Archive for April, 2010

Date: April 28th, 2010
Cate: Philosophy
Comments Off

Today’s Thought [Love Will Tear Us Apart]

Romantic love and satisfaction are conceptually oppositional. The idea of romantic love evolved from medival Europe where troubadours flirted professionally with rich married women, but could never consummate the arrangement. The women’s marriages, being arranged, were not for love but political and financial reasons and courtly love (for which there were written rules) was an outlet for this kind of attention and expression. Nowadays we expect our relationships to deliver both titillation and satisfaction simultaneously while still adhering to the letter of monogamy. It’s ambitious… to say the least.

Date: April 27th, 2010
Cate: Aphorisms, Philosophy
Comments Off

Existence in B Flat/A Sharp

Obejctive isn’t an absolute state. You don’t flip it on and off like a light switch. Rather it is an attitude aimed at viewing events in the context of their purpose. Some have made it out that objectivity precludes the subject, is maybe more related to infinity than direct experience, but this is a mistaken view. There is no object without a corresponding subject, not because of some cosmic oppositional duality, but for precisely the same reason there can be no convex without a corresponding concave, each is a matter of direction, not position. Each presents itself at exactly the same moment in precisely the same way as B-flat and A-sharp.

***

Started reading Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” again after a nearly decade long hiatus. I think I know how this ends.

***

Beingness is in itself a being.

Date: April 24th, 2010
Cate: Poetry
Comments Off

Tonight’s Thought [Love is the Mind Healer Pt. 3]

It’s difficult to talk about my struggles with myself because one of them happens to revolve around pride. On one hand, I want to share everything going on in my mind, just open up like a floodgate and let it all pour out. But not here. Not in this way. There’s something I find vulgar about exposing oneself like that, without even the decency of a fictional or philosophical pretense. I suppose it’s linked to years of digesting Protestant guilt, wearing clothes, not flinging my feces in frustration…

But really it’s pride. I’m too proud to admit I have any real problems. I’m too proud to admit that I’m struggling all the time, that sometimes I wonder if I’m even a good person. It shames me because, deep down, I realize these are everyone’s problems and it’s embarassing to realize I am not the beautiful and delicate snow flake I was always told. No matter how nice our clothes, our perfumes, our vehicles or homes… we are still the same naked, emotionally-driven apes that crawled from mother earth’s dripping womb. The fact that there are 6-billion of us now doesn’t change the schematics.

You remember that part from Fight Club where Durden’s wimpy alter ego can’t continue going to the group meetings because he knows someone else in the group is faking? Just knowing that someone else is faking makes him feel so self-conscious that he can no longer let go and cry, which is the only way he can sleep. Or have you ever seen a baby bawling its eyes out, but stops the moment another baby starts crying. The first baby looks at the new baby like, “Hey, stop honing in on my racket!”

We’re all like that, jockeying for the same bandwidth to be seen, heard and validated. We all want to be acknowledged for the invaluable, indispensable asset that we are. This goes back to our ancestral mind; the one that originated in tribal life when everyone’s acquaintances could fit into one camp. In such a situation, it was much easier to be the fastest, the brightest, the best with tools or a the best cook. One’s value could be determined practically.

However, as the size of our social units increased, we found that it was much more difficult to determine one’s value. So we came up with more complex systems involving money, hierarchy and property laws. No one person can entirely explain how we determine why one person deserves a $100-million bonus and someone else has to make due with $15/hour with no benefits. The reasoning is so deeply embedded in our system that it requires none. We take the dollar value of a person as the empirical evidence of their worthiness.

This is so vastly different from how we are set up as animals. The social bonds that unite us establish trust and cooperation, but the further outside of our network we venture, the less certain trust and cooperation become. Money is how we abstract trust and cooperation; in exchange for money, we give our cooperation, with the trust that our efforts will be rewarded with cooperation when we need it. That is, if we have the money.

