Search for Truths and Realities
Today I wrote quite a harsh email to a friend, but I was tired of intellectual pretense and phoniness of shallow knowledge. I don't know much of anything, but I never pretend to know more than I do, unlike so many monkeys I know. Say a guy picks some street Spanish and he would go around telling everybody he knows the language or a dude who just begins to read about Buddhism and he would start lecturing to his friends who have been exposed to Buddhist thoughts since birth. The scene is quite hilarious and clownish. Here's my email:
1. I asked you if you could argue against the points I had raised. I did not ask you to go into a rambling discourse.
2. I was and still am very well aware of what Gene meant by the "same stuff". It was I who brought up the word "egalitarianism" to debunk his view. And of course I used the word in the broader sense, in the same meaning as "same stuff" as Gene intended, not in the narrow legal meaning. Please do not teach a grandma how to suck eggs. I know words and command a much broader knowledge than you ever do. You have a distasteful habit trying to show off your pathetic meager knowledge or put up feeble, anemic argumentation. For your info, what Gene has done is to parrot some Hindu and Buddhist views about the universality of beings and "things". He tried to tell me that there are no individual differences. I argued against that stupid view. There's no need to repeat my arguments here except adding this: even in the same genus, a tree can be smaller or bigger than the other. There is no uniformity among living things, even in the same genus or species. The difference is due to gene mutation and environment. With humans, we add the element of willpower. Now tell me, do you regard yourself as made of the "same stuff" as Hillary Clinton? In my opinion, not in a million years, not in appearance nor achievements. Nature favors variation as an adaptation against changing environment. Change is the order of things, not staticism. Theoretical reasoning without empirical observations and experiments is a sophistical stupidity.
Today I also cc to a pompous asshole an article in which I denounced him as such. I absolutely hate the fucking bastard motherfucker and I am waiting for the right opportunity to make my wrath felt. Wisdom is hard to come by. A pompous stupid remark would earn you an enmity for life. Silence is the best answer to most unpleasant situations in life. The moment you feel most triumphant is the beginning of your downfall. You only speak when you are affected directly, otherwise just keep your fucking mouth shut. I have a lot of anger inside me. I have to watch it closely.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Steven Pinker and Me
Steven Pinker and Me (Revised and Added)
I first came across Pinker about ten years ago. I no longer remember the name of the book he wrote. I just vaguely recall that it was an important book and dealt with cognitive science. It was also the first time I was introduced to the field of study. Then from time to time I saw his name linked with Norm Chomsky as a foil. A few days ago I read in Newsweek that he just published a thick book called "The Better Angels of Our Nature". One paragraph in the book review stood out because it encapsulated, perhaps too neatly, human nature while explaining Pinker's thesis that contrary to facile impressions, violence in the human world has gone down. I felt compelled to share that paragraph with you (those who have already read the book review, please read no further) in the hopes that it may shed some light on our behavior and others. Understanding leads to tolerance, hopefully.
"Human nature, he says, consists of a constant pull of good and evil. He includes five 'inner demons'-sadism, revenge, dominance, violence in pursuit of a practical benefit, and violence in pursuit of an ideology-that struggle with four 'better angels': self-control, empathy, morality, and reason. Over the years, Pinker says, the forces of civilization have increasingly given the good in us the upper hand." (0ctober 10&17, 2011 double issue, p.72)
I don't know about you, but the paragraph resonates strongly with me. In case you wonder, I have four "inner demons" and three "better angels" listed by Pinker. No wonder my angels are outgunned and I have been miserable and struggling to stay sane and out of jail.
Somebody asked me the other day what qualities I most like about myself and others. I was about to give him the usual suspects like honesty, courage, compassion, and all that shit, but then I took a look at him and saw he was not really, keenly interested in my answer ( his eyes were wandering; he just made small talks disguised as real conversations,) so I blurted out with a smirk, a sneer, and a hoary laugh: "mystery and danger." That got him. He said, "come again?" I brusquely got up. "You heard me." was my parting shot. Life is a fucking jungle, full of wild animals. Some animals avoid you or pay you no attention. Others you have to watch out for because they are hiding and ambushing you. You cannot let your guard down while living or walking in a thick jungle, otherwise you just get killed.
Yes, mystery and danger. I am talking rot and rubbish. I ain't no danger to nobody but myself. Last week, I became 64 years of age. Nobody remembered my birthday. Nobody gave a fucking damn. No card. No present. So I went to the neighborhood convenience store and bought myself a six-pack, a jar of unsalted peanuts, a box of crackers, a can of sardines, an apple, and a bag of rice. I came home, put the rice in the rice-cooker. Thirty minutes later, I plopped down in the sofa in front of a TV and ate my dinner, all alone and feeling mysterious and dangerous.
I used to have a very young girlfriend. She was only good for sex and nothing else, dumb as an ox and completely unlettered. I dumped her after two months. I was tired of talking nonsense to her and hearing nonsense from her. Sex without real communication can make you feel like a real animal. You had better believe it, take it from Grandpa. I now am dating more age-appropriate women. They don't have much in the Department of Looks, but they usually have money and they appreciate whatever attention I give them. Actually, I don't like women that much. I mean I don't enjoy dating. Too expensive and too time-consuming. I'd rather read if I feel lonely. Okay, in case you didn't get it even if you have reached this far, I am a fiction writer, not a trafficker of facts and truths. I make up stories; exaggerate, inflate, amplify facts; and indulge in hyperbole. Please note that I didn't say I was a liar. There's a big difference between a fiction writer and a liar. If you don't know, drop me a line and I will explain and elaborate my point.
