The final post. of 2008.

Mankind has always needed some sort of guidance. Religion serves this purpose really well, even though it's really flawed and doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I guess that's what faith is. Blind faith? All forms of faith are about being blind. After watching and reading documentaries and stories of wisemen trying to teach people how religion is false and they should open their eyes, I've realized a few things.

1)Like Nietzsche says, sometimes you defend your point of view only because the opposition really gets on your nerves. Religious people have their faith strengthened with every argument they have with atheists, and atheists feel more strongly that religious people are blind after every argument. It's human nature to defend your point of view, even though 90% of the time it isn't YOUR point of view, just a collective point of view that seems to make more sense to you because of what you've been taught your whole life. Evolution wasn't MY way of explaining things, it was Darwin's idea, I rely on smart people to get me answers. And so does the rest of the less than smart population of the Earth.

2)The thing is, as much as I'd like to believe the human mind is the most powerful organ ever, just looking at the bell curve shows you that only a lucky few can open their minds and accept the truth. Most people will try to have the best of both worlds. You know, a lot of people try to explain religious stories, traditional values with science, without realizing it's one or the other. I know people who can sit down and explain every physics theory but still pray at the end of the day.

3)I realized that as much of a lie religion way be at times, it is a great tool. We've all seen first hand how it can be bent to change a persons mind, but let's not forget the number of people who live an actively "good" lifestyle because of their beliefs.

4)Freedom is an illusion. I've illustrated this point previously, but I think I might as well do it again. If I told you an apple was actually an orange using scientific mambo jumbo explanations(this is just a thought experiment, play along), in your mind, it would still be an apple, not because it IS an apple(for apples are called so many different names in so many different languages), but because you've been told(from a young age) that it is an apple. Same thing goes for nearly every other thing. If you were taught religious values when a child, then chances are you are going to cling to them for the rest of your life unless you've opened your mind.

So IF religion isn't as true as it claims to be, HOW would you know if your living a good life, a proper life? Simple. Here I need to explain something mathematical.

-Time is infinite
there is no beginning, no ending, no middle of time. It's not one long line, it never ages, it never slow and never speeds up. OK? So it goes on and on and on and on forever.

-Matter is finite
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Just converted

-Movement is random
That just means NOTHING is scripted. everything moves without consciously knowing why it is moving or where it is moving.

Okay? Now for the thought experiment.
If I gave a typewriter to an immortal chimp and all it could do was randomly hit keys on the typewriter for EVER, even though most of what the chimp types out will look like:

oadgaodbigabipgbo[iaogbdab gddba igasidigai

EVENTUALLY, he would have written every Harry Potter book and every other book in existence. Why? It is all about probability. Even though the probability of all those logical words coming together is very very low, given the infinite length of time and the ageless chimp, eventually, it will come together. It may take days, hours, years, or much much longer, but EVENTUALLY, it would happen.

Now, let's assume those three things I've pointed out are true
-Time is infinite
-Matter is finite
-Movement is random

Then eventually, this life, this universe, this age of man will repeat itself, right? Given a few trillion years, this might just happen again. Me, sitting here and typing. Hell maybe it has happened many times before, and this could be the 4th or 5th time this version of the universe has existed. It sounds crazy. But hey, this is a thought experiment, not an actual truth.

The very fact that you can imagine the possibility is enough for the next section of the thought experiment. So, make sure you understand the first section.

Now, imagine every action, every joy, every sadness, every aspect of your life being repeated over and over and over again and infinite number of times. Would you feel despair or joy if the choices you make now are repeated over and over again? Remember, in THIS version of the universe, I might choose to shout at precisely 1pm, but in a remake I'd choose NOT to. In another remake I'd choose to clap my hands at 1pm. The possibilities are ENDLESS. And all those possibilities are repeated over and over and over again.

So now, if you've understood what I just wrote, take some quiet time to imagine this life being repeated over and over and over again(remember, it doesn't matter if it really happens, time could be finite according to some physics people, and it doesn't matter if you would remember this life the next time it occurs, the mere fact that you can imagine it recurring over and over and over again will show you if the choices you made are right or wrong). imagine it, and ask your self, are you happy with the version of life you are living? If you suddenly feel you don't want to be in this version of your life, then it is truly time for a change.

Sincerity

Nietzsche and me share so many ideas, but on certain important ideas, we go our separate ways. That makes only one of us right, or both of us utterly wrong.

Nietzsche believes that there isn't such a thing as sincerity. And for a time, he got me believing that too. Until I broke loose of that sick idea and found a different way to see things.

Nietzsche claimed that every living thing has a will to power. Like a domination over another being.It is in everything. The man who wants to be pitied is only showing his will to power by bringing down everyone else to his level.

Thing about it, every time you thought you failed, your first reaction is to look for someone who failed WORSE. To Nietzsche, this meant that there wasn't a sincere action. In donating money, the rich man shoes that he has the power to give money and is superior to the man who is begging. The beggar replies 'Thank you' not sincerely. By saying 'Thank you' he has switched roles with the rich man. Here, the poor man is giving and the rich man is receiving.

Now you see why that idea scared me. It fits in with Natural Selection and Darwinism and every other logical idea.

But then I got thinking.

And I realized there might be a way around this.

What if man was aware(subconsciously) of the absence of empathy in most of nature, and so was struggling to become less of an animal, and establish itself OUTSIDE the boundaries of nature. To have mankind placed in a different category than other animals.

Think about it. It is natural for us to shun immoral acts. But immoral acts tend to be the natural thing to do right? Every time you act out of impulse, it reflects something an animal would do, like fight, or challenge another. But conversely, when you behave your self and act more 'human', you are acting unlike any other natural creature, am I right?

And this 'human' way of acting; morals, decency, discipline and everything you'd normally NOT see in any other animals list of things to do, is always encouraged, and looked highly upon.

Our arts, our sciences, our modern cultures, our ethics, our morals, all go against the natural way of the animal. Like it or not, sincerity is a lie, whichever way you look at it.

Unless of coarse you still cling to traditional values.

In which case.

I pity you.

And that soul you think you have.

Human (back to usual rantings)

Natural selection is a cruel process. Survival of the fittest. As peaceful as nature may seem on the outside, in reality, everything either dies or lives to die another day. Well everything living that is. Natural selection isn't a choice, or a way to look at things, it just IS. God wouldn't seem as kind if you just took the time to think of how he shaped thoughtless creatures to devour each other to protect its own interest would He? No!

Just dig deep into some parts of the world and you'll discover not one or two, but thousands upon thousands of species that were eliminated through natural selection.Now, let's look at natural selection for a moment. It isn't a process were nature consciously makes decisions like, 'Okay, I like the snake more than this sorta old lizard, so i'll kill the old lizard off'. No, we use the term natural selection only because before man came about, we had no influence on how any animal or plant would live. So, this process of selection happens naturally.

The 'selection' isn't the sort of selection that goes on when you shop, for instance. Every organism needs to do one thing; survive. And because of that, organisms have to keep changing, keep taking in and throwing out certain things.

Anyway, all this natural selection is beyond me. I cannot truly understand it until I have studied it. In any case, we have evolved to have the ability to think and reason, just as a bird has the ability to fly, and the horse has the ability to sprint.

And with this ability to reason, whether subconsciously or not, every action, every piece of art created, every music piece written, every book written, every mathematical equation equated has been to escape natures way of doing things. Had we had stuck to natures plan, things like ethnic genocide and eugenics would be carried out by the best of us. Instead, the best of humans, or at least the kind of people who are made models of what a man should be, carry out acts of kindness.

The system we live with, where the man who donates money to the poor instead of leaving the poor to die, works completely and utterly against natures way of natural selection.

I think mankind is subconsciously aware that nature is cruel and our mission is to escape natures way of selection.

Or perhaps, consider this interesting theory;
nature itself realized the need for natural selection to end. (A God perhaps, realized this) And so man was created, and man himself was tasked with shaping the earth in his image(which is an image which, unlike anything else on earth can see beauty, is kind to the weak, and has the sort of values no other animal can ever have). And isn't that what we have been doing all this while? Shaping the world? Killing nature. Weird. I know. It's the kind of theory that sounds better in my head than on my blog.

forgive the messiness in this post. I wrote the last paragraph first and the first last.

Happiness/ Well being and Mind Training.

