If there are days when one feels the most uncreative, most tiring and highly unproductive...today is just like that for me.
Essentially you can guess how my day passed me by today by my opening sentence. I've always tried to imagine how other feel perceive things, live their day, carry their conversations, do their work, fulfill their committment day after day by imagining that I were them. Always, I've thought other people are much more intelligent, much more hardworking, more invulnerable than I do...everyone is always looking toward something, full of energy, at least that's how I perceive it although subconsciously I'm not quite right about that.
I always tell myself that there is always something waiting for me to do, and in truth, there ARE always many things waiting to be done, but only on occasions do i really put my heart into my obligations. From my actions, they tell me that I am really lazy and unmotivated, and I'm always saddened by that. Yet, I still do little about it. However, just to make myself feel better, I have made very modest progress though, despite what i always tell myself. At least I'm able to study longer hours at home, spend more time on books, reading, enriching myself...even though I'm always convinced that I'm a lazy bum despite what others think.
I read a blog from a friend of mine, a long time friend whom I've never seen, whom I have avoided, in a way, not because we don't get along but because I couldn't stand being in the group we were in. Just sometime before I left that group, I was convinced that most of the people in the group didn't like me, and I didn't feel welcomed either. Partly owing to the fact that I rarely talk a lot in a group, and that I prefer to listen, and also due to my lack of wits, people rarely talk to be. And I wouldn't be surprised if people find me aloof or elusive. Remembering what I had used to read, being rejected obviously tell me that I am different, good or bad. When I was younger, I already saw that my fate is never gonna change, and today, that prediction is still true.
This friend of mine mentioned that despite what that was going on around him, despite the misfortunes, he remained happy, because he was able to see God in those things, and in hardships, to Christians, they should see it as a test, so that their faith may grow stronger. I don't disagree, not at all, but I lamented to myself that I am not able to do the same - to see God. I used to think this way, and it used to give me hope. Only that I was disappointed when things just got progressively tougher. Eventually I gave up hope, I no longer dare hope for anything but prayed occasionally that He may have mercy on me and not let things overwhelm me. Since God has things all planned out for us all, believers non-believers alike, it is assumed that it is for the good of all. So I had also gave up asking God for things. Not a good attitude I would say, but I wouldn't know what's gonna pick me up either.
Previously, I had made many attempts to change myself, expended lots of energy, only to find such an attempt a waste of time...after all, being myself, being what I am, is relatively easier than forcing change, although just being myself is by no means easy. I assume nothing is ever easy. Later, I was also convinced that not just me, everyone has their share of problems despite what they are. Said by some philosopher, change exchanges only they current set of problems for another, and makes little difference. In the end, one might be better off before making that change. The cycle of pain, trouble etc never end, to avoid pain is to avoid life, to avoid life, is only a waste of time; escapism, that is.
At least I am still holding onto myself, to "live life to the fullest" and try to do and fulfill whatever is within my ability, each day, and pushing the limits a little each day. That I guess, would succinct, for now at the very least.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Monday, June 14, 2004
Truth
For a long time I've never wanted to write anything like this, not this soon, not too often, for it seems like people never liked to listen to stuff like that, yet I'd always spend more or less time a day to ponder.
I've been proud of my recent contributions I had made to boost my own wisdom, of all that I have understood, the two are the most frequent on my lips - "What that remains unseen or unobservable do not mean that nothing is present." More commonly I would phrase it as, "What that is unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist" The cosmic black hole is one example. The black hole is such that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, therefore light cannot radiate from it, which in turn imply that a black hole cannot be seen [at least not directly]. Its presence can be detected by observing radio waves in space, planetary orbits etc. The more common example would be the sun. While we cannot see the sun at night, we know that the sun is there.
My second favorite sentence is as follows, "While being invisible or even being insubstantial doesn't equate to inexistence, what that can be seen IS, by itself, deceitful. Seeing is thus unnecessarily believing and is doubtful." or "Seeing is NOT believing" By observation using our naked eye, without the help of modern telescopes, without mathematics, the sun has been observed to revolved around the sun and is the apparent truth. The great mind of Aristotle himself believed in this so much, and during the Middle Ages especially [from what I remember], the Roman Catholic Church held the Aristolean philosophy in high regard. And do bear in mind that during those times, there wasn't a field of study called "Physics", hardly anyone could figure that the our planetary system was not geocentric [but heliocentric]. Such belief was so strong, despite how untrue the geocentric theory was, people held strongly to that belief, perhaps too strong that many people who thought otherwise were punished by Inquisition.