A dear friend is of an opinion we are not alone in this world and that just as we were surrounded by loved ones when we emerged into this world, we will be greeted by loving beings when we exit this world. I am glad for him that he holds this view. I am quite sure holding that view brings him peace and joy. Unfortunately for me, I just cannot subscribe to that sunny outlook. I think, quite adamantly in fact, that we got into this world all alone, bewildered, confused, and lost. That was why we cried (we could have laughed uproariously to get the oxygen into our lungs. The mechanism is the same). It signals and symbolizes life is a painful struggle, and not a blissful existence in paradise. And when we die and breathe out our last breath, usually we do so, alone and probably unconscious, unattended and or unknown by our loved ones. I think the view held by my friend is a fiction and a palliative to make life bearable. I think life on this planet is an accident, a culmination of gratuitous events, and an absurdity which has no inherent meaning. Man invents, concocts, makes up, creates meanings for this life. Life on this planet as on somewhere else is transitory and part of the process of energy recycle.
My friend also said " you are never meeting something or someone that is more than who you are. Everything is just a part of who you have always been, but for some reason we often experience this as something outside of ourselves. I don't know why, but we are learning something for the greater whole of who we really are." I don't know if I fully understood, if at all, the meaning of what my friend Gene said here due to its mysticism, but my reaction and not quite a comment (a comment implies you fully understood what was said) to it is as follows:
While decidedly there are commonalities among men, there exist differences of kind, and not necessarily of degree, among men as well. The differences lay outside the 3, and maybe 2, standard deviations. The differences come about by gene mutation or even by full exercise of willpower. When we encounter geniuses, autistic savants, saints, and psychopaths , we are reminded of the differences. Self-projection is a fallacy of thinking. That's what I remind my saintly friend Omar who has a deplorable habit of thinking that people he meets think the same way as he does. He fails to recognize that he is a rarity. At the other extreme, I pointedly told him of the examples of scumbags and assholes pontificators who are also different from the mainstream. These pitiful, despicable humans think because they lie and are afraid of truths, the rest of mankind, me especially, are like them. They fail to recognize that I am made of better stuff than them and that's why I violently and vehemently hold them in utter contempt.
A reader, not Gene, disagreed with my view that I held myself superior to some assholes. She is a new student of Buddhism and thinks that I should blindly accept what Gene eloquently told me regarding the egalitarianism among men. Well, I have news for her. I am an independent and a far better and more astute thinker than she is or ever will be. Egalitarianism holds true only insofar as human rights and values are concerned, but as for intrinsic talents and abilities and morals, there is no such thing as egalitarianism. That fact is as clear as day. I hold myself superior to certain assholes because I reason better, because I am a better read person, because I respect facts and truths and logic while they do not, because I am better looking than they are, because I inherit better genes than they do (my parents were intelligent and very pious and mindful of morals and ethics. In fact they were saintly. They were far better than their siblings. Omar is the third saintly person that I met, besides my parents).
There is a basic Buddhist teaching/precept/view (which can be either right or wrong or just right or wrong up to a point, I leave that for the reader to decide ) that essentially there is no separation between self and others and that our sufferings derive from the false dichotomy/separation of self ad others. However, we must not jump off from this Buddhist premise and arrive at a conclusion that there are no real and significant differences among men. As I pointed out above, when we encounter geniuses, autistic savants, saints, and psychopaths , we are reminded that real and significant differences.
I did owe Gene an apology for a typo. I meant to quote "loving beings" not "living beings" when mentioning his view that there will be loving beings greeting us when we exit from this world. I did correct the typo in this revised edition and addition of this piece. I further stated to him that "as regards the discussion, respectful and honest disagreement is more beneficial than polite, desultory agreement. The disagreement serves a gist for the refinement of our own thoughts. If I think my thinking is off base, I will always correct it. The real problem is that whether one is capable of seeing one's thinking is off base."
I was wrong, seriously and grievously wrong, before and was not smart enough to recognize the flaws in my thinking until very late in life. I was wrong about my ideas about Love, Power, and Pride. I was guilty of self-projection. Anyway, I think it is beneficial to serious searchers of truths and fair to Gene to repost Gene's latest reply to my reactions to his views in its entirety:
"Good reflections, Bob... I appreciate your comments and you should know I try to never take offense when someone holds a different view or interprets the data or my thoughts differently than I intended. I try to think of the differences in perspective/outlook as learning for myself and others. Your thoughts are always welcome and appreciated. I am often wrong and happy to admit it. Sometimes it is hard to know who is more accurate in their analysis or perspective, but I can say confidently that nobody is 100% right about anything. The dialogue is the most important thing. If someone feels they are that right, they are lying to themselves and in danger of missing the next surprise. The moment of surprise may hurt them, instead of offering enlightenment and joy.
I would like to comment on your interpretation of my thoughts regarding not being alone in this world and being greeted in death by loving beings, just as we were greeted in birth.
Maybe it is a typo you made, but my actual quote was "I am convinced there are loving beings beyond this realm to great us in death, just as there were loving beings to greet us in birth."
I did not say "living beings." as you wrote. I said "loving" beings.