First off, if you want to know why we all strive for happiness/well being, all I can say is, it is purely genetic. And I'm not a geneticist, I am a man with a lot of questions. I just had rotten luck to have enough time on my hands to think each one through.

So back to the topic at hand. I'll just call it well being. Happiness is a vague way of saying well being, people often mistake happiness for something less important and more temperature, like pleasure or titillation. Here, I'll show you what pleasure is.

I'll give you the example of pleasure first :
Say you've ordered a nice, rich chocolate cake. Your first serving, it's delicious. Your mouth is watering, and by the time your done with that particular serving of cake, you are pleasured. Then, the second serving of nice, rich chocolate cake arrives. By this time, you are less hungry and have lost your appetite due to the richness of the first serving of cake. But you press on, and eat the cake. Now you feel bloated, but the third serving of cake is about to arrive. Now, you are no longer pleasured, you are disgusted.


Happiness on the other hand has a more lasting effect, and this is best illustrated with a comparison between pleasure and well being:

If you had a ten dollar bill, and was fully conscious of the ramifications of giving that ten dollar bill to the next homeless person you saw, would you still waste it on something purely material as a piece of cake?

Well being is a deep state of fulfillment. You can be sad, but still be in a state of well being. They are both separate layers of emotion.

Pleasure is very different. Some people can rejoice in others' suffering. It is a fleeting emotion.

It is a Buddhist view that everything that has the ability to bring pleasure has the ability to bring great pain. And I agree completely, for the same things (say this computer as an example) that made me feel on top of the world the first time I got it, now sometimes makes me feel frustrated(when I realize how old it's gotten and it starts lagging, etc; i'm human too you know).

And I feel very Buddhist writing a post as shallow as this. I am fully aware that happiness and well being are all in the mind, all social things hard wired into our genetics. But since we cannot escape these states, we might as well learn to understand them. Maybe even to someday completely overcome them.

Okay, anyway, since we've established the differences between the fleeting emotions brought about by pleasure, we must now ask why we'd rather be happy than in pleasure.

Pleasure is, well, a more, not to say diluted, but generic form of happiness. That is why it is so often mistaken for happiness. It takes form of happiness. Like a bellowing storm cloud. From the outside, pleasure looks solid. But move closer, you will see that the emotion is permeable.

Happiness on the other hand is solid. So often we spend hours with hobbies, with trying to look more like people on tv, with exercise. But if it is a fact that the one thing we aim to achieve is a state of happiness, why then do we not focus on what would get us there?

Mind training is a solution. Monks and such meditate to train their mind. But one doesn't need to be a monk to mind train. The simple realization that every emotional impulse is result of complex genetic instruction and hormonal interference is enough to make you wonder how useless it is to be angry/frustrated/envious of someone or something. An open mind helps too.

With that in mind, learning to understand, let go of, and choose emotions becomes an altogether easier thing to do.

The reality of emotions is utterly unmagical, and bland.

That is all for now. This post is not a very good one I think. I don't have enough Buddhists in my life to be sure of what I have just discussed above. But it is EXACTLY what I believe.

Rethinking the 'why'

What is the point of doing good? Often we find that doing good brings much less benefit than doing evil.

I'll use the example of a lawful and unlawful man.

Clearly the man who over charges when selling his goods has the upper hand over the man who sells at a lower profit margin. One cheats his customers into spending more, and the other allows himself to suffer a little more (or longer) in order for his customers to spend less. The unlawful one here has the upper hand. So why is the lawful man doing good?

My initial theory was that all men are selfish. But not selfish in greedy sort of way, but selfish in a sense that every choice made by him is to grant him benefit. In the scenario above, both men believe they have the upper hand. Although Socrates might argue differently(his discussion ends with the conclusion that the unlawful man has the advantage), the 'selfish theory' was not considered by him.

On a brief side note, I thought of this theory that all men make choices that benefit themselves in July 2008. But I realized, when my father introduced me to Friedrich Nietzsche in October, that he already thought of all this hundreds of years before me!

Anyway.

Socrates failed to answer, let alone present the question : why does the lawful man remain lawful, conscious of his disadvantage?

Or maybe the question should be : What does the lawful man get in return for being just that?

The answer, I found, was using the theory of selfishness.

The lawful man was thinking of nearly every factor that turned to his advantage over the unlawful man other than money(and related material factors).

The lawful man might consciously or even subconsciously know of the ramifications of his kindness and lawfulness. His customers will have a higher probability of returning(but this isn't the main reason he remains lawful).

The lawful man does not hold material wealth as his main desire.

[I look forward to doing the happiness post, in which i will talk about how having money does not lead to happiness, but is auxiliary to our well being]

The lawful man seeks the deeper satisfaction that is often felt when good or kindness is done to another human being.

I call it pride. So, I conclude that, the lawful man is just as selfish as the unlawful man; but what they both seek are completely different.

Plus, the lawful man doesn't put other people in disadvantage(instead, quite the opposite) when being naturally selfish.

Sure, there are a billion and one other reasons to remain lawful, but at 3 in the morning, I'd rather summarize.

So the question now is;
What do you seek to gain out of every choice you make?
A slave does his masters bidding to avoid further injury upon himself.
In fact, you can find that little piece of 'selfishness' in every action every sane human has ever made.
Or so I hypothesize.

life, pre life, principles of life.

Existentialist. I didn't know that there was such a simple word to describe a person like me. What's really surprising is that, once again, when I came across this word, and then wiki-ed it, it turns out Friedrich Nietzsche was one too! Incredible; I only found out about him 2 or 3 months back, and it turns out he'd been asking the same questions I ask, and living on the same twisted principles of nihilism as I am. It is as though he visited me in my sleep to teach me everything I believe in.

So let's talk about that for a moment. Principles, the meaning of life, what values should be admired, and which should be discarded.

Here, we bring in Socrates(not again!), because he brings reference to the soul more often than Nietzsche.

Socrates reasons that the honest man, bereft of the ability to exploit anything to his advantage(or more accurately, to another persons disadvantage) is the better man; as he has based his life on the purest and most respectable principles.

Nietzsche on the other hand, emphasizes on how these values (being humble, chiefly) aren't really values at all. You see (and I'm sorry to have caused offense), modern religions (post Judaism) began spreading at the lowest class of people; slaves and common men.

These were classes of people that didn't have that much to brag about really. So, it became custom for such values as being humble (for a slave must have this value), to be a basic principle in life. So, in truth, the humble man, if humble but without much to be humble about, is NOT a better man. Conversely, the pompous man, with much to his name*, is the better man.

*remember, the example of the pompous man must be a man who is ascended to a throne, not born to one.

I think, Nietzsche relies more on his ability to reason, without having to honour tradition or religion. Socrates on the other hand often attended traditional ceremonies and started off The Republic with the persona attending a ceremony.

Of coarse, before starting to ditch old ways of living, you need to understand why it is you are leaving it behind. Then ask yourself, were you ever free to choose? Freedom of choice is an illusion for most people. If you were born and raised to believe one way of living, then the choice has already been made for you has it not?

Breaking away from the illusion is the hard part. Understanding why freedom is never free is important too. The gay man is taunted and looked down upon. So is the Godless man. But why? Breaking traditional beliefs grants these people freedom most can never dream to have. Is that the reason for all that taunting? Jealousy? I never thought it would be that simple.

The man who believes he is doing Gods work here might just be a man who is subconsciously envious of the man who has given himself freedom of choice. I cannot find reason why the man on Gods side should do his work; for the almighty should be mighty enough to handle it on His own.

Since I've already moved on to another topic, I might as well start poking fun here.

Firstly, I strongly disagree with the statement
God is not the author of all things, but good only.

Socrates wasn't looking far back enough, and his concepts of God were much different.

The existence came before the essence. Think about that. I will elaborate when the time comes.

But now, think about this;

let's start with physics, since Neils Bohr thinks that all science is physics.

1)In a perfectly Godless world, will everything physical be possible?

As in, without a divine hand, would a planet have its own mass?
Yes it would, there's nothing divine about having mass, and so it can move too, without the help of a God.

With that settled,
2)In a perfectly Godless world, would everything chemical be possible?
As in, without a divine hand, would a iron rust, or carbon combine to form diamond?
Yes it would, it's all logic and quantum physics(which is still beyond just about everyone).