Earlier today, I just sent an email to a friend, and I ended the note with my attitude towards arguement. Strictly on a personal basis, I see argument as good, good because through argument, I may learn from what others have to contribute towards what they think is the truth. To me, the spirit of argument, though imperatively aggressive, it is curious in nature, seeks to learn, and nevertheless, innately friendly and not hostile.
Shortly after I was done sending that email, I met my usual friends, long-time friends to be exact whose presence and company never fails to cheer, lift me. I couldn't remember how the arguement started, but did begin with the importance of language - that communication, vocabulary and the choice of words are vital and crucial to engage in effective communcation. To even begin understanding how to engage in effective communication, one must not underestimate the consequence of poor choice of words, and to use the words we decide on, we first have to understand the definition of each word, each phrase.
To provide with an example, last night, i remarked that I would want to have roti prata for breakfast the morning that followed. My sister exclaimed that I've always want to have roti prata everyday. What that was flawed lied in "everyday". The truth is, I had roti prata for breakfast last week, and I don't have the same things everyday unless I follow a strict routine, of work, study etc. Therefore I retorted that her choice in using the word "everyday" was not only incorrect but also highly inaccurate. While it may seem that I had blowned the matter out of mythic proportions, it depicted, showed explicitly my high regards for accuracy and appropriation for vocabulary, choices of words. At the same time I have to also add that my english is only average, as one could see from my previous writings.
Somehow, my friend and I went into the topic of the relationship between nerve cells and muscle cells. He had claimed that nerve cells and muscle cells are independent of each other, despite the absence of the other, one could still function normally. I remarked that his claim is not credible, since we have a few living, observable examples, and these few examples had consistently, through many years, produced the same results, that muscle cells require nerve cells to function properly. One classic example is the reflex action, when you hit yourself in the hollow just below the knee cap, you know that would cause the muscles to contract causing the leg to kick up. Another one, perhaps a better example would be someone who suffers from severed nerve cells waist down, everything waist down would be rendered immobile, and muscles would not work, the suffer would not be able to walk without aid. To bring the example further, the muscle cells waist down would eventually shrink and disintegrate.
Despite all these valid examples, repeated in thousands, producing consistent results proving that muscles cells require nerve cells to coordinate, my friend chose to believe in what he has always believed.
When the day finally ended, I tried to recall the earlier incident with my friend...despite my favorite "The Two Lines of Wisdom" which I had introduced at the beginning of the chapter, it seemed that my friend proved me otherwise. Here I tell myself another line, "Truth is what and how we, on a personal level, define it to be." Every different individual was brought up in a different manner, similar twins eventually grow up having contrasting characters, the way people define life, define happiness, define truth is all different. How true, then, can the truth be truth? How do we, amid individual differences, come up with a standard that defines what is true, what that is reality, and be accepted by humanity?
Life is tough...nobody ever said life is going to be easy. Life is ugly, humans are ugly...if not, bad things would not happen so often. (But of course, I would like to caution you that when i said "ugly" I do not mean it to be literally ugly.) If life sucks, and is ugly [in my own words], then the Truth sucks, and is ugly. But the truth also says that people are always looking for the truth, itself. Yet, when people see that the truth is ugly, that truth sucks, people add garnish, condiments, pepper it, beautify, trim it...and to them, their "result" is "The Truth".
Can what that is more or lesser than the truth itself any truer than the true itself? Assuming that Reagan died naturally and peacefully, which he did, and supposed someone started to say that Reagan had died of a heart attack instead; how would that sentence prove to be true? Likewise, the "truths" that Reagan died of cancer, that he didn't die at all, or that he was killed/assassinated are not true. Only one version stands; Reagan died a natural death. Period. So the truth is only true (or should I instead say "truest") when taken as a whole, no more, no less. Sadly, people don't seem to see it.
"A false/untrue definition of a situation can evoke a behavior that makes the orginally false conception become true."