What does it mean to be living? Is a whole other question. Do you need a body to be alive. If to be alive all you need is motion, then you do not need a body. In this sense nothing is ever absolutely still. We talk about absolute zero and we can mathematically calculate that it is -273.15 Celsius or 459.67 Fahrenheit. However, being able to measure something at that temperature is impossible. We approach a similar asymptote as when we try and calculate infinity; or a repeating decimal point. Perhaps there is a temperature below absolute zero, but it would exist in an inverse universe or some state of reversed matter, perhaps anti matter. I do not know enough about the science. But a similar perspective might be how we measure sound. There are frequencies of sound that we cannot hear and possibly measure. It does not mean they are not there. Just because we can't measure something does not mean it isn't there.
The second interpretation you suggest was: "I am glad for him that he holds this view. I am quite sure holding that view brings him peace and joy."
I hold no view on anything, but simply a passing glimpse of what might be. I doubt all things, even my own understanding or conceptual perspective of the universe and our existence. Trying to hold onto anything will ultimately be met with information or an experience that causes conflict, internal or external. If I embrace that doubt is the nature of our true existence, then I can only greet the next moment with surprise. If I hold onto a view, it is essentially an expectation that will be shattered.
To be truly at peace, we should not hold onto any expectation.
"It is the release of expectation that allows us to fully embrace the mystery and fall in love with the approaching moment."
This is my real view. Interpretively it is not a concrete view. It is alive and waiting to be offered enlightenment. It does not cling to a belief. It clings to doubt and awaits surprise. Our greatest achievements will not be in confirming our beliefs or in achieving the goals we set for ourselves. Our greatest achievements/discoveries will be the surprises along the way. Living with an perspective of expectation will hinder this ability to notice the surprises. We are less able to unravel mystery when we view through an expectant perspective. I don't know if anyone can do this 100%. All we have is the perspective of this body and mind. There is no way to completely remove the lens in which we view the world. The best we can do is recognize that there is a lens that filters our perspective. There is no way to take a measurement without perspective. In this this sense we are trapped in this moment and this frame of reference, but I am confident an infinite string of moments await existence and in this infinite experience the mystery will continue to be unraveled, but never fully solved.
Love is different than a viewpoint, it is more of a lens in which we greet our experiences and approaching moments. Conjecture about what happens in death, as what happens in birth is simply an observation of the cyclical nature of the universe and existence. There seems to be a process of repeating cycles. In this regard, my senses tell me that what has happened before, will happen again. Hence, just as we were greeted in birth, we shall be greeted in death. But, I really don't know. The scientific support rests in the concepts of entropy. Nothing is ever lost, only transformed.
I wrote very long essay a couple years ago. It was more of a summary of a meditation. It is 2600 words, but here are a few quotes from the writing.
"Everything changes, but everything lasts forever. The stuff that everything is made from has a memory, as this is the nature of evolution. This memory is the collective consciousness of the cosmos and is part of everything."
"Our brain can only experience the material world as it is organized to do. The brain is one vehicle that the collective consciousness uses to evolve itself. The brain cannot understand all the memories of the collective consciousness, because it has a limited frame of reference. You are the collective consciousness and your body is just energy at play or energy evolving. When you leave this body, you will experience the cosmos from a new frame of reference. You will have a new set of sensory perceptions. It will be the same cosmos, but you will only be aware of the perceptions your frame of reference allows. This is the collective consciousness learning and evolving through an endless cycle of manifestations of itself into varying frames of reference. We could say that the collective consciousness is looking at the same thing over and over through a slightly different lens, view angle or frame of reference. It is trying to evermore refine its understanding. It is evolving."
"Our bodies are hosts to the collective consciousness of the cosmos; energy in training. Consciousness is learning and evolving through our sensory perception."
"The nature of our reality is a projection of our mind and our minds can only project that the mind has known. "
"If we realize that everything is essentially the same stuff, we can look deep within and know that we already know everything. But we will can only truly know it as we experience it, not as we expect it. So we cannot know what is to come, but only greet it with surprise."
There is much more, but it is just conjecture. Some would even call it silly or mumbo jumbo (as you have used the term previously to describe how some young people might think), but no one can prove anything otherwise. Sometimes its just better to have a banana milkshake and call it a day. or as the soda pop company puts it "Have a Coke and a smile." LOL
Any how, this is an interesting discussion.
Gene"
I first came across Pinker about ten years ago. I no longer remember the name of the book he wrote. I just vaguely recall that it was an important book and dealt with cognitive science. It was also the first time I was introduced to the field of study. Then from time to time I saw his name linked with Norm Chomsky as a foil. A few days ago I read in Newsweek that he just published a thick book called "The Better Angels of Our Nature". One paragraph in the book review stood out because it encapsulated, perhaps too neatly, human nature while explaining Pinker's thesis that contrary to facile impressions, violence in the human world has gone down. I felt compelled to share that paragraph with you (those who have already read the book review, please read no further) in the hopes that it may shed some light on our behavior and others. Understanding leads to tolerance, hopefully.
"Human nature, he says, consists of a constant pull of good and evil. He includes five 'inner demons'-sadism, revenge, dominance, violence in pursuit of a practical benefit, and violence in pursuit of an ideology-that struggle with four 'better angels': self-control, empathy, morality, and reason. Over the years, Pinker says, the forces of civilization have increasingly given the good in us the upper hand." (0ctober 10&17, 2011 double issue, p.72)
I don't know about you, but the paragraph resonates strongly with me. In case you wonder, I have four "inner demons" and three "better angels" listed by Pinker. No wonder my angels are outgunned and I have been miserable and struggling to stay sane and out of jail.