With THAT settled,
3)In a perfectly Godless world , would everything biological be possible?
Hah, here is where the shallow and the deep go their own ways!
No one can explain how the *poof it became coco crunch* theory happened with life on earth.
I'd like to believe in the iron-sulfide theory. Because it makes (almost) perfect sense.
I mean, it just does. It makes so much more sense than whatever it is I used to think.

Now, an off topic way to close this post,


There is nothing supernatural about the supernatural. The fact that there are still so many things out there left unexplained is proof that science, and great men of science are not done with their work.

Where do I take this pain of mine

Pain. It's the one thing we all loath, but the one of the many things we can't live without. The purpose of pain, according to most studies, is to warn you that your of potential damage. Stepping on a nail is definitely a good way to damage your feet, so you body needs to teach you the hard way to watch where you step. Pain itself, contrary to what you may think doesn't harm. Although harm or potential harm will cause pain; It isn't pain itself that deteriorates your body; instead, just your mind.

That's how you learn. You know that pain wears you out, and so your mind establishes pain as a negative feeling, a sensation to be avoided. This means you'll not harm yourself.

So then, what in the world is emotional pain. I'm quite (damn near 100%) sure that the heart has nothing to do with anything other than pumping blood. The whole reference to the heart; the phrase "listen to your heart" is purely metaphorical. The rate at which your heart beats is influenced by hormones, stimulated by parts of your brain.

I think it's a social thing to feel loss over something or someone. That's why pain is so relative and subjective.

I (HEART) science

You know, there's always been one thing that really bothers me. Why can't people accept evolution and natural selection? From the very beginning, the thinking world has been split between Darwinism and The Unexplainable-popping-out-of-the-Earth Theory.

I've began taking sides in my arguments not long ago, because, out of the 30-odd posts I have here and the 50-odd posts in my non online blog(a.k.a. diary), I've come to terms with the fact that fact is factual, as a matter of fact. Science has proven itself time and time again to be the superior tool of learning.

But then all of a sudden, I was faced with a man who I consider to be my spiritual adviser(since I have no knowledge and absolutely detest that field) handing me facts in the form of layman terms. So what I was seeing is, the same principles of physics and chemistry but spoken without using a single scientific term!

It hit me in that instant that science isn't an absolute truth. It is a WAY of explaining the universe using TERMS that humans can relate too. It's good in a way. This way people get a uniform understanding of the universe, without confusing a metre for a foot, and such other problems.

^{A metre is the S.I. unit for length. But what it really is is the distance traveled by light in
an absolute vacuum in
precisely 1}⁄_299,792,458 of a second.

Without humans, there isn't much need for a metre is there? I don't think zebras and leprechauns are going to be measuring that much. But because we're all a little curious and sometimes actually need something measured, we just pull things out of the air and coin terms like 'metre' or 'second'.

Non scientific explanations of the universe on the other hand are vague and often contain hidden messages. Take for instance the creation of the Earth(or was it the universe?) in seven days. When I ask believers of this statement, they say it wasn't meant to the same lenght of time as a day is today. So technically not the '24' day, but the length of time a day used to be before we came along and labelled it '24' hours long. I get it.

But this just makes non-scientific methods of learning vague, and thus all the misinterpretations. To me, that just reaffirms my belief that science is a better tool of learning. You get the facts delivered to you the best, and most standardized way possible. Its a little more difficult than reading a book that explains things in laymans terms, but there won't be much room for misinterpretation.

A lot of people tell me (in an indirect way) that trying to explain the beginnings of the universe and disprove religious beliefs is very bad thing to do. And I might end up in hell if I do. Here is my reply, most parts quoted off Lyell:

Never has there been a dogma so calculated to foster indolence and blunt the sharp edge of curiosity!



Forget it, I'm still booked for Hell ain't I?
After all, God is Great. He'll give you life and joy and all that. All he asks in return is that you follow all his little rules. Otherwise, He'll send you to a place where you'll burn forever. And when the skin is burnt off your bones, a new layer will replace it to be burnt again and again.

But remember, He loves you!
(Special thanks to Gurdave for that bit of knowledge)

Found.

We've been lied to, no hoax.
Maybe for a good reason. But, either way, we've been lied to.

After discussing Illiad and its contents, Socrates and his pals begin questioning the truth behind Homers story.
They came to the conclusion that God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed, he changes not; he deceives not' either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.

Homer said something contradictory. Here is a paragraph that Socrates believes contains a false message:

Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials..
...was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the stain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this-he it is who has slain my son.

Also, they disagree that Zeus would send a lying dream to Agememnon.


They later agreed that verses that contradict what was established as an inconvenient truth should be abolished. This is especially true in the case of hiding the truth of death from man to improve his worth on the battle field.

Although the aim of Socrates was to make sure the next generation of Greeks come out a little closer to perfection, he intended to make everyone believe that the old truth is a lie. (isn't that what I'm trying to do?)

Here are some verses intended by Socrates to be ignored by future Greeks to remove their fear of death:

I would rather be serf on the land of a poor and portionless man than to rule over all the dead who have come to naught.
-Odyssey

Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the Gods abhor should be seen both of mortals and immortals
-Illiad

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!
-Illiad

These verses used to make people believe the after life was bad, thus, people lived in dread.

After the verses were removed, hypothesized Socrates, people would no longer fear death, instead embrace it.

I am a great admirer of Socrates. This piece of text just showed me a little bit more of the social structure man has kept going all these long years.

Now, was Socrates in the wrong for what he intended to do?

If he sat back and do nothing with the knowledge that he had the power to make a generation of Greeks have no fear of death, that would make him a useless git.

If he removed these texts, he'd change Homers original message(s) of the after life and blind an entire generation of Greeks.

Dilemma of dilemmas.

Losing it.

I am a firm believer of secular ethics. I cannot ever say for sure if secular ethics is less fictitious than religion based ethics, but I find it much easier to believe.

It's forgivable that in the old days amazing unbelievable tales were spun with moral values to guide the people. In those days, people didn't know why the sun rose in the East and set in the West. They didn't know the sky was just gas and vapor.

NOW that we do know what these things are, I think it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and face the truth. I'm going to refer to a Star Trek story once again (before, from another blog of mine).

This story is about a space probe, which had only one task : collect information.

After it wore out, humans discarded it into deep space.

Aliens found the probe and decided to repair and reshape it.

This resurrected the probe, this time with a sentient mind.

But it was still a space probe, with the main objective of gathering data.

So, when it stumbled upon the humans traveling through deep space, it began analyzing them.

After a while, the humans realized it was sentient and began talking to it.

When they realized it was an old space probe, they told it that humans created it.

The space probe went mad.

So you see, I think the reason why we'll never find absolute truth is because we're searching for something we think we understand. And maybe we've already found our creator but cannot rationalize because that's not the image of God we have in our minds.

Like if I told you the Hydrogen atom is God. You would never believe me.

But every chemical can trace it's origins back to Hydrogen.

That makes every single thing around you, essentially Hydrogen in different forms.

Or what if I told you energy is God, since it cannot be created or destroyed?

Maybe the number 0 is God, because 0 divided, multiplied, added, subtracted with any number is equal to itself.

If I told you the Universe was God because it is naturally intelligent, like how all animals have adapted naturally.

None of these things may seem like God, because most people picture a great MAN in his place.
Because most say God shaped man in his image.

You have to remember, a man who has never seen God wrote that.

All in all. I think I'm comfortable just trying to understand all versions of everything without being biased.

Everyone thinks I'm a man of science just because I believe in science.

I believe in nothing.

Except secular ethics.

Science is just the best way to explain things.

Because a Hydrogen atom, if humans didn't name it would have no name.

Everything in the Universe, if left unnamed by humans, would have no name.

Carbon, wood, bear.

Everything, nameless before we came about.

Could it be, that we are shaping the Universe in our image?

Are we important? My little social experiment

Now this is an issue to address.
There's two general ways to look at it.

If we were created, we should be significant. Otherwise, our lives would be meaningless and unimportant.

Or

If we are Godless, then we were NOT created, and therefore have no important role in the universe.

Perhaps, out of necessity, we invented, or searched for self importance by inventing Gods. Pardon the un-holiness in this question :

Did we create God, to make it seem like He created us?

We all think there should be a beginning of time, and an end of time.
But when I went about telling people the world is going to end in 2012 as part of my social experiment, everyone thought I was crazy. When I questioned further, most said there was DEFINITELY and an end to all things, but it just isn't gonna be anytime soon.

