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...