Somebody asked me the other day what qualities I most like about myself and others. I was about to give him the usual suspects like honesty, courage, compassion, and all that shit, but then I took a look at him and saw he was not really, keenly interested in my answer ( his eyes were wandering; he just made small talks disguised as real conversations,) so I blurted out with a smirk, a sneer, and a hoary laugh: "mystery and danger." That got him. He said, "come again?" I brusquely got up. "You heard me." was my parting shot. Life is a fucking jungle, full of wild animals. Some animals avoid you or pay you no attention. Others you have to watch out for because they are hiding and ambushing you. You cannot let your guard down while living or walking in a thick jungle, otherwise you just get killed.
Yes, mystery and danger. I am talking rot and rubbish. I ain't no danger to nobody but myself. Last week, I became 64 years of age. Nobody remembered my birthday. Nobody gave a fucking damn. No card. No present. So I went to the neighborhood convenience store and bought myself a six-pack, a jar of unsalted peanuts, a box of crackers, a can of sardines, an apple, and a bag of rice. I came home, put the rice in the rice-cooker. Thirty minutes later, I plopped down in the sofa in front of a TV and ate my dinner, all alone and feeling mysterious and dangerous.
I used to have a very young girlfriend. She was only good for sex and nothing else, dumb as an ox and completely unlettered. I dumped her after two months. I was tired of talking nonsense to her and hearing nonsense from her. Sex without real communication can make you feel like a real animal. You had better believe it, take it from Grandpa. I now am dating more age-appropriate women. They don't have much in the Department of Looks, but they usually have money and they appreciate whatever attention I give them. Actually, I don't like women that much. I mean I don't enjoy dating. Too expensive and too time-consuming. I'd rather read if I feel lonely. Okay, in case you didn't get it even if you have reached this far, I am a fiction writer, not a trafficker of facts and truths. I make up stories; exaggerate, inflate, amplify facts; and indulge in hyperbole. Please note that I didn't say I was a liar. There's a big difference between a fiction writer and a liar. If you don't know, drop me a line and I will explain and elaborate my point.
A dear friend is of an opinion we are not alone in this world and that just as we were surrounded by loved ones when we emerged into this world, we will be greeted by loving beings when we exit this world. I am glad for him that he holds this view. I am quite sure holding that view brings him peace and joy. Unfortunately for me, I just cannot subscribe to that sunny outlook. I think, quite adamantly in fact, that we got into this world all alone, bewildered, confused, and lost. That was why we cried (we could have laughed uproariously to get the oxygen into our lungs. The mechanism is the same). It signals and symbolizes life is a painful struggle, and not a blissful existence in paradise. And when we die and breathe out our last breath, usually we do so, alone and probably unconscious, unattended and or unknown by our loved ones. I think the view held by my friend is a fiction and a palliative to make life bearable. I think life on this planet is an accident, a culmination of gratuitous events, and an absurdity which has no inherent meaning. Man invents, concocts, makes up, creates meanings for this life. Life on this planet as on somewhere else is transitory and part of the process of energy recycle.
My friend also said " you are never meeting something or someone that is more than who you are. Everything is just a part of who you have always been, but for some reason we often experience this as something outside of ourselves. I don't know why, but we are learning something for the greater whole of who we really are." I don't know if I fully understood, if at all, the meaning of what my friend Gene said here due to its mysticism, but my reaction and not quite a comment (a comment implies you fully understood what was said) to it is as follows:
While decidedly there are commonalities among men, there exist differences of kind, and not necessarily of degree, among men as well. The differences lay outside the 3, and maybe 2, standard deviations. The differences come about by gene mutation or even by full exercise of willpower. When we encounter geniuses, autistic savants, saints, and psychopaths , we are reminded of the differences. Self-projection is a fallacy of thinking. That's what I remind my saintly friend Omar who has a deplorable habit of thinking that people he meets think the same way as he does. He fails to recognize that he is a rarity. At the other extreme, I pointedly told him of the examples of scumbags and assholes pontificators who are also different from the mainstream. These pitiful, despicable humans think because they lie and are afraid of truths, the rest of mankind, me especially, are like them. They fail to recognize that I am made of better stuff than them and that's why I violently and vehemently hold them in utter contempt.
A reader, not Gene, disagreed with my view that I held myself superior to some assholes. She is a new student of Buddhism and thinks that I should blindly accept what Gene eloquently told me regarding the egalitarianism among men. Well, I have news for her. I am an independent and a far better and more astute thinker than she is or ever will be. Egalitarianism holds true only insofar as human rights and values are concerned, but as for intrinsic talents and abilities and morals, there is no such thing as egalitarianism. That fact is as clear as day. I hold myself superior to certain assholes because I reason better, because I am a better read person, because I respect facts and truths and logic while they do not, because I am better looking than they are, because I inherit better genes than they do (my parents were intelligent and very pious and mindful of morals and ethics. In fact they were saintly. They were far better than their siblings. Omar is the third saintly person that I met, besides my parents).