That's just natural. The ONE thing that all living things share is the need to survive. In nature, there are no martyrs. In movies, in stories, sometimes even from misplaced feelings of self righteousness, there are martyrs. But not in nature. If it wasn't for civilization, martyrs would be non existant.

Back to the main topic.

Humans need to feel significant. Our minds are too complex. We keep trying to understand, to complicate, to bring significance to everything. So when we asked ourselves who we were, we got scared. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No one knows. I don't know. I wasn't there.

So we wrote books, made stories, dictated laws. Some called these 'holy scriptures' and made them above every other law.
The true essence of these are good. You see, people may or may not have souls. But we undeniably have conscientiousness. Whether the conscientiousness of man came from evolution of the mind, or from the soul is unclear. But, in any case, the conscience is like a canvas that cannot be tainted. No matter what the person encounters or does, the conscience will not be changed. It will always know what the right thing to do is. The pure thing to do.


So, these religious texts were written based on the pure conscience laws. To help people remember a good from a bad decision. I have no love for things like these. Because humans also misinterpret(like me) things. So I'll just sit back.

In any case, we also needed to know why, of all things in nature, WE were chosen to bear the gift(or curse) of knowledge. Why we were the only things that knew how to differentiate 'good' from 'bad'. And so, we just MAY have had invented God, to help ourselves feel important. Which I feel is very selfish. I'd rather be unimportant and honest than important and selfish.

Justice, and the rest

"...then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?

In a money partnership

Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?

Certainly.

And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?

True

Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?

When you want a deposit to be kept safely.

You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?

Precisely.

That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.

That, is the inference."

That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.

I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.

Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.

Back to the topic of Justice.

From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.

If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.

Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B

Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).

Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?



True


Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.

Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)

Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.

True

Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.

Also true.

So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.

True.

1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.

That is inferred.

*************************************************************

Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.

That necessity is what we call 'the system'.

Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.

It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).

Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.

The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.

From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.

In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.

I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.

This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.

Good bye.

An open mind or a fixed one

"...a human being is most dangerous when he is certain what he knows is the truth"

I don't know if that was the exact words he used, and I don't know why I never thought of those words myself.

Look at it.

Don't we all get a bit hostile when someone questions our beliefs?
We become more...dangerous.
Because of how sure we are that WE are right, and everything else is bullshit.
Meaning, technically, that people fixed in they're beliefs are more hostile.
(I can already feel the hate and and hostility of some of the people reading this)

So, what now?

Have an open mind?
Be unadamant in what you believe in?

"an open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"

It just makes you more corruptable.

And that is why I always say...
"nothing is true and everything is permitted"


Because instead of fixing yourself to an absolute truth or absorbing and accepting everything I read/experience/watch, I learn.

And I learn many takes on life.

I learn why the scientist says God is a myth.
And why the priest says evolution is a myth.
And why the spiritual leader says "peace in all things"

and everything in between yes and no.

I have no belief other than that saying.

But believing in that saying is self contradictory.

Like telling a genie that you wish he would not grant you this wish.

The genie must obey and grant you your wish, but that would mean not granting the wish.

Confusing, I know.

But I am willing to sacrifice any peace of mind.
Willing to believe in nothing.
As long as I keep learning.

None of my posts should influence anyone.
I wish for everyone to just remain fixed in their beliefs.
And they will be.
I am sure of it.

Over-generalising people

We are aren't we?
It's not entirely our fault.

There are 6 billion different minds on this earth.
And because we CAN categorize, we DO categorize.

It's so much easier, isn't it.
To have yes-people and no-people.

Rather than reading through countless opinions,
Some similar to others, but never quite the same.

Stereotyping people is bad.
But necessary.

I mean, I wouldn't want to be in the same category as a grave robber.
But because we both don't believe in eternal damnation, I guess you bundle us up.

I've got to conclude this argument fast because I can't be seen on this PC in 5 minutes.

People shouldn't be over simplified.
Look at yourself, look at how complicated you are, now imagine 6 BILLION other people and their complicated selves, if that doesn't help, count 1 to 1 billion and times that by 6.

Remember, there is no absolute truth.
Not even the truth on this website.
The only truth to be had, is personal truth.
Which we can absorb from Holy scriptures, works of literature, scientific studies, etc.
But that doesn't make it true does it?
Just because evidence from one source can disprove evidence from another.

Is ignorance bliss?

Let's set this scene up right and proper.

The incoming board of directors, another guy who just misplaced his dad's phone, and me are all in the men's dressing room. I just got in. I need to change because the event is half an hour away and I'm wearing street clothes.

Technically, I should have just yelled my head off and got everyone ready, because if people weren't doing their part, I'd be taking all the steam from the president, seniors and teacher advisers....

Let's assume the victim is essential to the event.
the crowd can be represented by one or a whole bunch of accused people.
I am half dressed, and have never made an effort to look decent. And I'm
the highest ranking board member in the room.



The victim : ....Please lah, whoever stole my phone, give it back. I'll give you my laptop, just give it back....my dad will kill me...

The crowd : ...we're you're friends, why are you accusing us? (all pissed off)

Me : guys..guys... stop a moment. I need one of you to explain something to me.....tie or no tie?

The crowd : tie la... borrow Marcus' one.

Me : Where is Marcus?

The crowd : He went home, he'll be back soon.

Me : Ok, but if his tie goes missing, I didn't steal it(wink at the victim)

The victim : I don't care la. I'm just gonna go home.... You guys not even helping me find my phone oso... Jeez... my dad's gonna kill me...

The crowd : Walao, you keep blaming us, how we gonna help (smashes something on the floor)

The victim : Ok, I'm going home already. I can't take you people....

The crowd : Fine la, go home... stupid fella, we're trying to help oso you wanna....

Me : Hey, hey, hey..... side parting, messed up, or.....

The crowd : nah, what you got looks ok..

Me : alright....lemme just touch up...

The crowd : OMG! the phone's in the toilet.. call the fella....(all cheering)


END OF SCENE

****************************************************************************

When you understand human nature, you also need to understand that people are adamant in what they believe.
Fortunately, I was the only one there who did understand human nature. But for all my "understanding", I have one stupid flaw.... which is supported by all my other flaws.

I love a good show..

I sometimes love seeing anarchy unfold before me.

Because I know compassion, just as well as hatred can be suppressed.

I could have resolved the whole thing, by giving a lecture about priority.

But I knew in my heart that in these sort of situations, men would rather die/kill for themselves then understand each other

****************************************************************************

Now let's just say what I just tried to explain is true,
we have on all sides of the spectrum ignorant people.

The victim, ignorant, quick to place blame, not caring of responsibility.

The crowd, ignorant, instead of understanding, chose to defend it's innocence.

And me, ignorant, not taking control of my boys, instead just sitting back and watching.

All ignorant.
Only one blissful.

So MAYBE that whole 'ignorance is bliss' proverb has to be rewrote.
"ignorance is bliss, only when you understand when and how to be ignorant"

But that's not as catchy.


Wait a minute...
Happiness itself has never really been defined right?


Buddhist monks give up all possessions and passions because they conclude that everything that brings happiness, will eventually lead to sorrow and pain.

A rich person would often cling to his possessions and passions because everything else brings sorrow and pain.

And then there's the 6 billion other definitions in between.

Nothing is true and everything is permitted.
Understand that statement, and you'll understand that none of definitions are absolute.
Not even mine.
Wow that's confusing...

Let's just leave it at this:

Everyone (all 6 billion of us) will find something to be happy/sad about.
Nobody will find something that all 6 billion of us will be 100% happy/sad about.
BECAUSE
nothing is True
Nothing is 100% absolute

and everything is permitted
Based on how each one of the 6 billion of us see something.

Freedom's never Free

I heared and read much about freedom.
Assassin's Creed influenced how I thought free will worked.
A lot.
If I were to summarize it, this would be it:

A group of very influential people plot to unite the Crusading Christians and the Defendin Muslims of the world under one banner. Halting all the crusades and ending the hatred and war. Your task is to stop them, because even though they're quest is noble, the means in which they wish to achieve it is unfair. They would enslave a population under one banner and supress FREE WILL. In theory, when you supress free will, more people conform and will be at peace.
YOUR society doesn't believe in that. In his dying words , one of your targets explains to you why their cause is just.

