Semantics

For a while now, I’ve had an almost unhealthy interest in semantics– specifically, the relationship between words, and the application of those relationships to reality- or more accurately, reality. But the semantics that I’m particularly interested in are not so much subjective as objective. In other words, although I am interested in the etymological value of words and linguistics in general, as well as the contextual value of words, these interest are actually motivated by a more specific interest: Myself.

Perhaps that might have caused some confusion, considering how out-of-place such an assertion might seem– in part because (although I did not realize it until I finished writing the above paragraph), It’s extremely difficult to sum up things like this in just a few sentences. So here’s some background, as to clarify the above vagueness:

There was a point where I thought that “the dream was ending”– that is, my journey for logically-deduced knowledge, and by extension the active updating of th3g1vr.com, would no longer be a priority. There was even a point where I seriously considering abandoning all that I knew in favor of a more secure, idealistic future. It was after that point (which was about 1 1/2 years ago) that I began to put a great deal of thought into what exactly I had come this far for- what was the whole purpose behind this journey.

At some point to that end, I began trying to wrap up what I’d written thus far, collecting what I had written, and putting together my remaining thoughts, and I was eventually to edit them into a publishable form, so that I might turn it into a book. This resolve is reflected in my post Preface. But in “Preface” is also something relevant to this post: Over time, I realized that my posts were inconsistent, and many times even contradictory. When I asked myself as to “Why?” this was the case, I recalled how the Bible, the “inspired word of God”, was also of a similar quality, having so many passages that appeared to contradict, and of an inconsistent nature- as if it was asking to be attacked.

It was then that I realized what it was that my writing and that of the Bible had in common: Semantics. That is, these imperfections only exist when taken out of context. The Bible is after all called “The Living Word of God” for a good reason: The contents of it extend beyond an ordinary understanding– to understand the Bible completely is beyond human ability. Like my own words, the words of the Bible has a significance that becomes greater, deeper, and more complex as the author(s) use them more, and as each new author builds on the contributions of past writings. For example, the writings of Jesus and Paul make extensive use of scriptures in the Old Testament, so if it is even possible to understand their writings, we’d have to first have a complete understanding of their thoughts each time they wrote, and also of those in the old testament upon which their writing built; such a feat would be nothing short of psychic.

After all, as is demonstrated in my church youth group (and many times to my complete surprise) — the same words, and specifically the same Biblical passages, can mean something entirely different to everyone. Especially considering the philosophical nature of the Bible (and of course of my own writing) this makes it impossible to truly understand the Bible, even if one is “psychic”. “But what is impossible with man is possible with God”– that is why we must rely on the Holy Spirit, requesting God’s wisdom when reading it.

To apply this to my own words: I’ve found that over time, words that I’ve used, even if they originally were  based on the accuracy demonstrated in dictionaries and/or encyclopedias– I’ve incorporated words into my own thoughts, utilizing the relationships between various words (particularly those of a conceptual nature) to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of things– and over time, many of these words evolved in meaning, becoming more complex and specific, and sometimes more broad– and some of which becoming even “religious”.

As a result, certain words mean a great deal to me, because in my mind they represent several months of dedication. I don’t know if many other people have words they treasure this much like I do– to such an end that they might become defensive, irritated, over even greatly disturbed– as I sometimes inadvertently do, but I think that this shows just how much meaning “inspired word” can take on.

Hot Air

Considering that the primary focus of this blog is motivation, this will probably be the biggest breakthrough that I’ve written in a while, and will be for a while:

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the source of good and evil, and found a far greater clarity when studying it under the assumption that good and evil are not decisions chosen independently by sentient beings of their own accord, but are spiritual forces that greatly influence our actions. But of course, I don’t consider “spiritual forces” a religious concept- umbrella terminology might be a better way of putting it. So, to put it more “broadly”, good and evil are everywhere, like the air we breathe.

But I think of it like this: There are certain forces in the world- we do not cause any of them, and perhaps they were always there- in essence immortal, and without a doubt omnipresent. These forces that I am referring to are very similar to Plato’s Forms– in fact he was a great inspiration in this theory. That is, good and evil, sadness and happiness, beauty and ugliness- all of these various things were not created by us, but rather we are, to some extent, created by them.

One might assert that, in the case of (for example) ugliness, that we create the standards for ugliness, and thus without our standards ugliness would not exist. But this fails to address the fact that we would not create the standards unless there was a need- which means that this knowledge, despite having no valid emotional or logical benefit for it, knowledge of it exists. So in my own theory of forms, anything that such an assessment applies to is what I consider a “Form”.

So if our motivations are reliant upon these Forms, then what determines which forms- in this case “good” or “evil”, are we most heavily influenced by? But first, it’s important to determine what “good” and “evil” are: While good and evil are considered different in different cultures, nations, and even individuals- one thing is certain: The reason why a person considers something evil is because they (as a person, or in agreement with a group) perceive that thing, behavior, thought, or influence to be inherently destructive- that is, it in nature destroys certain thing(s) perceived as good. On the other hand, what is perceived as “good” is so because it is inherently creative- that is, it creates things that do not destroy, and/or creates things that destroy evil. Notice the irony- it’s actually important.

Regardless of whether this is actually the case, thinking of good and evil as omnipresent forces instead of antithetical but independent choices based in freewill- this new perspective brought to light a new and very enlightening understanding, regarding precisely why some become good and others evil:

A more recent determination was that the id, ego, and superego determine the means, and good and evil are not Forms, but rather measurements of the ends. But such an assessment is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to take into account the fact that some have good intentions, but destruction results- and that some have evil intentions, but they inadvertently contribute to benefiting humanity on some level.