There is a basic Buddhist teaching/precept/view (which can be either right or wrong or just right or wrong up to a point, I leave that for the reader to decide ) that essentially there is no separation between self and others and that our sufferings derive from the false dichotomy/separation of self ad others. However, we must not jump off from this Buddhist premise and arrive at a conclusion that there are no real and significant differences among men. As I pointed out above, when we encounter geniuses, autistic savants, saints, and psychopaths , we are reminded that real and significant differences.
I did owe Gene an apology for a typo. I meant to quote "loving beings" not "living beings" when mentioning his view that there will be loving beings greeting us when we exit from this world. I did correct the typo in this revised edition and addition of this piece. I further stated to him that "as regards the discussion, respectful and honest disagreement is more beneficial than polite, desultory agreement. The disagreement serves a gist for the refinement of our own thoughts. If I think my thinking is off base, I will always correct it. The real problem is that whether one is capable of seeing one's thinking is off base."
I was wrong, seriously and grievously wrong, before and was not smart enough to recognize the flaws in my thinking until very late in life. I was wrong about my ideas about Love, Power, and Pride. I was guilty of self-projection. Anyway, I think it is beneficial to serious searchers of truths and fair to Gene to repost Gene's latest reply to my reactions to his views in its entirety:
"Good reflections, Bob... I appreciate your comments and you should know I try to never take offense when someone holds a different view or interprets the data or my thoughts differently than I intended. I try to think of the differences in perspective/outlook as learning for myself and others. Your thoughts are always welcome and appreciated. I am often wrong and happy to admit it. Sometimes it is hard to know who is more accurate in their analysis or perspective, but I can say confidently that nobody is 100% right about anything. The dialogue is the most important thing. If someone feels they are that right, they are lying to themselves and in danger of missing the next surprise. The moment of surprise may hurt them, instead of offering enlightenment and joy.
I would like to comment on your interpretation of my thoughts regarding not being alone in this world and being greeted in death by loving beings, just as we were greeted in birth.
Maybe it is a typo you made, but my actual quote was "I am convinced there are loving beings beyond this realm to great us in death, just as there were loving beings to greet us in birth."
I did not say "living beings." as you wrote. I said "loving" beings.
What does it mean to be living? Is a whole other question. Do you need a body to be alive. If to be alive all you need is motion, then you do not need a body. In this sense nothing is ever absolutely still. We talk about absolute zero and we can mathematically calculate that it is -273.15 Celsius or 459.67 Fahrenheit. However, being able to measure something at that temperature is impossible. We approach a similar asymptote as when we try and calculate infinity; or a repeating decimal point. Perhaps there is a temperature below absolute zero, but it would exist in an inverse universe or some state of reversed matter, perhaps anti matter. I do not know enough about the science. But a similar perspective might be how we measure sound. There are frequencies of sound that we cannot hear and possibly measure. It does not mean they are not there. Just because we can't measure something does not mean it isn't there.
The second interpretation you suggest was: "I am glad for him that he holds this view. I am quite sure holding that view brings him peace and joy."
I hold no view on anything, but simply a passing glimpse of what might be. I doubt all things, even my own understanding or conceptual perspective of the universe and our existence. Trying to hold onto anything will ultimately be met with information or an experience that causes conflict, internal or external. If I embrace that doubt is the nature of our true existence, then I can only greet the next moment with surprise. If I hold onto a view, it is essentially an expectation that will be shattered.
To be truly at peace, we should not hold onto any expectation.
"It is the release of expectation that allows us to fully embrace the mystery and fall in love with the approaching moment."
This is my real view. Interpretively it is not a concrete view. It is alive and waiting to be offered enlightenment. It does not cling to a belief. It clings to doubt and awaits surprise. Our greatest achievements will not be in confirming our beliefs or in achieving the goals we set for ourselves. Our greatest achievements/discoveries will be the surprises along the way. Living with an perspective of expectation will hinder this ability to notice the surprises. We are less able to unravel mystery when we view through an expectant perspective. I don't know if anyone can do this 100%. All we have is the perspective of this body and mind. There is no way to completely remove the lens in which we view the world. The best we can do is recognize that there is a lens that filters our perspective. There is no way to take a measurement without perspective. In this this sense we are trapped in this moment and this frame of reference, but I am confident an infinite string of moments await existence and in this infinite experience the mystery will continue to be unraveled, but never fully solved.
Love is different than a viewpoint, it is more of a lens in which we greet our experiences and approaching moments. Conjecture about what happens in death, as what happens in birth is simply an observation of the cyclical nature of the universe and existence. There seems to be a process of repeating cycles. In this regard, my senses tell me that what has happened before, will happen again. Hence, just as we were greeted in birth, we shall be greeted in death. But, I really don't know. The scientific support rests in the concepts of entropy. Nothing is ever lost, only transformed.
I wrote very long essay a couple years ago. It was more of a summary of a meditation. It is 2600 words, but here are a few quotes from the writing.
"Everything changes, but everything lasts forever. The stuff that everything is made from has a memory, as this is the nature of evolution. This memory is the collective consciousness of the cosmos and is part of everything."
"Our brain can only experience the material world as it is organized to do. The brain is one vehicle that the collective consciousness uses to evolve itself. The brain cannot understand all the memories of the collective consciousness, because it has a limited frame of reference. You are the collective consciousness and your body is just energy at play or energy evolving. When you leave this body, you will experience the cosmos from a new frame of reference. You will have a new set of sensory perceptions. It will be the same cosmos, but you will only be aware of the perceptions your frame of reference allows. This is the collective consciousness learning and evolving through an endless cycle of manifestations of itself into varying frames of reference. We could say that the collective consciousness is looking at the same thing over and over through a slightly different lens, view angle or frame of reference. It is trying to evermore refine its understanding. It is evolving."