"YOU : ... people must be free to choose what to believe in.
Target: Have they ever been free? Except for the occasional convert or heritic, no one chooses
what they believe in. They're all taughted what to believe...."


My whole life I stuck to the free will being the most important thing to have.
And in that moment, I had to restructure everything.

A Spartan would die defending his country in 300BC not because he was given a choice to believe in Sparta, but because his whole life was based in Sparta. He was taught the Spartan ways, the Spartan life and it's rituals and beliefs.

Same as an American soldier, born and bred to be given NO CHOICE but the one he has been taught to believe. There is NO CHOICE. Unless you yourself experience each belief/practice/creed, you have only the choice of sticking to what you've been taught. Unless of coarse your willing to open your mind a little and let everything pour in.

We, or at least I, never realized how un-free we really are. What we believe in isn't automatically justified to be the absolute truth. Otherwise everyone would believe in just one thing.

This really isn't making much sense right now. So I'll have to try again someday in a part 2

Ethics & Morals

Who has the highest say when it comes to ethics and morals.
The law, most probably. But the law was not created based on an ancient wisdom, but out of necessity to control those who would rather not be controlled.
Religion? Probably. That's the main topic today.

In my opinion, a God would be something without life. Something without human thought, constrictions or form. It would be a force of intelligence. An all-knowing force the we could use to explain how the universe is so intelligent by design. How an atom of 'blah blah blah' knows when to combine with this other atom to form a protein. How does it know? Is it mere chance that it collided? Possible, but that would mean the universe is trillions of years old. Which is incomprehensible isn't it? Still, it's possible none the less.

But back to the topic of God. If this God thing is not a being, that would mean ethics and morals are purely human creation. Animals do not see ethics. Dogs are loyal only because they have a memory of a certain human treating them well. It is only human to be considerate and rational. No other being has that power. Apes and chimps are on the verge, but that just shows that we are related to them genetically.

Why should a creator that is NOT a being, have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?

So, if ethics and morals were created by humans, where do we draw the line? Must one way of thinking constrain science from being more powerful from religion? Yes, and no. Opinions matter, but when you have got a whole bunch of people with a contradictory belief who will shun you and sanction you, you'd better play nice.

Trying to reach the point of being a physical embodiment of goodness is near impossible and downright odd(in my opinion). We were graced by evolution with the most powerful tool in the universe; the mind. Yet there are those who would rather refrain from reaching deep into the mind by holding religion as a shield. I do not blame them. I believe people should be free to choose, to learn and to live. But at the same time, education is important. The ethical dilemma is whether people should be thought the best way to live or be given free reign to live their lives. The best solution often doesn't yield the 'perfect society' as one would imagine. But balance is probably the most decent way to settle this. As has most problems been eventually resolved.

Nothing is true, Everything is permitted

What a load of bogus, I said, the first I heard it.
The 2nd time I heard it, it fell right in place. Brilliant.
And by the 3rd time, I was in shock.
Could it really be that simple?
Then I realized, it is true, and untrue at the same time.
What does that make it?

The word true is defined as 'being in accordance with the actual state or conditions',

So technically, nothing is in accordance with the actual state, and everything is allowed.

I tried again to make sense of it.

Then it did make sense.

Anything written can be falsified, bent, changed, etc.
A word out of place and a statement is untrue.

This blog, the dictionary, science text books, journals, holy books are all scribed by humans.
And as I mentioned earlier, no two humans can think exactly alike in every way.

Example of what I mean:
The world we are thought to see is an untrue illusion.
That may seem lame, or over the top, but is the Earth our home?
Is it a piece of rock that coincidentally went through the right procedures to sustain life?
Is it God's work, that the universe was made in 7 days?
Or perhaps the Big Bang theory?

If I were to ask an environmentalist, the Earth would be our home.
If I asked a staunch atheist (what an oxymoron), the Earth would be a 1 in a million coincidence.
If I were to ask the pope, the Earth would be God's creation.
If I were to ask Steven Hawkins, he would tell me it's a formation from the big bang or something.

Each point of view is backed by countless pieces of evidence, or a strong unfaltering faith in that line of truth.

But that still leaves me puzzled. What is the Earth? It simply cannot be defined.

OK, something else this time. The TV this time.

Its an idiot box, a poison Godmachine, it's a weapon of the media, its an entertainment platform.
You can't say all of the above with strong conviction. Each definition of TV has contradictory evidence to the other.

Therefore,

NOTHING IS TRUE.

Since human beings so righteously grant ourselves freedom of speech, of thought and opinion, we are allowed to stretch the limits when defining something. Any definition or saying can be twisted to have meaning.

Therefore,

EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Now do you see?
Do not absorb things so easily.
Even what I say in this blog is totally written by me.
Meaning this is my version of the truth.
My definition for each blog post title.
It's not true, just as the other definitions are not true.
But it is our right to define it in every way possible.

Good and Evil pt.2

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem with religious and non religious people. It helps bring balance of opinion, but not world peace. Also, remember that nothing is true, and everything is permitted. But I'll explain more on that topic in the next post.

But at one point, I was very critical of religion. I don't take back what I said. In fact, I am more sure what I said made sense. But it was a certain 'enlightenment' that got me thinking.

I do not despise the goals of religion (peace, ethics, etc), in fact, I share them. But I take issue with the means and ways that these goals are being 'accomplished'. Religion would FORCE it. And have robbed many of their free will in the process. By force, I don't mean force in a strong "believe in this or burn in hell" manner. What I mean is that people should be free to learn. Constrains placed by religion often make many things (ideas, ways of life, or anything else) seem evil and wrong. Right now in fact, most hardcore religious people are already thinking I'm a heretic, or that I've joined the 'dark side'(haha lame). But in fact, all I've done is pierced the veil that I was bound by my whole life.

I am NOT trying to slowly force people into any thing. Not even asking you to forsake religion, as religion is far too important. What I am saying is, it is human nature to question. And a question, no matter how insignificant or ginormous, should have ABSOLUTELY no boundaries. We've all been thought a creed. And we've all at one point (or still are) labeling acts and people as GOOD and EVIL. Once you begin questioning and finding REASON, the line that separates the two will disintegrate. And the true nature of people will become clearer. The illusion that there is a definitive Good and a definitive Evil will vanish, and so will the illusion of people who are good and people who are evil.

I would not say that I have reached a higher level of thought than anyone else, like I said nothing is true and everything is permitted. And the taste of liberation is not always sweet. The first few weeks after I broke away from the "good and evil" train of thought, I felt disgusted, like everything I was trained to accept (e.g. spiritual enlightenment, life after death, heaven and hell, what we become after we die mostly) suddenly became untrue. The same feeling you get when a best friend stabs you in the back. The sudden disbelief, anger, sorrow, and then acceptance. Acceptance that in the end nothing is true, and everything is permitted. Now that's got you thinking. Don't worry, the next post will explain that saying in full.

Opinion

We often oversee opinion, and other people's point of view. The pointless struggles between religions spark from this lack of understanding. Each and every human being sees and interprets the world, the universe, God, religion, and anything under the sun (including the sun) differently.
A clone of a person, a twin, even a "best-friend-forever" will never see eye to eye on anything. Well, at least not 100% eye to eye.

Why do we get angry? We are simply dissatisfied with something/someone. Dissatisfied. That literally means 'not happy'. We are angry when we are not happy. But, as usual, we only see one side of the story. It's human nature. The whole "I want what I want, and I want it now". There are those with more patients and understanding than others. But it's really not some divine gift from above. Instead of being grateful for the ability to withstand the cruelty of the world, you should try and understand WHY you are understanding.

You may have had a good childhood, or a good and understanding family/friend(s). Even good genetics play a part. It's all subjective to each person. That brings back the topic of opinion. We all see a different childhood. There's no doubt that 2 people can't go through the exact same process of life. Similar, well duh, but the same, hell no.

The idea of a perfect world is impossible, unless humans are willing to accept tyranny, suppression of thought, and domination. There will always be opinion. And we should be thankful that there is opinion in this world. Be thankful that there are people who believe in God, and people who believe in nothing. It brings BALANCE. It brings freedom of thought. It breaks boundaries that a single train of thought would constrain. But the people, in my opinion, should not burn the heretic, but instead embrace him. But this is again, nearly impossible, as the heretic has no love for the believer, and both suspect each other of ill intention. This is seen in the modern world. A radical blows himself up in the street in the name of what he believes in, because, in his opinion, the free world is destroying the balance that once was, and should be. The free world sees the radical as the tyrant, at threat to the 'free' way of life, and in exchange, bombs the tyrants city back to the stone age. And steals the tyrants petroleum at the same time.