I realized that a better way of looking at it was “balance” versus imbalance:

Thus, if we are to take into account the means, ends, and what’s in-between, it would be more accurate to think of it as “Negative” and “Positive”

Although I’ve drawn a chart that explains this much more thoroughly (and in time will become even more complete) Here are the primary motivating factors of both good (positive) and evil (negative):

Good: Passion, Control, and Expectations.

Evil: Fear, Chaos, and Doubt.

If you noticed that in the current order, they appear to be opposites, you are correct in that assumption. If you noticed that these correspond to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo, we are definitely on the same page.

But, although Fear, Chaos, and Doubt are the primary motivators or destructive behavior, due to their nature they usually cannot manifest themselves in-and-of-themselves.

To put things into context. note that- from an evolutionary standpoint, motivators of “good” are close to the “Fight” response, while those of “evil” associate with “flight”- that is, good and evil, at least as influences, can be attributed to the “Fight or Flight Response“, although of course I’m also using that as an umbrella term, so don’t take it literally :P

What I like about this theory is that, even though it’s logical, the inevitable logical conclusion is that good will triumph in the end- that is, such an assertion is in fact logically inevitable if these assumptions are correct (and these assumptions are unbiased).

Why is such a conclusion logically inevitable? You’ll see…But first, an analogy:

The basics of firefighting (and I actually referenced a volunteer firefighter on this) cover, among other things, the three primary needs of any fire: ignition, oxygen, and fuel.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any better example for this post than that- because, as you might notice, it’s not too hard to compare them to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo- which conveniently would fulfill similar roles. That is, the Id (Passion) gives us the initiative to act (ignition), the SuperEgo gives us dreams and expectations by which to live out our passions (oxygen), and the Ego gives us the foundation, security, and thus control upon which to build our dreams and passions (Fuel).

So, having absorbed that information, consider the following:

Oxygen is normally considered a good thing (a necessity of all sufficiently complex living creations)– But suppose that, in an extremely high concentration of a good thing– what would happen? a huge explosion, and likely a fire- which lacking the control of a designated fuel source, is a bad thing.

It is ironic that, although good will prevail, that good is the very thing prevalent manifestation of evil possible. But I believe that this is a necessity.

But one thing appears certain- pure Control, which is based in an emphasis on acquiring knowledge indiscriminately, cannot be good or evil in-and-of-itself. But pure control, although it is something that I have reached to some degree, is impossible to attain in full, because humans are not perfect– not to say that such an attainment would amount to perfection- but that an imperfect being is inherently incapable of maintaining one sole emphasis in their motivation- especially considering the great number of ulterior motives present in humans, and likely all sentient beings.

But From what I can tell, the reason why a person might commit good or evil- these are dependent upon the catalyst (ignition), control (level of vulnerability) and dreams (expectations, conscience)

as far as whether or not someone is good or evil by nature, this new way of thinking makes it clear that, ultimately, this is determined by expectations. But this does not cure the problem- rather it has the same effect as medication has on mental illness- it only minimizes the symptoms- the problem still exists.

If dreams were reality, what determines the impact? When I created my own definition for “dream”, I was thinking something similar to this question. If we do not have control of our dream, that automatically means our dream is chaotic. If it is not a good dream, it is a bad (evil) dream. If dreams were reality, they would determine the direction of life-as-we-know-it; but the magnitude and impact of the dream depends on the strength of our desire, or conversely our fear. This is what I believe Revelation 3:16 “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” was referring to.

Thinking about it like this makes sense of many things– for example, why it is that anti-racists actually antagonize things rather than reconcile them. It’s common knowledge that throwing water on an oil-based fire will only spread it. It might appear to put it out, but appearances are deceiving.

Consider Hitler, who killed and/or caused the killing and torture of thousands of Jews. Do you think that Hitler really hated Jews that much? Well he might have, but I don’t think that was his motivation. Hitler saw an impoverished country, an already-existing hate for Jews, and an evident desperation. Hitler wanted power so bad that he would do anything to get it. When such a strong passion exists, it outweighs any conscience, expectations, or self-control that might disagree with it. Although this is just my theory, Hitler wanted power so badly that he was consumed by it, to the point nothing mattered.

It’s not as if we cannot relate to such circumstances- we can definitely empathize on a small-scale. Anyone who has killed “enemies” in war should at least be able to understand Hitler’s feelings. In such circumstances, it’s “kill or be killed”, and survival takes first priority. As much as we might cherish the value of human life, human rights, personal morality, ethics, and so-called humanity; all of these are good as nothing- utterly irrelevant in the face of survival. Perhaps this is to be expected, but consider this: If we will do anything in war to protect our own lives, so much more anyone might do for something they value above their life. It could be said that Hitler wasn’t evil, he just had his priorities mixed up.

But what we consider good or evil is not because people actually are good and evil- such thinking is merely justification for pre-existing standards. When it comes down to it, what is considered good or evil is considered thus because, at least to those observing these standards, such definitions are for the best in terms of benefiting humanity. For example, there are many traffic laws that, for a skilled driver are not necessary. Why then is it evil to break the law? That is because the purpose of the law is not the following of it itself, But the impact it will have on everyone’s conscience, regardless of whether they break it or not. Laws all exist for one purpose: control.

Even though Passion is a good thing, it made Hitler evil. Why? Because too much of a good thing can be, and will inevitably be bad:

Too much passion results in corruption, too much control results in neglect, and too much commitment and expectations results in suffering- and in Japan’s case, suicide. Although I passionately love Japan, it seems clear that, overall, the U.S. has one of the best balances, and so might be considered “better” from an idealist perspective.

So it seems that an accurate view of good and evil would be difficult to isolate, as there are many unreconciled inconsistencies to be understood and properly interpreted. But in either case, it’s clear to me that it’s better to do something wrong then do nothing at all- It would be a waste to miss so many opportunities because we pondered whether or not they were the right ones.

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!