Money is also how we abstract importance. The more money a person has, the more they should be listened to, the more respect they are entitled to. We don’t always know why this is. It isn’t because they’ve earned our respect. It isn’t because we have deep knowledge of their moral character. We give them respect because we are conditioned to understand money demands it.

Having depersonalized our value to such an extent, there’s no wonder so many of us wander in despair, grasping after things to make us feel real and important. We plaster our cars with bumper stickers announcing our interests, we dress in branded clothes, drive branded cars — everything to associate ourselves with something realer, more lasting and important than we are. After all, there are many Bobs, but only one Saab car company. Driving a Saab says so much more about you in our society than being named Bob.

The same goes for working at a certain company. God knows I felt so proud to work for Apple. Apple is a brand that everyone knows and, as everyone knows without knowing, the more people know about something, the realer it is. Nyaze is barely a ghost in the machine, but Apple is a machine unto itself. From its holy corporate ark flowed strength, meaning and purpose. This type of infusion is addictive, even more so than the money. The grand sense of moving across the world stage is intoxicating.

Going back to being just one ordinary person can be quite a blow. I mean, who wants to be ordinary?

Ordinary.

What a word. Commonly meaning “of no special interest,” “the usual.”

Funny how things in this category wind up being the most important substrate of our existence. Not often do we think about the air we’re constanting sucking into our lungs. Or the light that allows us to see. These are perfectly ordinary things. Just like the ground we walk on, the sky above us, and all the people we’ve ever met.

It’s precisely this consistency that makes life bearable. We would soon be driven crazy if life were constant flux. It’s approximated via television sometimes, but we hang on by a nail.

The Tao is master of all because it serves all. It is utterly and totally lackluster. It’s so plain it can hardly been seen, heard, touched or smelt. It’s blander than water. It’s emptier than a hole. It’s lower than bottom.

All things know it without knowing, all understanding flows from its darkness.

Dammit, you see, there I go rhapsodizing again.

Date: April 23rd, 2010
Cate: Aphorisms, Philosophy
Comments Off

Tonite’s Thought [Motivation]

I’d rather be interested than determined.

Date: April 23rd, 2010
Cate: Poetry
Comments Off

This Afternoon’s Thought [Love is the Mind Healer Pt. 2]

There is nothing to it. Only wants.

Love binds all things.

Life is change. Death is change. Everything’s change.

So nothing is changing.

War’s change. Peace is change.

Everything in the middle. Going nowhere. Restless.

In a moment you know.

Fear knows nothing. Go forward.

The wheel curves beneath you, dropping into the void. All cares.

Gone.

Date: April 22nd, 2010
Cate: Philosophy, Poetry
3 msgs

This Afternoon’s Thought [Love Is the Mind Healer]

Attitude determines everything and nothing determines attittude more than the people you associate with. I don’t care if you are Mary Poppins, if you hang with negative people, your energy will turn sour. I used to make the mistake of thinking other people’s emotions and views didn’t influence mine. That’s like walking waste deep in shit and thinking you’re going to come out smelling of roses.

The way I grew up, I was surrounded by negativity. From the negative people to the negative environment to the negative life prognosis, it was all anyone could do to hold their head up. The crushing weight of the drug dealing, the overpainted walls and pissy stairwells was more than any human was meant to bear.

We originated in the wilderness surrounded by clean air, water and sunlight. Even as we struggled to survive, we did so in the best possible situation. Now the struggle to survive goes on but we fight our war on concrete fields, dressed in uniforms of status, jockeying for access to the low-hanging fruit.

You can think so hard about how hard things are it can make you want to give up, but I don’t know what the point would be. Why give up when there’s nothing left but the grave? Why give up when life is still the best thing going?

I want to feel sorry for myself. I want to blame something or someone for how I feel. Because that’s what nature has taught me to do — to seek my enemy with my senses, to ready my defense, to attack.

But that is no longer my enemy. My enemy is not an animal or even the environment. My enemy is human nature, my enemy is abundance.

