not “paid our debt” (the Christian band, which in turn is inspired by Jesus), or “paid on debt” (part of most banking contracts)- it’s “paying our debt”. Well then, what debt do we have to pay?

This post is the conclusion to a post I wrote a long time ago, appropriately titled Racism (appropriately because, at least superficially, that post makes me look very racist(!)- so I guess this post is partly to clear up any misconceptions that I have anything against black people, which I don’t, and expose my true feeling regarding them, and if possible without excessive stereotyping (oops too late :P)

I actually sent an email to someone (who I initially thought was black–well technically I still don’t know, but intuition tells me they’re not) which perfectly captures the gist of what I’m trying to get across in this post, so I’ll just indulge in my already over-used practice of copying directly from the email, with essentially no editing.

“FTR, I consider blacks unfortunate. They are violent and sexual tendencies in their genetics, but it was not always this way. Throughout history, they were targeted for thousands of years, by various nations and empires for slavery. This resulted in several generations of interbreeding, prioritizing physique, endurance, and all other qualities suited for hard labor. This resulted in handicaping the other genes, which also in turn criples African cultures, and thus countries and their descendents, beyond repair.

I feel pity for blacks. they are mankind’s greatest sin, and America is paying for it right now, with the blacks ultimately suffering most, because they cannot help the way they are. Genetics is, after all, the most difficult thing to oppose, and add to that a corrupt background and culture- living successfully is nearly impossible for most.

but if anything, it proves that at least one Biblical prophesy is right :-)”

So yeah, to clarify on that: Africans were slaves long before America, or even (civilized) Europe existed. Ironically, everything seems to point to their origin as slaves as being after they (in Egypt) enslaved Hebrews.

Well, I don’t know much about African history outside Egypt (should do research), and it’s more than likely that they enslaved their own kind long before Abraham even encountered them, let alone Moses. But it cannot be ignored that Egypt, the country once holding the title of most advanced and largest empire in the world (for over 1000 years) ended up (indirectly) regressing into slavery after a few generations of using Hebrews for slave labor.

God said the Hebrews would never find peace again until the end of times)- and if anything that prophesy was an understatement (read:Holocaust). well, that’s a bit of a detour from this post though.

As I’ll introduce in my post Karma, I believe in miracles, although they IMO do not [necessarily] come from God, but are likely the universe’s failsafe mechanism when the balance of things is threatened. Therefore I think that miracles must happen to Africans that will make up for their struggles (as our sin). I think they have happened, in the form of African leaders such as “Martin Luther King Jr.” or George Washington Carver” or perhaps even “Akeelah” (or whatever her real name is- only know her name in the movie “Akeelah and the Bee”. (lol BTW Akila is an Egyptian female name meaning “intelligent”. Cool!)

Well, perhaps these might not be miracles, but Karma does find a way- that is something I am sure of. I believe that American, and perhaps other countries, are paying this debt, having enjoyed technologies, wealth, food, and luxuries that we should not, and these things were largely the product of manipulating African borns, and other minorities (our corporations are still manipulating Third-World countries- abusing their impoverished state) Now we have a crime rate that is far greater than any country, and when we consider what we have gained through war, slavery, and capitalism- it’s not that surprising that our sins caught up with us while we’re kicking back in high places. (you’ll probably have to click on the link to get the joke- it’s an irony-loaded pun) Especially ironic is the fact the Africans are the ones doing the payback- and they’re not doing it on purpose (honestly what kind of happiness could people get out of that?)- but out the “ill-bred” (another pun) that Americans, and their ancestors, gave them. How appropriate is that!?!

One final point that I noticed is that our circumstances, and the Karma-oriented reasoning I’m presenting, is shockingly similar to the very premise presented in the 2000 film Unbreakable. It was directed by M. Night Shyamalan- I gotta remember that name- a lot of good movies (IMO) were directed by him. To the point:

A little history: In the movie, two twins are born, but one is fair-skinned, strong, “unbreakable” (as demonstrated in several freak-accidents) a sense of justice so strong that he can literally hear people calling for help when crimes occur. His only weakness is water, which he essentially collapses under the pressure of, perhaps eventually melting (although this never occurs in the movie, obviously). The other twin- is dark-skinned, and has bones so hollow that just walking too long, or getting bumped- will cause him to potentially break several bones. Out of a bittersweet and confused mix between fidelity and jealousy, he wrecks havoc, both to reunite with his brother, and out of the helpless belief that he is destined to be a villain, just as his serendipitous brother was destined to be a hero. I think this was a genius idea for the writer(s), as it makes for a magnificent metaphor of the permeation of sacrifice in every aspect of life, and, more controversially, the fact that Americans, like the protagonist of “Unbreakable”, live in the luxury they due as the result and at the expense of the deteriation of the African race, having descended from slaves that were abused both genetically and culturally, so that we may live in the sinful luxury we do now. Of course, I do not believe in sin morally (as I said in my Evil post) but I do believe in it as the negative energy of Karma.

Dear Diary

When I first started blogging, I knew that it would be different from most blogs, which- in the spirit of the term (“web-log” >> “blog”) are normally a web-based journal or diary) Most of my earlier posts indeed are anything but journalistic in nature. But after transferring the contents to their new home here, I took the time to look over the archives- much more writing than I could have ever thought I would do from the onset. As I browsed through and savored the sweet nostalgia, I noticed that over time, the posts had made a shift overall to an approach more native to a journal. I think that this is an important milestone in my life, because it implies that the efforts of self-exploration have paid off, and as a result I am able to find meaning in the more modest and less philosophical (read: normal) aspects of my life. In any case, I now feel comfortable in writing about not only philosophical aspects, but everything that is important to me. At first, I was concerned that this decision might “corrupt” the overall flavor of this blog (intrinsically analytical in nature), but then again, most people would find it too “boring” to read anyway unless they wanted to get to know me to some extent anyway- in other words it’s a journal whether I like it or not…

Sooooo…first topic of the day (in alignment of this new premise of course)

If I had to name a favorite music band, it would be Linkin Park. Out of any band I have ever listened to (and bothered to Wikipedia them- which just so happens to be most of them that I happen to also know the band name) Linkin park stands out the most as revolutionary. In fact, if they weren’t commercially funded I’d say say they are “The Indie band people asked for”. Revolutionary because they has successfully merged the two most popular and Flamewar-bound genres of today: Rap and Rock. Of course, they aren’t nearly the first to do this (The Nu Metal movement was around since 1993 or so, Linkin park wasn’t active until 1996)- But Linkin park has proven itself one of the most active in solidifying the influence of the movement, even going out of their way to enlist the creativity of several bands from several genres, prominently metal, rap, trance/techno, among others. While I was impressed by their “Remix” album “Reanimation”, their latests album “Minutes to Midnight branches out to other genres in a way that is bound to spark a passionate inspiration. I really admire how, rather than using their influence to make more money by sticking with “whatever works”, they use it to step into foreign territory and add a beauty to music that I have not seen with any other (music) artist. I have dreamed of the day when I can balance between all my different musical tastes, all while staying with the familiar, reliable quality of the same band. Sure it’s quite selfish to make such a wish, but I’m sure that Linkin Park will grant me that selfishness- heck they already have to a significant extent.

But what I really admire most about their music is the way they manipulate the ever-constant undertone of “Love”. Such a universal concept can be applied to most, if not all aspects of life, and Linkin Park takes advantage of that potential. It’s sort a hidden message (read:easter egg) [which you probably noticed from the header that I can appreciate) In all their songs, there is a message of love, and particularly of boy/girl relationships (and drama thereof) *note their most recent album “Minutes to Midnight” takes away significantly from the previously universally “love” undertone, which I also respect because I am a major lover of variety. It’s a very interesting and noteworthy change as, from what I’ve sensed, the undertone has changed to more “responsibility” oriented vibes. Sum 41 underwent a similar development in their album “Chuck”*

But once you really listen to the words, and think about them, comes the very pleasant experience of unlocking in your mind the true (!?) message of the songs. In particular for majority of the albums in which the theme was “love”, it brings to light the prospect that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason why love is one of the most universal concepts of this world. Despite us not needing it, it survives, and so must have a purpose, right? The way that love is inter-weaved with the true themes between the lines leaves hints (read:easter eggs) beckoning the listener to search for the meaning of love using its effects (which in turn serve as the premise of each song) as our guide.

Well, I’m undoubtedly over-analyzing (read:duh!) and inadvertently giving Linkin Park way too much credit, but oh well :-)