-Sociology, on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"Truth is what one defines to be"
- Richard D Lee
I've been proud of my recent contributions I had made to boost my own wisdom, of all that I have understood, the two are the most frequent on my lips - "What that remains unseen or unobservable do not mean that nothing is present." More commonly I would phrase it as, "What that is unseen doesn't mean it doesn't exist" The cosmic black hole is one example. The black hole is such that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, therefore light cannot radiate from it, which in turn imply that a black hole cannot be seen [at least not directly]. Its presence can be detected by observing radio waves in space, planetary orbits etc. The more common example would be the sun. While we cannot see the sun at night, we know that the sun is there.
My second favorite sentence is as follows, "While being invisible or even being insubstantial doesn't equate to inexistence, what that can be seen IS, by itself, deceitful. Seeing is thus unnecessarily believing and is doubtful." or "Seeing is NOT believing" By observation using our naked eye, without the help of modern telescopes, without mathematics, the sun has been observed to revolved around the sun and is the apparent truth. The great mind of Aristotle himself believed in this so much, and during the Middle Ages especially [from what I remember], the Roman Catholic Church held the Aristolean philosophy in high regard. And do bear in mind that during those times, there wasn't a field of study called "Physics", hardly anyone could figure that the our planetary system was not geocentric [but heliocentric]. Such belief was so strong, despite how untrue the geocentric theory was, people held strongly to that belief, perhaps too strong that many people who thought otherwise were punished by Inquisition.
Earlier today, I just sent an email to a friend, and I ended the note with my attitude towards arguement. Strictly on a personal basis, I see argument as good, good because through argument, I may learn from what others have to contribute towards what they think is the truth. To me, the spirit of argument, though imperatively aggressive, it is curious in nature, seeks to learn, and nevertheless, innately friendly and not hostile.
Shortly after I was done sending that email, I met my usual friends, long-time friends to be exact whose presence and company never fails to cheer, lift me. I couldn't remember how the arguement started, but did begin with the importance of language - that communication, vocabulary and the choice of words are vital and crucial to engage in effective communcation. To even begin understanding how to engage in effective communication, one must not underestimate the consequence of poor choice of words, and to use the words we decide on, we first have to understand the definition of each word, each phrase.
To provide with an example, last night, i remarked that I would want to have roti prata for breakfast the morning that followed. My sister exclaimed that I've always want to have roti prata everyday. What that was flawed lied in "everyday". The truth is, I had roti prata for breakfast last week, and I don't have the same things everyday unless I follow a strict routine, of work, study etc. Therefore I retorted that her choice in using the word "everyday" was not only incorrect but also highly inaccurate. While it may seem that I had blowned the matter out of mythic proportions, it depicted, showed explicitly my high regards for accuracy and appropriation for vocabulary, choices of words. At the same time I have to also add that my english is only average, as one could see from my previous writings.
Somehow, my friend and I went into the topic of the relationship between nerve cells and muscle cells. He had claimed that nerve cells and muscle cells are independent of each other, despite the absence of the other, one could still function normally. I remarked that his claim is not credible, since we have a few living, observable examples, and these few examples had consistently, through many years, produced the same results, that muscle cells require nerve cells to function properly. One classic example is the reflex action, when you hit yourself in the hollow just below the knee cap, you know that would cause the muscles to contract causing the leg to kick up. Another one, perhaps a better example would be someone who suffers from severed nerve cells waist down, everything waist down would be rendered immobile, and muscles would not work, the suffer would not be able to walk without aid. To bring the example further, the muscle cells waist down would eventually shrink and disintegrate.
Despite all these valid examples, repeated in thousands, producing consistent results proving that muscles cells require nerve cells to coordinate, my friend chose to believe in what he has always believed.
When the day finally ended, I tried to recall the earlier incident with my friend...despite my favorite "The Two Lines of Wisdom" which I had introduced at the beginning of the chapter, it seemed that my friend proved me otherwise. Here I tell myself another line, "Truth is what and how we, on a personal level, define it to be." Every different individual was brought up in a different manner, similar twins eventually grow up having contrasting characters, the way people define life, define happiness, define truth is all different. How true, then, can the truth be truth? How do we, amid individual differences, come up with a standard that defines what is true, what that is reality, and be accepted by humanity?
Life is tough...nobody ever said life is going to be easy. Life is ugly, humans are ugly...if not, bad things would not happen so often. (But of course, I would like to caution you that when i said "ugly" I do not mean it to be literally ugly.) If life sucks, and is ugly [in my own words], then the Truth sucks, and is ugly. But the truth also says that people are always looking for the truth, itself. Yet, when people see that the truth is ugly, that truth sucks, people add garnish, condiments, pepper it, beautify, trim it...and to them, their "result" is "The Truth".