"Our bodies are hosts to the collective consciousness of the cosmos; energy in training. Consciousness is learning and evolving through our sensory perception."
"The nature of our reality is a projection of our mind and our minds can only project that the mind has known. "
"If we realize that everything is essentially the same stuff, we can look deep within and know that we already know everything. But we will can only truly know it as we experience it, not as we expect it. So we cannot know what is to come, but only greet it with surprise."
There is much more, but it is just conjecture. Some would even call it silly or mumbo jumbo (as you have used the term previously to describe how some young people might think), but no one can prove anything otherwise. Sometimes its just better to have a banana milkshake and call it a day. or as the soda pop company puts it "Have a Coke and a smile." LOL
Any how, this is an interesting discussion.
Gene"
Are we really made of the same stuff?
Are we really made of the same stuff?
Here's what my dear friend Gene opined:
"Be careful when you say you are made from better stuff than them. We are all made from the same stuff. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Some have more raw intelligence. Some work harder than others. True mastery is when you play the hand you were dealt to the best of your ability and with appreciation for just getting the opportunity to play.
No one is better than anyone or anything. Some are just more distracted. Some feel the need to convince themselves of a false reality. No one can understand 100% of what is going on. Some get closer to 99.99%. Some stop midway and embrace false conclusions. There is no absolute conclusion to find. There is absolute love.
Convince yourself that you can never be convinced. Fall in love with not needing to know. Embrace the mystery.
This is my humble opinion.
Gene"
Once again I find myself in disagreement with the view expressed by my friend Gene (I suppose the view is temporary as he had said earlier in another piece that he was not married to any view).
Words have a way of meaning to whatever the reader/speaker takes them to mean, especially when the literalness is involved.
If an individual takes the time to read about the brain, dabble into reading about neurosciences, linguistics, and cognitive psychology, and observe closely human behavior, I think he would not be so ready to conclude that humans are made of the same stuff, regardless of how attractive, appealing, and democratic such a view may hold.
1) I think those who subscribe to egalitarianism in Man overlook certain glaring realities. While humans share basic drives for food, sex, shelter, power, love, esteem, and self-actualization, it is the degrees of achievements in the satisfaction of these drives explain the differences among men and give rise to my assertion that humans are not really made of the same stuff. The differences can be due to the organic structure of the brains involved and the exercise of willpower (persistence and courage are some of the manifestations).
The existence of men like Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Shakespeare at one end of the spectrum and of creatures like Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Stacy, Ted Bundy, Hitler, and the three assholes I unfortunately know personally at the other end of the spectrum convinced me that the brains of these individuals are different from the norm in certain areas. A mere mortal, given unlimited time and training, cannot produce the works similar to those accomplished by Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and Shakespeare. Even at a mundane level like writing a poem, if a human does not have poetic sensibilities and is not endowed with linguistic skills and is not blessed with an ear for music and rhythm, he cannot simply write a poem worth a damn, no matter how hard he tries. Not everybody can write poetry. Thus, not everybody is made of the same stuff. Not everybody can be a true polyglot either. I have seen that with my own eyes. I know at least three Vietnamese dudes who barely can express themselves in English in spite of going to an English-speaking university and living in an English-speaking environment for over 30 years. They have deaf ears. Their brains cannot register fully another language. So please don't tell me we are made of the same stuff.
2) Gene said, "No one is better than anyone or anything." Really??? So Obama, a bi-racial kid growing up in modest circumstances, by the force of his will-power and determination, education, cunning seizure of timing, and persuasiveness and oratory, became the first "black" President of the United States, is not better than a white redneck meth abuser? Unbridled egalitarianism overlooks intrinsic differences and outward achievements or lack thereof of humans. Even egalitarianism does not really exist in a court of law. A wealthy man has better legal protection than a pauper. Egalitarianism is being bandied about by mind mongers to deceive the gullible and embraced by the untalented in order for them to be able to sleep at night. But when the sun rises in the morning, reality stares at the untalented in the face, making them blink in shame and sorrow.
A man is better than a "thing", "anything", because a "thing" is not endowed with consciousness. A thing does not replicate itself, unlike a man.
3) Gene also said, "There is absolute love". That was what I used to think, too, but not anymore. Love by parents for offsprings MAY be absolute. All other loves are conditional, depending largely on the worthiness of the beloved. This is a hard and unpleasant reality that most humans don't want to face. It is difficult to love the unloveable.
4) Yes, I embrace the mystery with my eyes wide open.
Thus spake Wissai
July 7, 2013.
Roberto Wissai/NKBa'
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Death Musings on The Fourth of July
Death Musings on The Fourth of July
This morning I killed a cockroach. It didn't know it would die today in my condo, on the Fourth of July no less. Before I took its life, I mentally uttered a word of apology. It could still now be free roaming the world, enjoying sunshine and freedom and food and sex if it didn't invade my territory and pose a threat to my safety.