Ahhh.. I truly am nuts. All I can say is, if you can't understand an opinion, learn to accept it. Because you have not experienced another view on life. And because opinion is too important to be cast aside.

Time part 2 - The Creater and Intelligent Design theory

What would you define science as? I would probably split science into 2 main branches. Invention and Discovery. One branch cannot survive without the other. For example, the DISCOVERY of microorganisms would be impossible without the INVENTION of the microscope. Which in turn required the DISCOVERY of how light travels through glass. It goes on and on and on. So back to the definition. Or more accurately the purpose. Science is here to understand the universe and to make it easier for the general public to live. DISCOVERY requires a theory or hypothesis to be proven. This means it has to also make sense and lead to a conclusion.

Now let us (or me) talk about the intelligent design theory. It was formed in a theists vision of the creation of the universe. Ever since the creation theory was rendered false by the Charles Darwin's evolution theory, the concept of intelligent design has been shoved in our faces. We never notice it, but thats what a lot of educational systems are teaching. The intelligent design theory states that everything in the universe has been intelligently designed by God or sometimes referred to as the "intelligent designer" or sometimes called "grand master sexayyy"(jkjk). Michael Behe wrote that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution because all organisms are made out of systems that require every component to be in place to work, meaning evolution could not have added all the components at the same time. But people who believe in evolution state a more logical theory; components in our systems were not added, but altered from a less effective, to a more effective system. And yet Intelligent Design theories are still being taught in schools. What we've been thought in biology classes is that all creatures were made to survive in their environment and have been there since the beginning of time, and shall be there till it's end. But that doesn't seem very scientific does it? Feels like theres a gaping hole between the start of the universe and the origins of the organism itself. Remember that the role of science is NOT to eliminate God. It's just here to find some answers. The one thing that the Intelligent Design theory leaves out is the beginning of these organisms. How did they pop out. I refuse to believe that the universe was created in 7 days just because it's written in a book. And I refuse to believe that the world we live in now is just there. I know the street I walk on were once marsh lands. And I want to know what it was before that. And before that. And before that. Until we can find some provable theory on the beginnings of the universe.

There is another 2 theories on the beginning of life on earth. The first, of ribonucliec acid being present in the earth makes doesn't really go back to chemical means/explanations. The one about an iron-sulphur world beginning has some sense to it. German scientists managed to prove that organic matter formed when iron, sulphur and a few other elements and compounds fused. Things like amino acids, which are essential to even the most basic organisms cound be formed.

And now to the main topic, time. I just realised, everything that has a beginning has an end. That is true and proven. Mankind most definitely had a beginning, thus it has an end. But I would say one of the 2 main things that just might not have a beginning is the universe, and time. Steven Hawkings discovered the sound that the universe made when it was created (pure genious). But it still doesn't say much. And what about time? A dog doesn't think about how long it's day has been. It doesn't think on a long term basis, or even wonder when it'll die. But time itself was INVENTED by man to explain or relate things. Earlier, I argued on how time could be non existent. This remains to be seen (or not). Right now, I want to talk about how time, since it was invented by man, may or may not have a beginning.

It's not impossible. A lot of us refer to time using a timeline.

eg.

1939 - WW2 begins , 1942 - Japan captures Kuala Lumpur.

and other similar time lines.

Basically, it's not uncommon for us to say time travels in one straight, probably never ending line.

But it's not entirely true.

(p.s. arif, time doesn't travel in circles!)

Einstein's theory of relativity has a section that truly makes me wonder.
Actually, it's the only section of the theory that I can understand and explain.

here is the easiest way to explain it:

If you have an identical twin, and you strap yourself to a super rocket, fly around the world FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, when you return, your twin has aged, and you have basically just travelled through time.

Why? Not because you transported yourself from one period of time to another.
But because you have travelled FASTER than time itself. It's like when you see that camera effect in movies where the camera focuses on one person and the whole world goes by real fast.
Yeah something like that I guess. Can't be too sure.

Until my next period of boredom...

Genetic Memory Part 2 - evolution of the mind

A lot of people argue that evolution is a myth. Not a majority, but a lot. Just because the creation theory cannot be justified, 'intelligent design' was used as a excuse. Why can't they accept that evolution has, is and will always occur? Intelligent design focuses on conventional biological theories mixed with religious theories on the creation of the universe. It states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Maybe it's true. That's the bad part about theories like this. You can neither prove it nor disprove it.

But back to the main topic. Let's take a look at a prime example. Most people say we evolved from monkeys. In truth it's apes, not monkeys. And what is the key similarity other than the obvious mind power of chimps and the facial structure? It's our opposable thumbs! Which other animal has opposable thumbs? No other animal can open a door knob as efficiently as humans/apes/monkeys can? Sloths? Bears? Not really. The biggest evolutionary jump from ape to man, in my opinion, is not the mind, but the feet. Yes, the feet. Take a good look at them. They have similarities to that of an apes, but ours is reconstructed to be able to support us on our hind legs. And since man have stopped climbing trees and mountains, the shape of our feet have change dramatically. Slowly, we will witness our 'pinky' toes shrinking, or getting smaller. Why? Because we no longer use it. Apes and monkeys use it to grip branches. We don't even use it for balance anymore.

Then we have people who say evolution has never been observed. But how would you explain this: If you somehow went back in time some 500 years ago and explained that the world is round, gravity is real, earth revolves around the sun, etc, people would not have accepted it. In fact you would have been executed for blasphemy or something like that. But slowly, the human mind has evolved. Carrying genetic messages, making the process of learning easier. That's why technology that seemed like a breakthrough 20 years ago (eg: computers) is now taken for granted and so easily accepted. It is our minds evolving. One generation's genetics learning about the world and passing it on to the next.

Another way to observe human evolution (though this is harder to accept) is race. As in colour of skin, etc. Why are people in Japan mostly small, and why are people in Africa black? Japan is a tiny country, and thus the people have to naturally adapt to the size. The dark skin pigmentation of Africans are actually a natural sunblock, making darker people less prone to skin cancer.

I'd just like to say a few words of nonsense.1) just because man only live to see 70 - 90 years of life, doesn't mean the countless millennia that have past are non existent. 2)The universe can survive without humans, but humans cannot survive without the universe. 3)Next time you are happy about something that happened to you or something you received that made you happy, thank those responsible (even if it's yourself) and not the heavens. Do not find someone or something to blame, blame is the expression of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction is the expression of anger. And anger sucks.

Time

Firstly, I'm going to be direct. I didn't like what I said in my last post. That's why it took me so long to post something new. Even though I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, I don't think I have enough experience or knowledge of politics to be giving extreme criticism to the critics. But that's all I'll say, no apologies; remorse is for the dead.


"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." St. Augestine.

Honestly. Who can define time?
Newton says time is a container, just like space, and is REAL as the objects and events it contains.

But is time real?

Maybe it's as real as we want it to be.

It is. Not because the clocks spin, and not because the sun rises and falls, but because, I think, that we can define and relate time to an event or something. But that would make time relative to each and every person, just like how I discussed that good and evil is relative to each person.

Thus consider this;
What may be a long and boring day for me, could be a fun adventure for someone else. I doubt there's a day that time passes a little too quick (or slow) for every single person on the planet.

I can also conclude that most other animals have only a basic idea of time. Or perhaps, they know what time really is and are not surprised, making US the fools! But I doubt it. If an animal knew about time, it would know that its time is limited, that it had to do whatever it had to do and die. But that's not the case for most animals. Animals like cows have no feeling of urgency or care for the short lifespan it has, but this could be because of its genetic memory not allowing it to care.
Otherwise there would be "prison break" cows, escaping their farms to find their own way before their time is up.

So back to the original question; what is time?

This is quite hard to break down.
We all just look at time as a long path, with the past behind us, the future before us and the present right under our feet. But this is just in the minds eye. It is the definition of time as our minds see it, or have been thought to see it.