I’ve grown spoiled. Positively rotten. I was taught to believe that everything I want is good to want if I’m willing to work hard enough for it. Everything rests on my shoulders. Success and failure are mine to pluck or squander.

That’s too much weight for a human’s shoulders, but it may be the burden we carry nonetheless. Maybe the world is tired like the Hindu scriptures say, maybe it is running out of steam, slowly, surely, inexorably. That still doesn’t mean it gives up. The moment the play begins, it’s finale is foretold, but we play it nonetheless. By God, we play it.

I don’t have any special knowledge. I only know what I’ve seen. The people who keep going keep going. There’s no mystery. There’s no secret.

You wake up, you open your eyes, you put one foot down and then another. The next thing you know, you’re living a life. And the further you go, the more you see, the larger your map gets and you start to recognize the familiar markings. By the time you’ve seen it all, you realize it wasn’t much to see. Everything that’s happened has happened before and will happen again.

Back to the wild, go ye, my friends. I’ll see you where the sidewalk crumbles and the rivers begin.

Date: April 22nd, 2010
Cate: Philosophy, Spirituality/Religion
Comments Off

This Morning’s Thoughts [The Rithm of Life]

The word algorithm comes from a Latin mistranslation of some 9th century Persian guy’s name, coupled with a false relationship to the Greek word “arithmos” meaning “numbers.” Though loosely defined, it generally means a sequence of computations that accomplishes some specific task.

The term algorithm belongs to the world of computer science, but can just as easily describe us. What are we except a sequence of computations accomplishing the feat of our individual existence? What is the food, water and air we consume except data for our algorithm to process? And what are our brains except highly efficient sensory data processors?

Sure, sure, many before me have talked about these parallels. It’s not an accident.

Simply put, we understand new things via comparison to old ones. “Existence” is a very abstract term. It is not an object that can be handled or comprehended with the senses. Things “exist” but one cannot see “existence.” However, this is similar to light, a very common sensory phenomena which, though illuminating everything, cannot be directly seen. In this, we have a simple metaphor and example of what I mean. Light, though invisible, is known to us by its absence – darkness. In the same way, existence is known to us by its absence, through non-existence.

Another way to put this is that we generally advance our understand of things from the concrete to the general. My son, for instance, understood the word “truck” before he understood the concept of “vehicle.” It was only after he learned what a “bus” and a “car” were that he began to see a comprehending pattern in their behavior. But what of a flying vehicle, such as a plane or a helicoptor; does my son think of these things are in the same class as ground vehicles. Are they linked in his mind? Or are the planes just large birds? How is he classifying things?

Of course, this method of classifying things, this ability to move from concrete to abstract, specific to general, and vice-versa; this in itself is an algorithm used by our brains to compute the vast amounts of information bombarding our cerebral cortex.

It’s enough to make one wonder where these algorithms come from. What produces them? Is there some cosmic algorithm from which all others derive their movement? Would this thing be God? Or am I just comparing God to something older and more specific from my memory? Maybe my parents…

The strangeness of the world is that some people are probably offended by the idea that they are just objects in a mind-bogglingly complex computational system, but not by the concept that they are slaves of an omnipotent and infallible God. From my perspective, I cannot discern the difference. What is a “person” after all? Their body? The one that is changing, growing and decaying all the time? Is it their restless, stateless mind, constantly remembering, forgetting and mutating its views? We only know when we compare it to something or use mystical words like the “soul” or the “essence” of a person. But these don’t answer anything and only leave their interpretation to someone else considered more qualified to expound on such lofty conceptions. These mystical interpretations are generally either rationales for solipsistic introversion or theocratic domination. Metaphoric comparison, on the other hand, is something even the dimmest of us can accomplish.