When I was in my 20's, two writers exerted a great deal of influence on my views about Death. The first writer was Carlos Castañeda, a South American anthropologist turned New Age philosopher guru, who wrote a bunch of field works/"novels" ostensibly about magic and witchcraft, but actually a rehash of Buddhist thoughts in modern Western terminology. His first four books were good and readable. The subsequent books were just nonsensical mumbo-jumbo. Anyway, among his "teachings" I committed to memory was his exhortation that we must live with an idea that Death constantly watching us from our left, ready to pounce on us when we least expect it. Whenever we are in despair, we should turn to our left and we will hear Death say, "it's okay my friend, as long as I haven't touched you, you still have hope, you still can start things over again. So you must live your life to the brim, joyously and fearlessly." Castañeda enjoyed fame and fortune for a while, but he didn't practice moderation. He shacked up with a bunch of female admirers, suffered from diabetes, and died of cancer at the age of 72. I enjoyed reading his prose when he didn't go into shamanistic bullshit. English was not his first language, but he managed to express himself---apparently unaided by editorial coaching, unlike the fraud Jerzy Kosinski--- in crystal clear, articulate English.
The second writer was Nietzsche who convinced me---as if I really needed much persuasion---that one must live life dangerously and when it comes to die, one must die a timely death. Life has no meaning without the presence of Death.
Tonight there will be fireworks displays all over America, polluting the air and costing taxpayers billions of dollars so the mindless public would ooh and aah to the fleeting beauty in the sky in the dark of the night. The money could be used for social services. Human is really a strange animal, incomplete and self-conflicting.
Wissai
July 4, 2013
This morning I killed a cockroach. It didn't know it would die today in my condo, on the Fourth of July no less. Before I took its life, I mentally uttered a word of apology. It could still now be free roaming the world, enjoying sunshine and freedom and food and sex if it didn't invade my territory and pose a threat to my safety.
When I was in my 20's, two writers exerted a great deal of influence on my views about Death. The first writer was Carlos Castañeda, a South American anthropologist turned New Age philosopher guru, who wrote a bunch of field works/"novels" ostensibly about magic and witchcraft, but actually a rehash of Buddhist thoughts in modern Western terminology. His first four books were good and readable. The subsequent books were just nonsensical mumbo-jumbo. Anyway, among his "teachings" I committed to memory was his exhortation that we must live with an idea that Death constantly watching us from our left, ready to pounce on us when we least expect it. Whenever we are in despair, we should turn to our left and we will hear Death say, "it's okay my friend, as long as I haven't touched you, you still have hope, you still can start things over again. So you must live your life to the brim, joyously and fearlessly." Castañeda enjoyed fame and fortune for a while, but he didn't practice moderation. He shacked up with a bunch of female admirers, suffered from diabetes, and died of cancer at the age of 72. I enjoyed reading his prose when he didn't go into shamanistic bullshit. English was not his first language, but he managed to express himself---apparently unaided by editorial coaching, unlike the fraud Jerzy Kosinski--- in crystal clear, articulate English.
The second writer was Nietzsche who convinced me---as if I really needed much persuasion---that one must live life dangerously and when it comes to die, one must die a timely death. Life has no meaning without the presence of Death.
Tonight there will be fireworks displays all over America, polluting the air and costing taxpayers billions of dollars so the mindless public would ooh and aah to the fleeting beauty in the sky in the dark of the night. The money could be used for social services. Human is really a strange animal, incomplete and self-conflicting.
Wissai
July 4, 2013
Fire To the Rain
Fire to The Rain
She said her love for me was like the winter rain
Drizzling, falling, nonstop, night and day
She said it has brought her little joy but much pain
Her thoughts about me didn't seem to go away
So she thought of setting fire to all this rain
I said where and how could you light the fire
When all you did was to complain
That my heart was nothing but a block of ice
What you should do is to learn to skate
So you could leave tracks on this frozen heart of mine
Wissai
July 4, 2013
She said her love for me was like the winter rain
Drizzling, falling, nonstop, night and day
She said it has brought her little joy but much pain
Her thoughts about me didn't seem to go away
So she thought of setting fire to all this rain
I said where and how could you light the fire
When all you did was to complain
That my heart was nothing but a block of ice
What you should do is to learn to skate
So you could leave tracks on this frozen heart of mine
Wissai
July 4, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Reading and Writing
Reading and Writing
If you read long enough, day after day, as time rolls by and your life unfolds slowly and sometimes swiftly in front of your eyes, and if you are ambitious enough to read in languages other than your mother's tongue, you will find yourself meditating on words and the magic and mystique of stringing words together in order to get more in touch with yourself, to quiet the rising turbulence inside you, and to understand better assholes and scumbags--the human animals of the homo sapiens species, as to why they are so different from you, why they are so afraid of facts, truths, and logic, and then have no sense of self-respect as evidenced by their efforts to lie and make up stories to paint themselves in a good light while casting aspersions on others who have questioned their integrity, level of knowledge/ignorance, and intelligence.
A new but dear friend of yours suggested that this world, let alone the universe, is a mystery and so are the humans in it. He is of an opinions that all humans are the same. What you have noted the differences between you and those for whom you currently harbor a contempt are merely differentials in development. You beg to differ. Your interest and reading in abnormal psychology and daily observations of human behavior tell you differently. While some humans did evolve and did learn to be better and ended up providing as well as tasting the milk of human kindness, there are those who take delight in being mean and power-hungry. You are of the camp that we humans have willpower and moral choices. We choose to be good or bad, unless our brains are organically impaired to begin with. You have been around and exposed to pathological liars and shameless pontificators long enough to realize such scumbags are a sorry lot and deserving to be exterminated. And if they are, you would not shed a tear for them because it was their conscious choice to be who they are. Of course, you could choose to be magnanimous and charitable in your thinking towards them for they are deep down stupid, vain, and greedy. However, you know you would not be much, if any , better than they are if you hold yourself superior to them. To hold yourself superior and to be contemptuous of them is to be ensnared and bogged down in stupidity and suffering. So you are writing instead and trying to adopt a supreme indifference to them while acknowledging that they did enrich your life for showing to you how evil and mean they are. Your knowledge about the existence of human scums has improved because of them.