But I doubt time is just a line. And it would be beyond my imagination to conclude that every action done by ANYthing in the ENTIRE universe would spawn a new path, or a new time line. In some cases a parallel universe, where in one universe a boy buys ice cream, and in the other, he saves his cash. Both universes came from the same event, but had different outcomes, which lead to more possibilities of the future. That's just plain scary. And if that is the case, I think we should wait for evolution to take its course and evolve our minds to better understand that whole concept. It is beyond out minds right now. Or at least my mind.

Another thing, which I have already poked around with in one of my previous posts is that humans live only to see 100+ years of the universe at the most. That's only if they're real careful not to die. But, we cannot understand, comprehend, yet alone define how a billion years of life is. That is why we cannot imagine exactly how it would feel to be 50, But then what about a billion?! You'd be amazed, but the universe has seen much much much more than a billion years. We humans only arrived 10000+ years ago. Every action that was made by the infinite particles in the universe since it's beginning has lead, through the course of TIME, to the creation of human beings. In short, unlike religion and language (and many more) , time, science, knowledge, space, and numbers have been here long before men arrived, and they'll all be here long after were all gone.

Time creeps me out.

The Politics in Ecstasy

You know what really entertains me when I read the newspaper.
Not the comics, or the headlines(if there is a difference between the two nowadays).
Its the criticism on the government.
The local paper that I read has, like most of the local papers, a daily opinion section dedicated to the public.

I read it as often as I can.

They say how racist our government is.
They say how corrupted our government is.
They say how they would have done a better job running this country.
On and on.

Its really amusing.
I'm not an "anti - anti - government" sort of person,
and opinions are opinions, but what did they expect.

Its the same all over the world really.
If you have a society, you'll need a government.

The ideal government would be:

Non racist, fair to all people, open to suggestions, fair on taxation, uncorrupted, financially stable.
Would you expect ANY form of rule (democracy, liberalism, communism, socialism, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.) to bring the perfect balance? Or even be the perfect government?

Is there a country in the world with the perfect government?
Is there a country in the world with all its people satisfied with what the government is doing?

They're many people in the world suffering because of their government.
The people of Myanmar can't get foreign aid, but thats another story.
African political parties cause conflicts to gain the upper hand.
Malaysians racism and too much housing development projects.
(which is least of our worries)
Americans dissatisfied with the Bush administration.
The German upper class not being happy that their tax money is used to help jobless citizens.
The list goes on...

Actually, I think it's understandable that we're getting unfair treatment here in Malaysia, whether your poor, different colored, or even under appreciated, you can somehow blame it on the government, right? Just go on and say how unsatisfied with how things are run.
But like I said, what did you expect?
That those "powerful" words of would sway the titan corporation called the government?

I've done some digging,
And the most simple thing popped up.
Powerless people, like the Tienanmen Man, can have heavy influence on the image of the government and eventually lead to change, much like how Martin Luther changed many things.

Tienanmen Man
Just look at that picture. It's the most moving picture I've ever seen in my life.
There's many more, like monks setting themselves on fire, and stuff like that.
But to stand in front of colossal Russian made Chinese Tanks.
To deny 4 tanks passage, knowing the world is watching you, and to remain unnamed.
Communism is just as retarded as democracy, liberalism, republicanism, tyranny, and all the other -isms and -nys that this world is run by.
But

"The world will not accept dictatorship or domination."

-Mikhail Gorbachev

That whole Tienanmen Man fiasco turned out to be very moving,
Communism, which was going a bit too far, is slowly withdrawing its grasp on the Chinese's necks
(They've moved on to beat up poor Tibet and threaten Taiwan now.....)
It's not a more stupid concept than any other form of politics.
They all have their drawbacks,

But if you truly want it,
what that man did is as close as you can get to the best way to change things.
Selflessness.
Don't think about how you want things run,
Think of how things should be run.

Matricide, mankind, and its biggest mistakes

Matricide.

The act of killing your mother.

We're all doing it.

Directly or indirectly.

Mother Nature is dying.

It can't be stopped; would you stop using your car?
It can be reduced, but not by much.
We weren't polluting as much as we were 3 years ago, and we'll be polluting more than what we're polluting in 3 years to come.
The graph of pollution and destruction of nature will always go up.

The only solution : 2012.
The end.

Not the end of people,

not the end of the world,

not the end of all things,

the end of the way we've run things around here.
Mankind's biggest mistake was stating the rule that the universe revolves around everything we do.

We all think that we were put here by God for a reason.
We search for the meaning of life, why we should live to die another day.

Is there a reason?

Were we actually placed here by God?
Or were we, just like everything else that lives and breaths, evolved out of the tiniest particles.

Just because each generation of man only see less than a hundred years of human evolution,
doesn't mean the countless millenniums of evolution didn't take place.

We live each day, thinking the universe was made for us,
when in reality, we were made for the universe.
We evolved to adapt to the nature of the universe.
And now, we are making the universe adapt to what we have become.

In a whole different context, the universe could just be what we think to be God..
It was the universe that made us begin, the rules were written by the universe.
Everything lives in the universe.
It scares me.
That we are killing the universe.

Matricide.

God vs Science

Today, I encountered the most extreme verbal argument between the atheists and monotheists in my class. Yeah, it was exciting, but with everything in considerations, I think the atheists view of life is, although more pointless, it is generally more open to wisdom. The monotheists views, even though more closed to new concepts, is more "secure" and blissful. Having the support of an entire community and some sort of reliance in talking to the sky made them feel like they were always in the right even though the facts that were presented contradicted them.

One of the theories that was presented by the monotheist was that God was like the wind, you can't see it, but its there. And he tried explaining that God wasn't something you could see, but you could feel. The atheist argued that science was like colored smoke or gas, when you spray it onto the wind, it revealed everything true.

In the second argument, a monotheist said that science was false. He said that we all are controlled by God, because it is impossible for cells to work together so flawlessly and for the mind to bare thought. In other words, that we all had a soul. I didn't want to argue as I didn't think it was my place to disprove what they had believed, or thought to believe all their lives. But the argument of the soul is very unbalanced. Take this example. When someone says we all have a soul, they say it without proof, just theories and do not make room for arguing semantics. But when science wants to know if there is a soul, and finds evidence that there isn't such a thing, the believer says science is false, it has no right to question the work of God, and ignores evidence completely. Well referring to the whole process of cells working together flawlessly and thought forming in the mind is not easy to explain. But
1) our cells don't work together flawlessly, just 1 mistake can lead to cancer and stuff
2) our minds are more complex than any other living organ in our body or in any being known to us.
3)gray matter is proven to be real, we're all still waiting on proof of the soul.

3rd argument was, if science can make a human perfect and just about explain everything, how come there are still babies born retarded, homosexuals and other flaws in humans? Why can't science with all its "might" cure our ails? They argued that if something happened, it was Gods will, and humans shouldn't fight it or question it. Just accept it. This got me a bit angry really. But I still didn't say much. Most of what I said was in defense not offense. Because it ain't nice to be saying bad things about what other people believe in. Whether its a football team, or a religion or a way of life like being vegetarian, its just how they want to live. But I really need to give an example of why science can't explain everything.

1)Science isn't a Holy book that you cannot question. In that way, even though the complete truth is still hidden, every now and then modifications are made when new evidence is found.

2)Science depends on the one thing left in humans that is undergoing evolution in every new generation of thinkers : our brain.
Just like if I give a villager a computer, first he would probably use it and stuff, get around the controls and stuff. If that pc still survives, his young would probably try dismantling it, and slowly through generations of villagers who know nothing of computers, they will ultimately devise tools to study the property in which computers are made of like plastics and stuff.

That would represent science. The villagers represent the unknowing human race at first, then slowly going through evolution of the mind. And the computer would probably be life, or the universe we live in. slowly we get to know more of it. Slowly it seems less Godlike and more...explainable.

3)Science can't make sure 6 billion people on earth are satisfied with their offspring. In fact most of the world is to afraid to implement science in reproduction. I am too. But its all a matter of time. Its happening as we speak, the "perfect" humans are being created to be sports athletes in China, which is getting criticism from religious groups.

So there you have it. I cannot take sides in any argument on this blog. All I seek is opinions on matters that have no proof. Like in this post. But I have to say, its all in a matter of time before science finds the ultimate truth, or multiple truths whichever it may be, and eventually lead to end of the world. Because with everything science creates, it has the seeds of destruction deep inside it.....like in plastic....

And I meant no offense to anyone in this post....