When metaphors are frozen and new comparisons are disallowed, the algorithm of discovery and exploration is arrested. Our purpose is our function and our function is our purpose. There is no difference. Or put another way, different only means non-identical to some degree, it is not an absolute, but a continuum.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Date: April 18th, 2010
Cate: Philosophy, Spirituality/Religion
3 msgs

Today’s Thought [Fear is a Guiding Star]

Each of us has a guiding star; a principle, a pattern, an obsession that never let’s us down and always squeezes the last bit of juice out of us. I think that star is purpose and it always points you home. Strangely for me, my star has often taken the shape of fear. Wherever I have found something to fear, I have found a doorway leading beyond. And now I get the strangest sense… that my greatest fear is to have none.

Date: April 16th, 2010
Cate: Poetry
2 msgs

Tonight’s Thought [Poem: "We Are Blind All"]

Never trust your eyes
For the tubes that run back
Lead to the darkness you busted out from
Where you yet crouch
Coiled in endless anticipation
Blind

Date: April 13th, 2010
Cate: Philosophy
Comments Off

This Afternoon’s Thought [What Can You Trust?]

What’s trust and what does it mean for a human to trust another? C’mon son, let’s break it down.

Trust is a word to describe relationships. When we say we “trust” someone or something, we’re describing the type of relationship we have with that person or thing.

I trust my friend. I don’t trust the government. I trust my bank. I don’t trust my mechanic. On and on…

When we trust something, we act as if it’s behaving in our best interests. When we mistrust something, we act as if it’s harmful to us.

But what happens when we mistake things that are harmful for things that are beneficial? How many of us trust things that are bad for us and mistrust things that work for us? We’re all familiar with the tragedy of the junkie. He can’t quit because his brain is fooled into thinking the toxins he’s taking are making him “well.” A junkie deep in the throes will fight people trying to help him, so deeply convinced is the brain of the drug’s beneficence.

Or take the woman in love with a no good man. He comes home late, he talks to her like anything, and he drinks too much. Still, you can’t tell her nothing. She’s in love. The sex is good. She never thought she was very pretty and who knows the next time a man will look at her?

These are extreme cases of something we do all the time. They are black-and-white and most sane people can spot the problem in a blink, but there are less obvious instances. Take a marriage for instance. The two are in love, but they have their moments. When she tries to offer him advice, he gets defensive and shuts down. He works too much overtime trying to buy her things he thinks she wants, but the more time apart, the more frustrated she becomes.

In this scenario, there are numerous moments of mistrust within an otherwise trusting relationship. Overall, they’re on the same page, but they each have triggers – sensitive spots that make them recoil into defensive postures. These sensitivities may have nothing to do with each other, but they influence them anyway. There’s no point in wishing them away. They are threads in the relationship’s fabric.

What this tells us is that there are at least two forms of trust. There’s unconditional trust, the kind that underlies a functional and long-term relationship. This is akin to the ocean which, though waves are constantly breaking at the surface and everything is chaos and movement, deep below there is silence and gravity. Waves, though fierce, do not upset the ocean. By contrast, there is conditional trust, which is more like precipitation. When it is raining, there is rain. When it’s not, it’s not. It is either there or not there in the moment, but has no permanence. This is where we get the saying “fair-weather friends.”

This concept follows us many places. There are times when unconditional trust is required, as in marriage or in one’s relationship to a spiritual path. In these instances, often we will find moments where our relationship doesn’t seem to be working. At these times, if we lose faith, we fail miserably. But there are others that are much more temporary relationships. When you order food at a restaurant, you expect and trust the food to be good and edible, but you needn’t hold this idea if you get food poisoning.

One’s primary object in this instance is to identify objects deserving unconditional trust and those that are passing. The key observation lies in whether the object of one’s trust is an enduring form or a transient form. It is like comparing a bridge to a raft. Imagine you are walking across a bridge with no rails over a very deep chasm and fog rolls in. You must either continue to trust the endurance of the bridge or stray into death. It would not do to suddenly change directions while walking across a bridge!

On the other hand, a transient form is like a raft. If you are considering crossing a river on a raft and fog rolls in, you may wish to wait until conditions change. It is very difficult to know where you are in a floating raft in churning water. It’s not to say that you cannot trust the raft, only that you can trust it only under certain conditions.

Choose your means carefully.