But you went off on a tangent. You didn't mean to give a discourse on the pathology of the human mind. What you meant to write about was your reactions to a book you just finished reading. It was a debut thriller written by a young, good-looking former poker reporter, not about poker, but about a kidnapping business conducted by four unemployed college graduates. The book was surprisingly good, earning kudos from established thriller writers. You almost cried when you got to the end because you cared about the characters. Three of them died because the group had "moral" principles and they were not professional enough. You almost cried because you fancied that you are very much like the group leader: intelligent but too sentimental. It was his sentimentality that got him killed. You wonder whether in these twilight years of your life you are trying to get rid of the sentimentality that has plagued your life and brought you pain and suffering.
Wissai
July 3, 2013
If you read long enough, day after day, as time rolls by and your life unfolds slowly and sometimes swiftly in front of your eyes, and if you are ambitious enough to read in languages other than your mother's tongue, you will find yourself meditating on words and the magic and mystique of stringing words together in order to get more in touch with yourself, to quiet the rising turbulence inside you, and to understand better assholes and scumbags--the human animals of the homo sapiens species, as to why they are so different from you, why they are so afraid of facts, truths, and logic, and then have no sense of self-respect as evidenced by their efforts to lie and make up stories to paint themselves in a good light while casting aspersions on others who have questioned their integrity, level of knowledge/ignorance, and intelligence.
A new but dear friend of yours suggested that this world, let alone the universe, is a mystery and so are the humans in it. He is of an opinions that all humans are the same. What you have noted the differences between you and those for whom you currently harbor a contempt are merely differentials in development. You beg to differ. Your interest and reading in abnormal psychology and daily observations of human behavior tell you differently. While some humans did evolve and did learn to be better and ended up providing as well as tasting the milk of human kindness, there are those who take delight in being mean and power-hungry. You are of the camp that we humans have willpower and moral choices. We choose to be good or bad, unless our brains are organically impaired to begin with. You have been around and exposed to pathological liars and shameless pontificators long enough to realize such scumbags are a sorry lot and deserving to be exterminated. And if they are, you would not shed a tear for them because it was their conscious choice to be who they are. Of course, you could choose to be magnanimous and charitable in your thinking towards them for they are deep down stupid, vain, and greedy. However, you know you would not be much, if any , better than they are if you hold yourself superior to them. To hold yourself superior and to be contemptuous of them is to be ensnared and bogged down in stupidity and suffering. So you are writing instead and trying to adopt a supreme indifference to them while acknowledging that they did enrich your life for showing to you how evil and mean they are. Your knowledge about the existence of human scums has improved because of them.
But you went off on a tangent. You didn't mean to give a discourse on the pathology of the human mind. What you meant to write about was your reactions to a book you just finished reading. It was a debut thriller written by a young, good-looking former poker reporter, not about poker, but about a kidnapping business conducted by four unemployed college graduates. The book was surprisingly good, earning kudos from established thriller writers. You almost cried when you got to the end because you cared about the characters. Three of them died because the group had "moral" principles and they were not professional enough. You almost cried because you fancied that you are very much like the group leader: intelligent but too sentimental. It was his sentimentality that got him killed. You wonder whether in these twilight years of your life you are trying to get rid of the sentimentality that has plagued your life and brought you pain and suffering.
Wissai
July 3, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Do You Ever Know?
Do You Ever Know?
Do you ever know
From me the silence
Marks neither the indifference
Nor lack of affection
For you?
It merely evidences the diffidence
Masking the burning passion
I have for you.
Night after night
When in my condo rules the silence
And stars twinkle in the sky
My thoughts turn towards the woman I meet
On and off.
I wonder if your smiles and friendly gestures
Are simply so and mean no more
Or are they really precious measures
Of your hidden passion for me?
Night after night
I look at the stars and the moon
And wonder if I ever get an answer soon
My friend Omar, being a mathematician,
Told me the solution would be simple.
All I need to do is to ask you, he said.
I smiled and told him life was a tad
More complex than what he thought
I would rather keep alive my silence
And enjoy the fantasies
Than have them smashed by an answer of naught
Wissai
July 1, 2013
Do you ever know
From me the silence
Marks neither the indifference
Nor lack of affection
For you?
It merely evidences the diffidence
Masking the burning passion
I have for you.
Night after night
When in my condo rules the silence
And stars twinkle in the sky
My thoughts turn towards the woman I meet
On and off.
I wonder if your smiles and friendly gestures
Are simply so and mean no more
Or are they really precious measures
Of your hidden passion for me?
Night after night
I look at the stars and the moon
And wonder if I ever get an answer soon
My friend Omar, being a mathematician,
Told me the solution would be simple.
All I need to do is to ask you, he said.
I smiled and told him life was a tad
More complex than what he thought
I would rather keep alive my silence
And enjoy the fantasies
Than have them smashed by an answer of naught
Wissai
July 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)