Genetic Memory

Genetic memory is real. More real than I once thought. I witnessed it in games, novels and documentaries but never took it seriously. Do you remember why asexual reproduction produces less superior offspring than that of sexual reproduction? Because genes from 2 organisms are better than from 1. But why? The reason; better evolutionary changes. Because when chromosomes from 2 organisms combine, you get more varied genetic memory. Unlike personal memory, genetic memory is not something you can actually remember as it did not happen to you personally.

Genetic memory is that which makes the offspring of the parent organism immune to the same disease that was fought by the parent in some cases. Another use of genetic memory is for survival.

There was an experiment done that involved a new born chicken(I've mentioned this in my previous post) was shown a silhouette of a hawk. Without any contact with its "mama" hen, the chick seemed to recognize the silhouette and run away in the opposite direction. Also in some animals like bears, it is genetic memory that tells the bear, "it is no longer winter, you may stop hibernating now".


Genetic memory is what is often misconceived as the soul or spirit in an organism. It is actually the subconscious part of the brain that stores and uses genetic memory. That is why sometimes when you pass by a place you have never seen before, you may get a sudden chill up your spine or feel like you've been there before. It isn't your soul talking to you about its afterlife but you genetic memory. It is possible that an ancestor or parent of yours found that a wooden "kampung" house to be comforting and home-like. That triggers your genetic memory to suddenly make you feel safe for no reason at all. Other times, the sight of an unending jungle might trigger the genetic memory to warn you that an ancestor of yours might have been stuck in a jungle for a long time like say, during WW2 when the Japanese arrived.

How else would a bird know how to construct a nest, or fly south for the winter? Genetic memory of their predecessors that had to go through trial and error for many thousands of years to perfect the survival of their species kicks in and lets them know how to survive.

However, it is nearly impossible for most animals, especially mammals to survive without "parental guidance" as genetic memory is not something that teaching directly, but more of an adviser that makes logical suggestions without using words, which would explain why humans, with a fixed language, find it sometimes hard to interpret, and how animals with NO language find it much easier.

I was also told a great many things of how genetic memory is what influences many decisions that we make in everyday life. Like when your "heart" tells you that you should, it is more likely your subconscious genetic memory "advising" you. The indecision and surprise that something IN you is telling you what to do, leads to the increase of blood flow, and your heart starts beating a lot faster(or sink), thus leading to most humans believing that your heart is telling you something.

In the I can conclude that I am either getting somewhere or going completely nuts and babbling stuff that I know nothing about. But I did do my research!

The Soul

Some say our soul is our essence. They say that when we are born, our soul is pure, and as we grow, our soul is either tainted or purified, thus reflecting the nature of the physical being that the soul occupies. And once the physical being wears out, or dies, the soul is sent to cycle of life and death/heaven/hell/paradise/any other planes of the afterlife based on how it has lived in its physical being. In fact that has been the concept that I have been following most of life until very recently.

Another view, is that the soul is the life force of a being, not necessarily something religiously bound, but more of a natural thing. A personality, or something that gives instinct/consciousness to a being. People like Deepak Chopra support this theory. I almost did, but then I got to questioning(again).

What if there is no soul. That its all a myth. A myth that was reinforced because of the lack of knowledge on the subject. The questions I asked myself were: What happens to the soul, when a person becomes "brain-dead"? If the soul is something that is from God, or from the cycle of LIFE, then why does a clone have similar characteristics as a natural being? And if a soul occupies every living thing, what of plants and single cell organisms, do they have simpler souls?

It dawned on me, that it just might be possible that the soul is non existent. Ethics, morals, consciousness, rationality, all of that might not be from the soul, but from our own minds. Could it be that simple? That because our brains are more powerful than anything else on this planet, that our brains are our souls? A human judges better than a chimp, a chimp judges better than a dog, and a dog judges better than an ant. That is the truth. That would mean that instead of having an equal "soul" in every living being, we have more advanced minds in different organisms, just like it has been proven. Therefore, we humans, having the most advanced minds, also have the most ethical, moralistic, self conscious minds.

When humans become extinct (it's possible)(2012), will other organisms be judging and "feeling" the same way humans did? Well, no. They'll most likely just be animals, uncaring about what happens around them. Nearly every animal on Earth doesn't even know what the Earth is. Not because its ignorant, or it doesn't have a soul, or is doesn't care, but because it CANNOT know. It's mind is less developed than ours, and is more focused on the here and the now. Instinct has already been proven to be false. What we believe to be animal instinct (a.k.a birds flying south for the winter) is actually genetic memory. A long line of trial and error by their ancestors, that is passed down in their offspring's DNA. That is how a new born chick know that its in danger when it sees the silhouette of a hawk. Not because its soul knows the danger, and the parent hasn't even taught it yet. It is because in the past, a "granpa" chicken was nearly killed by a hawk. Its basic mind imprints this onto the DNA and passes it down as a warning.

And why all these warnings? Is it the soul that needs to survive, or the species? Obviously, the species needs to survive because it is aware of mortality. In fact, mortality may be the only thing nearly all complex organisms are aware of.

In conclusion, I believe what we've been taught to be called the "soul" in reality is just our minds, our judging, blaming, caring, loving, endearing, hating, loathing minds. NOT our "souls". The reason why an elephant doesn't worry if it's going to heaven or hell, is because its mind is not developed to think that way. Its all in the mind, not in the soul.

Good and Evil

We've all been thought the concept of good and evil. We look at a murderer, thief or drug dealer and we instantly label them as evil. It is not necessarily a completely natural reaction, but it does happen spontaneously without consideration of the one we label. But its just the way we are thought. But considering that GOOD AND EVIL ARE COMPLETELY RELATIVE TO EACH PERSON....

a person who is raised in a certain way and been thought to worship a certain religion would view an action as either good or evil. But there are more than 6 billion people on earth. Meaning more than 6 billion views on good and evil because no 2 people think EXACTLY the same. Does this mean that religion determines what is good and evil? Who sets the boundaries then, for modern practices like stem cell research? Men? Its not stated in religion that stem cell research is evil or good. Even if there is something that connects a religious judgment to stem cell research, not all religions say the same thing. Which one do we follow? How do we know which religion is more true than the next if we can never come to a compromise and discuss religion openly? All that later because I'm discussing(with myself) good and evil first.

Is there a possibility that good and evil don't exist at all. according to Brendan Vive 4 years ago, good and evil are from the words God and Devil. How sure are we that both those characters exist. I don't mean to be harsh but its a valid question. My retarded but all too human curiosity wishes to KNOW not to BELIEVE without fact. Stupid me. There goes my soul. But that doesn't matter, what matters is, IS THERE GOOD AND EVIL.

To answer that question, the first step would be to know that EVERYTHING happens for a REASON. The reason why we can hear is because of that whole complex ear system and the vibration of particles and stuff, the reason why the heart beats is because of the passive nervous system that gives out electrical charges and stuff.. I don't know the exact details, I am not a specialist.

The REASON why a heinous act is committed. We do not always think of that when it happens to us. But we immediately place blame and get angry or scarred and such. There IS a reason. ALWAYS a reason, no matter how small, confusing, irrational, unbelievable it might be. We must look for that reason, because it IS human nature to accuse, to judge and to blame when we are not in control or not satisfied. Look for the reason.


Is good something socially acceptable? Something emotionally, or rationally acceptable or praised? Or is it something that brings feelings of gratitude and such? All of the above perhaps? But there is always 2 sides to every story isn't there. World war 2 wasn't about the Allies struggling over waves of evil Germans bent on world domination. That is not the definition of WW2. Both sides had their story. Many civilians were murdered, raped and robbed in this conflict due to the action of the Germans. But saying Nazism is evil is very single and closed minded. The Germans were a very proud race, with a great past. Their defeat and humiliation was too much to handle and with accumulation of problems and shame, with certain events and people, Nazism was formed. It had its reasons and purpose, but it was not EVIL. It was just proud, ignorant, selfish(which was also present in the forces of the Allies as with the Axis powers).
Of course the Allies were triumphant and I am very proud that they overcame such a blind and retarded tyrant rule of Nazi Germany. Still what is good? To me, it is completely relative to EACH and EVERY religion, person and teaching has a different opinion to both good and evil.
As I said before, There is always a reason. Nobody gets up in the morning, and says, "i don't know why, but I'm going to go kill someone now". And if somebody does, the reason is simple, he might be crazy.