Can what that is more or lesser than the truth itself any truer than the true itself? Assuming that Reagan died naturally and peacefully, which he did, and supposed someone started to say that Reagan had died of a heart attack instead; how would that sentence prove to be true? Likewise, the "truths" that Reagan died of cancer, that he didn't die at all, or that he was killed/assassinated are not true. Only one version stands; Reagan died a natural death. Period. So the truth is only true (or should I instead say "truest") when taken as a whole, no more, no less. Sadly, people don't seem to see it.
"A false/untrue definition of a situation can evoke a behavior that makes the orginally false conception become true."
-Sociology, on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"Truth is what one defines to be"
- Richard D Lee
Sunday, June 13, 2004
An extract of my email to a friend
"...I've always been pessimistic and always bleak and always paint a grim picture on our society and humanity. I strongly believe that every single person is motivated by what I would call the "profit motive" - derived from the definition in economic terms, that everyone is literally motivated by profit, and that motivation is rarely [or even
remotely] selfless; is always selfish.
People do things for a reason, things happen for reason, and the actions of people speaks of their selfishness despite what they say - politicians are extremely guilty of this i daringly assume. The rest of us are more or less the same, of course that includes me. That in turn reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, my past failed relationships that ended without even having anything started despite all my good intents. They all ended in same way, in their final deliverance was to send me a very vengeful sentence, that I have never forgotten, that have never failed to hurt me deeply. This led me to believe that people who seek romance, are actually, really, often unconsciously, looking for dependency. Once found, they remain in parasitism to the host, and if the latter prove to be an unsuitable find, they leave [this applies to men and women alike].
I came to this conclusion some years ago, when I had consecutive failures in many relationships, romance and friendships...after being in years long of depression, I completely lost faith and hope in all things..for hope only seems to breed disappointment, which in turn breeds despair and dejection. The same reasons made me lose faith in God, not having hopes, simply living day after day.
I have to apologize for having to paint you such as awful picture that I have conjured from experience, but at the same time, I do hope to hear your views, what you think and feel about my "painting", and what humanity taught you. Although I always love to argue, do not be mistaken, i love to argue because i love to learn, and arguing is a process, a learning process. And winning an argument itself is not the art of argument itself, neither is winning the meaningful ends of an argument, but it is the process of arguing - which i ideally want it to be loving and wise and intelligent, {that serves as the crux, which gives meaning to the act of arguing. Only then, can an argument be truly meaningful, scholarly, and teaching}
Wishing you a wonderful weekend,
Richard
*the words in {} were added to complete the sentence that I had carelessly omitted in my email addressed to my friend.
remotely] selfless; is always selfish.
People do things for a reason, things happen for reason, and the actions of people speaks of their selfishness despite what they say - politicians are extremely guilty of this i daringly assume. The rest of us are more or less the same, of course that includes me. That in turn reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, my past failed relationships that ended without even having anything started despite all my good intents. They all ended in same way, in their final deliverance was to send me a very vengeful sentence, that I have never forgotten, that have never failed to hurt me deeply. This led me to believe that people who seek romance, are actually, really, often unconsciously, looking for dependency. Once found, they remain in parasitism to the host, and if the latter prove to be an unsuitable find, they leave [this applies to men and women alike].
I came to this conclusion some years ago, when I had consecutive failures in many relationships, romance and friendships...after being in years long of depression, I completely lost faith and hope in all things..for hope only seems to breed disappointment, which in turn breeds despair and dejection. The same reasons made me lose faith in God, not having hopes, simply living day after day.
I have to apologize for having to paint you such as awful picture that I have conjured from experience, but at the same time, I do hope to hear your views, what you think and feel about my "painting", and what humanity taught you. Although I always love to argue, do not be mistaken, i love to argue because i love to learn, and arguing is a process, a learning process. And winning an argument itself is not the art of argument itself, neither is winning the meaningful ends of an argument, but it is the process of arguing - which i ideally want it to be loving and wise and intelligent, {that serves as the crux, which gives meaning to the act of arguing. Only then, can an argument be truly meaningful, scholarly, and teaching}
Wishing you a wonderful weekend,
Richard
*the words in {} were added to complete the sentence that I had carelessly omitted in my email addressed to my friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
